Vulnerable groups
9. As
currently drafted, the discretionary power of the Secretary of
State to exempt individuals from the activity condition is vague
and broad, and could be open to application in an ad hoc or arbitrary
way. Evidence taken in previous inquiries suggests to us that
the impact of restricted access to services or benefits, and of
the activity condition requirements, on victims of human trafficking,
domestic violence or forced marriage with insecure immigration
status may be especially grave. The Government should make public
its intentions for the operation of the discretionary power, and
in addition should make an explicit exemption for certain abused
groups, including refugees, victims of domestic violence and human
trafficking. (Paragraph 57)
10. It is unacceptable
that administrative failures within the Home Office which have
led to a serious backlog in determining asylum cases should penalise
legitimate refugees by prolonging the time they spend on temporary
leave and consequently the time taken to qualify for probationary
citizenship. We welcome the Government's amendments at Report
stage in the Lords which introduce a discretionary power to waive
the requirement to have had a qualifying immigration status for
whole of the qualifying period, introduced in response to concerns
about refugees. However, we recommend that the Government should
set out on the face of the Bill that this discretion will apply
to refugees, unless there are exceptional circumstances why it
should not. (Paragraph 58)
Immigration-related judicial
review
11. We
consider it inappropriate for the Home Office to have led the
consultation on transfer of immigration-related judicial review
to the unified tribunals system, when it is itself the subject
of immigration-related judicial review proceedings. It is unclear
what safeguards were enacted to ensure that consultation and decision-making
within the Home Office in this regard did not involve a conflict
of interest. (Paragraph 76)
12. We recognise that
there is a very real problem of overburdening in the higher courts
as a result of large numbers of immigration-related judicial review
applications. We do, however, believe that this overburdening
is due in no small part to historically poor initial decision-making
by the Home Office, and the significant backlog of decisions in
asylum cases. These failings on the part of the Home Office must
not be compensated for by a lessening of appeal rights in those
complex cases which do engage human rights issues or constitutional
principles. (Paragraph 77)
13. We do not object
in principle to cases which are not highly significant or complex
being considered in the Upper Tribunal. However, for the smaller
number of cases which are significant and complex, we agree with
those who have argued that these should be heard by a High Court
judge, either in the Upper Tribunal or in the High Court. (Paragraph
78)
Other
matters
14. We
have some concern that the additional responsibilities in this
Bill will impose a significant extra burden on the Chief Inspector
of the UK Border Agency, which is already a new post, and one
whose capacity to oversee the whole of the UK Border Agency we
have previously questioned. We agree with the Immigration Law
Practitioners Association that the Chief Inspector's office may
require a corresponding increase in resources to meet the additional
burdens imposed by this Bill if his role is to be effective.
(Paragraph 82)
