Immigration and Asylum Bill - Sitting 4

Ms Berry discussed concerns over non-legally qualified adjudicators and the potential impact on the existing legal system, including the shortage of specialist legal advisers. She noted the need for clarity on practicalities and the Minister's response on the quality of advice for new legally qualified people.

Mr Stephenson moved amendment 88 to require the IIAA to publish annual data on the quality of its decisions, including data on onward appeals, decisions set aside by the Upper Tribunal, and internal reviews. He raised concerns about the quality of decisions and the potential for increased appeals and costs. He also inquired about the system of legal support and training standards for adjudicators.

Ms Turley supported clause 3, emphasising the roles of executive and non-executive members, the responsibilities of adjudicators, and the quality assurance mechanisms. She argued that the Government's existing framework ensures transparency and accountability, and that the annual report will cover the specified figures proposed in the amendment.

Ms Berry moved amendment 63 to align the requirements of the IIAA Procedure Board with those of the Tribunal Procedure Committee, aiming to strengthen the rules-making power.

Mr Stephenson emphasised the significance of the procedure rules in determining the practical operations of the IIAA, including time limits, hearings, evidence, and late claims. He also noted the potential for legal challenges to these rules, as warned by Professor Ekins. He outlined the components of the group they were considering, which includes clauses 4 and 5, schedule 3, and amendments 63 and 68, all of which pertain to the rules and the board that makes them.

Anna Turley argued against the need for amendment 63, stating that the current requirement for the board to draft the procedural rules with 'regard to the desirability of' meeting the statutory objectives is sufficient. She emphasised the independence of the procedure rules board and the importance of not tying its hands. She also addressed amendment 68, noting that the Bill already provides appropriate safeguards for the review process and that it is more appropriate for the board to address this through its rules and case allocation arrangements.

Siân Berry questioned the Minister's justification for the wording used in clause 4, suggesting that her amendment would make it clearer that the board must draft the procedural rules with a view to securing the statutory objectives.

Tom Gordon supported amendment 68, expressing concern about the potential for internal bias in the review process if the same adjudicator involved in the initial decision conducts the review. He also questioned the Minister about the negative procedure and the constraints it places on the ability to influence and resolve issues down the line.

Anna Turley argues against the feasibility of dictating the body's operations, emphasising the need for the IIAA to be independent and capable of setting its own rules, processes, and procedures. She introduces amendment 36, which would limit the IIAA's review power to errors of law, arguing that it ensures the review power remains focused, efficient, and consistent.

Blake Stephenson questions the adequacy of the review and appeal system for correcting errors of fact and the impact on judicial review. He seeks clarity on how errors of fact will be corrected, how quickly, and whether the combined review and appeal process is adequate as an alternative remedy.

Anna Turley responds to questions raised, explaining the necessity of the IIAA's review power to correct errors directly without requiring parties to pursue longer appeals. She clarifies that the review mechanism and onward appeal route operate as part of the wider appeals process established by the Bill.

Siân Berry moves amendment 83, which would expand the list of those consulted by the Secretary of State before making regulations about time periods for IIAA proceedings to include people and organisations with experience of the immigration system.

Graham Stuart discusses amendment 89, which would require the first time-period regulations to be made within six months of the IIAA being established and the IIAA to report on the proportion of proceedings where deadlines are extended.

The Opposition supports Clause 8 but opposes Amendment 83. They seek clarity on the Government's intentions regarding deadlines and extensions, and question the exclusion of certain types of appeals from statutory timeframes.

Intervened to highlight that swift resolution of cases is crucial to prevent unfairness, agreeing with the shadow Minister's argument that delays are detrimental to a fair appeals system.

Argued that the amount of time should be sufficient to achieve fairness and justice, disagreeing with the suggestion that shorter deadlines are inherently better. Pressed Amendment 83 to a Division.

Explained that Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to set time limits for appeals and procedural steps, aiming to improve efficiency without compromising fairness. She argued against Amendment 89 due to the need for flexibility and against Amendment 83 due to potential delays caused by broader consultation requirements.

Pressed Amendment 83 to a Division, urging the Minister to consider more inclusive statutory consultation.

Moved Amendment 37 to ensure that in considering immigration bail, the decision-maker must have regard to whether the applicant’s proceedings are being expedited pursuant to a request by the Secretary of State.

Proposed Amendment 90 to require the IIAA to expedite appeals brought by foreign criminals liable to deportation, rather than leaving it to a discretionary request by the Home Secretary.

Supports the clause and Government amendment 37 but opposes the Home Secretary’s discretion in clause 9. Proposes amendment 90 to ensure public safety and asks the Government for criteria and the number of requests expected each year.

Defends the Government’s position on amendment 90, arguing that it maintains flexibility for the Secretary of State to respond to public opinion and safety. Supports the Government amendment 37 and explains the legal robustness of the clause.

Intervenes to support Anna Turley's argument, suggesting that expedited cases should be handled precisely by the Secretary of State rather than by a broadbrush approach.

Supports clause 10 and Government new clause 1, which allow the IIAA to charge parties who act improperly or negligently. Asks the Government for details on the level of charge, right to appeal, and accountability of the Home Office.

Explains that the Government amendment 37 and new clause 1 ensure the authority's ability to enforce cost orders and charges. Confirms that the Home Office will be accountable and that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of procedure rules.

Proposes amendment 91 to require people served with a claim notice to raise all their grounds by the deadline.

Supports the clause and Government amendments 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42.

Discussed the issue of late claims in immigration detention and the proposed new clauses 3 and 4 to establish a fast appeal process for late claims. Emphasised the importance of early disclosure of claims and modern slavery information to avoid gaming the system. Explained the impact of entering the late claims process on claimants’ credibility and provided details on the Government amendments.

Moved amendment 92 to require the Chief Inspector’s reports to cover the outcomes of the Independent Immigration and Asylum Appeals Authority’s (IIAA) work, including decisions set aside on appeal and removals after dismissed appeals. Highlighted the need for accountability to Parliament and the importance of transparency around the effectiveness of the new body. Asked for additional resources for the chief inspector and inquired about the frequency of reports.

Anna Turley discusses clause 13 which sets out the extension of the remit of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration to inspect and report on the performance of the IIAA. She emphasises the importance of independent scrutiny to maintain transparency and accountability. She also addresses amendment 92 and new clause 28, arguing that it is unnecessary to prescribe a detailed list of operational metrics in the Bill and that the authority should have flexibility to adapt its reporting arrangements.

Blake Stephenson expresses dissatisfaction with the insufficient assurance on outcome data and wishes to press the amendment to a vote.

Graham Stuart discusses amendment 93 which would limit the Home Secretary’s power to route appeals to the First-tier Tribunal to the first three years after the IIAA is established, so that the transition cannot run indefinitely. He also mentions government amendment 43 and that clauses 15 and 16 should stand part.

Clause 14 allows for the transfer of property, rights, liabilities or staff used by the first-tier tribunal from the Secretary of State to the authority, providing operational flexibility. Clause 15 offers protection during implementation, ensuring cases are transferred to the first-tier tribunal if there is a significant disruption affecting the authority’s operation. Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make provisions that are consequential on part 1 of the Bill, allowing modifications to individual provisions and enabling regulations to amend, repeal or revoke provisions made by primary legislation.

Questions the cost implications and end date of the transition period, highlighting concerns over the indefinite nature of the transition and the potential delays it may cause for appeal cases. Suggests amendment 93 to limit the power to send cases back to the tribunal to the first three years after the appeals authority is established.

Anna Turley emphasised the need for flexibility in the transition to the new Immigration Appeals Authority. She argued against setting an arbitrary time limit of three years for the transfer of cases back to the first-tier tribunal, stating that it could hinder the efficiency of the appeals system. She defended the inclusion of government amendment 43, which gives the Lord Chancellor powers to make urgent changes to tribunal procedures during the transition period. She clarified that the power is tightly constrained and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Turley also addressed concerns about cost and implementation, noting that detailed plans are being developed. She stated that the authority will start to take decisions and new appeals through a phased transition, aiming to improve the current system's capacity and speed.