|
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab): I do not want to reopen the argument on statistics, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I realise where the percentages given in the flow chart for 2002 come from; it is precisely the point that I made this morning. The 3 per cent. result is obtained by going back to the beginning of the process; it does not take appeals into consideration. I estimate that in 2002 something like 2,500 people would have been included at the end of that flow chart, within the 3.6 per cent.
Mr. Oaten: Whether it was one person or 2,000 people, the principle is still worth fighting for.
I am grateful that the Minister has at least acknowledged some of our concerns about the president's power. He seems prepared to consider clarifying the president's relations with higher courts and ensuring that he will be bound by judgments made on appeal. We look forward to seeing what the Minister proposes, but I am glad that there has been some progress.
I sense that the Government's intention to speed up the process will backfire. My reading of some of our discussions is that new techniques will be deployed by those who want to delay the process. It seems to me that the Home Secretary will be inundated with requests—and we, as Members of Parliament, will provide those people with access to the Home Secretary. Indeed, the Minister acknowledged that it will be possible for the Home Secretary to intervene at various stages, and individuals will take the opportunity to do so. Towards the end of the debate, it was suggested that the ability to take a case speedily to one of the European Courts could be used as a tool for delay.
The Government's intention of trying to reduce delays seems to have given those who want to abuse the system new ways to delay it. The best solution to the problem would be to get the administrative side in place first, rather than meddling with some of the fundamental principles of justice, as the Government are doing. With that in mind, I shall press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 12.
Division No. 4]
AYES
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Ewing, Annabelle
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Heath, Mr. David
Oaten, Mr. Mark
Column Number: 313
NOES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Harris, Mr. Tom
Heppell, Mr. John
Hughes, Beverley
Jones, Mr. Jon Owen
Lammy, Mr. David
McWalter, Mr. Tony
Prosser, Mr. Gwyn
Taylor, Ms Dari
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendments made: No. 108, in
No. 109, in
clause 10, page 11, line 35, after '2', insert ', 2B'.
No. 110, in
clause 10, page 12, line 16, at end insert 'or'.
No. 111, in
clause 10, page 12, line 18, leave out from 'completed,' to end of line 21.
No. 112, in
Mr. Malins: It would be superfluous, after a long debate, if I were to add anything.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 5.
Division No. 5]
AYES
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Harris, Mr. Tom
Heppell, Mr. John
Hughes, Beverley
Jones, Mr. Jon Owen
Lammy, Mr. David
McWalter, Mr. Tony
Prosser, Mr. Gwyn
Taylor, Ms Dari
Williams, Mrs. Betty
NOES
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Ewing, Annabelle
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Heath, Mr. David
Oaten, Mr. Mark
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
New schedule 4 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
Mr. Oaten: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in
schedule 1, page 24, line 7, after 'shall', insert
', after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session,'.
Column Number: 314
This is a probing amendment to ask the Minister to clarify what consideration has been given to consultation in relation to the legal system in Scotland, where there is a different procedure. It would make sense to insert the words
''after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session''
to take account of the different individuals that need to be consulted in respect of Scotland. I hope that the Minister can deal with that simple, straightforward point.
6.45 pm
Annabelle Ewing: I rise briefly to support the thrust of the amendment. The tribunal will have UK-wide jurisdiction and will be required to take into account the principles of Scots law, which differ in many respects from those south of the border. It is entirely proper that the Lord Chancellor should be required to consult the Scottish equivalent, the Lord President of the Court of Session—who holds the highest judicial office in Scotland—about Scottish representation in the composition of the tribunal. I look forward to the Minister's clarification.
Mr. Lammy: The Lord President, together with other judiciary and interested parties, was consulted by means of a joint letter from the IND and Department for Constitutional Affairs on 27 October 2003. In addition, my officials have met Lord Cullen to discuss the proposals informally in more detail. On the amendment, the Lord Chancellor has been personally responsible for appointing our adjudicators and IAT members in previous and current legislation.
Mr. Heath: I do not want to pre-empt legislation that is yet to be published, but does the Minister expect this power of appointment eventually to reside with the Commission for Judicial Appointments or with the Secretary of State when the Lord Chancellor's position is no longer available?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I do not want to pre-empt legislation, but I would expect the legislation that we intend to introduce shortly to have a bearing on the arrangements that I have set out. They may change, depending on the determinations that are made in another place. He will know that the Government believe that the role of the Lord Chancellor should change as regards his responsibilities and the Secretary of State's relationship with the judiciary and the proposed new statutory body.
It is right that such determinations are made. For those purposes, we have pursued the existing arrangement, in which the Lord Chancellor has personal responsibility for the appointment of adjudicators and IAT members. He also has a statutory responsibility for a wide range of full-time and part-time appointments to the judiciary, including the office of district judge and deputy district judge. Those are the existing arrangements, which are simply replicated.
Column Number: 315
Mr. Oaten: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 113, in
schedule 1, page 24, line 31, leave out 'as its President,' and insert
', who holds or has held high judicial office within the meaning of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 (c.59), as President of the Tribunal,'.—[Mr. Lammy.]
Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Garnier: How many members of the tribunal do the Government intend to appoint? Will there be tens of members, or just a handful? Will the tribunal sit in groups throughout the country, or will it be confined to London, Birmingham or just one or two major cities? It will be interesting to hear the Government's view of the geographical spread of the tribunal's places of sitting, and of how many people will be members.
As I understand it, the president will be someone of the rank of High Court judge or above. Presumably, he will be the only person of that seniority on the tribunal, but will other judges, such as circuit judges, Crown court judges or county court judges, be eligible for appointment in the event of vacancies occurring that could be suitably filled by experienced judges?
Mr. Lammy: The arrangements will broadly reflect those that exist now, in which the Immigration Appellate Authority sits not just in London but also regionally. I cannot recall in which cities, but it sits regionally. Circuit judges are free to sit in the tribunal. I cannot recall whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is a judge of any sort, but that will be the position. Broadly, the numbers, short of a few, will reflect the current arrangements.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal: Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provision
Amendments made: No. 114, in
schedule 2, page 30, line 26, leave out from 'completed,' to end of line 29.
No. 115, in
No. 116, in
schedule 2, page 30, line 37, leave out from 'completed,' to end of line 40.—[Mr. Lammy.]
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 139, inschedule 2, page 31, line 23, at end insert—
'(ha) In subsection 2(n) after ''service'' insert ''and shall provide for service of any notice of appeal on both the tribunal and on the Secretary of State''.'.
Column Number: 316
The amendment would provide for service of any notice of appeal on both the tribunal and the Secretary of State. I am grateful to one or two of the adjudicators, who spoke to me about the matter. The amendment would ensure that the appeal process in both immigration and asylum is initiated by serving the appellate authority, rather than the Home Office, with the notices. Since immigration appeals began in 1970, it has been the practice for appellants to serve the Home Office—or the entry clearance officer, in overseas cases. That enables the Home Office to be as slow as it chooses—and it often is—in sending the appeal to the appellate authorities. It also means that, from time to time, the Home Office can reach agreements with the appellate authorities as to how many cases it will forward in particular categories each month. That enables the appellate authority to plan its work and the use of its human and other resources. However, it seems to many people to be wrong in principle that one party to an appeal should be able to determine the way in which the appellate authority deals with cases.
I understand that a recent case called Vowsden suggests that the authority should be seized of a case once notice of appeal has been served, even if it then languishes for months in the Home Office. Procedure rules would determine whether the notice of appeal should be copied to the Home Office as well as being served on the appellate authority. There may be reasons for serving notices of appeal on the state, in cases in which a review of the decision is a real possibility, because that would lead to savings of time and money. However, that would be rare in immigration and asylum cases. I should be glad if the Minister could address the issues raised by the amendment.
Mr. Lammy: We already have the enabling power to prescribe procedures for appeals in rules, but the amendment would place the method of lodging the appeal in primary legislation, which would be slightly unusual. I am aware that there are concerns that appeals should not be lodged with one party to the appeal. The current system, which allows appeals to be lodged with the immigration and nationality directorate, has proved to be efficient and has helped the immigration and nationality directorate and the Immigration Appellate Authority to manage their work loads. However, in moving to a single tier of appeal, it is time to reconsider the procedures for the new tribunals. For that reason, I would like to reflect further on the principle underlying the amendment and to take it away with me if I may.
|
