COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 10 November 1999)

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139A to Lords' Amendment No. 139.
Amendment No. 139, which was made in this House, provides for the Secretary of State to meet costs incurred by the asylum seeker's dependants to allow them to attend the asylum seeker's bail hearing in the event that the asylum seeker was detained under the Immigration Acts. The reason is that, if bail was granted, the asylum seeker and his dependants would be ordered to move directly to the dispersal accommodation on release. Therefore, we wish the dependants to be able to be present at the bail hearing, so that they may travel as a group to the accommodation provided by the asylum support directorate.
Amendment No. 139A modifies Amendment No. 139 so that we can pay the expenses of an asylum seeker travelling to attend his own bail hearing. Clearly, a detainee will be taken to his bail hearing from the detention centre by the private company contracted to provide escort services for that purpose. However, it is true that the Bill allows for a person granted bail to apply to the court to have the conditions attached to the grant of bail to be varied, or for the Secretary of State to make such an application. In such cases, I should hope that the application might be decided on the papers. But we accept that there could be occasions, albeit rare, where an asylum seeker already on bail needs to attend a further hearing; for example, if the court requires attendance to discuss an application to vary the conditions of bail.
We should not want an asylum seeker's attendance to be compromised by our relocating him away from the place of the hearing. On that basis, the Government accept that Commons Amendment No. 139A is justified. I beg to move.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 139A to Lords Amendment No. 139.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, on the basis that if one cannot have a loaf of bread, a crust is better than nothing, I thank the Minister for his acceptance of this amendment. It is an important amendment in its own way because, as he rightly said, it means that an asylum seeker out on bail who had to 1386 attend a hearing subsequently would be able to do so. In the light of our pressure throughout the debates for a presumption in favour of bail, we should like to thank the Minister and the Government for conceding this amendment.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I also support the amendment and the acceptance of the Commons amendment to it. I wish to draw attention to the fact that 367 Lords amendments have been accepted by the Commons, but this one is even now, at this late stage of the Bill, having to be amended. One or two other amendments proposed from this Bench were also accepted by the Commons. This Bill has been so altered as to be in many respects almost a different Bill from the one which started life some months ago. I read recently of a boast in another place that more Bills were being published in draft as a result of the so-called modernisation proposals. However, this Bill was not just published in draft; it arrived from the Commons at the Lords in draft and has since been heavily amended. That is not a good way in which to legislate.

§ Baroness Carnegy of Lour
My Lords, while we are discussing this amendment, perhaps I may use the opportunity briefly to pursue a matter which I raised with the Minister at Third Reading. He may not want to answer my question here and now, but I should be grateful if he were able to write to me. The matter concerns how the devolution arrangements are working in the case of Bills such as this one. Immigration and asylum matters are reserved for Westminster. This is a United Kingdom Bill and it applies, entirely appropriately, to Scotland. However, various provisions in the Bill affect areas of government which are devolved. Clearly, this amendment concerns a bail matter and therefore it affects the Scottish courts. Scottish court matters are devolved. The Bill affects the Scottish Prison Service, social services and school meals.
At Third Reading we discussed an amendment on the school meals provision. I then asked the Minister whether the Scots Parliament had considered this matter. He gave me the soothing reply that the Ministers of the Scottish Executive had asked for the amendment. Subsequently, I read in the press of a discussion at the Scots Parliament, of which the Minister may be aware, in which Members of that Parliament queried how it could be that legislation which involved various of their responsibilities was being dealt with at Westminster but that they were not being consulted about the consequent effect upon those responsibilities. That is an issue which will arise in relation not just to this Bill but to future Bills. We all want devolution to work smoothly and well.
Perhaps the Minister will write to tell me precisely how the consultation with the Scottish Executive took place; whether there was time for consultation with the Parliament; and whether the Government are satisfied that the present arrangements are the best ones. This issue and the way that the Scottish Executive consults the Parliament within itself may be matters for the Scots Parliament. But it is important that the 1387 Government in this Parliament make proper arrangements and allow proper time so that there can be satisfaction in Scotland that matters affecting the Scots Parliament are not adversely affected when Members of the Scots Parliament are not consulted. I should be grateful if the Minister would help me on these points.

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the last point first. I am content to write to the noble Baroness. While this Bill amends Scots legislation on devolved matters, it deals with immigration and asylum, which are themselves reserved matters. Scottish Ministers have apparently reported the Bill to the Scottish Parliament and we shall have concordats in place on those matters, particularly in relation to the operation of support arrangements. I trust that those points help the noble Baroness, and I shall be happy to write to her with further clarification.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her kind comment on loaves, halves of loaves, and so on. That was very generous of her. I am somewhat chastened by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. However, I simply remind your Lordships that, while there have been 367 amendments, they are in part and in some measure a reflection of the efforts made by the Government to improve the quality of the legislation and also the product of the efforts of Members of your Lordships' House to do so. For that, I believe your Lordships should all take. credit.