Immigration and Asylum Bill - Sitting 3

Moved amendment 64, which would remove the requirement for the IIAA to aim to operate fairly and independently and handle cases quickly and efficiently, instead making it a duty to do so. It would also remove the requirement for the IIAA to have regard to the public interest.

Responded to amendment 64 by introducing amendments 48, 49, and 87. He argued that the duty to handle cases quickly and efficiently should be firmer and that the public interest should be strengthened in the clause.

Spoke to amendment 87 and other amendments in the group. Emphasised the need for the IIAA to handle cases quickly and efficiently, and to give effect to the public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration control. He questioned the government on the cost, timetable, and capacity of the authority.

Anna Turley argues for the establishment of the IIAA to address the current inefficiencies and delays in the asylum appeals system. She points to the significant backlog of appeals and the need for an independent and fair system that considers the public interest. She also addresses concerns about the cost and the need for flexibility in decision-making.

Joe Robertson questions the Minister about the quality of initial decision-making by Home Office officials and the role it plays in the backlog of appeals cases.

Melanie Onn supports the proposed changes, arguing that the current system is being abused and needs to be made fairer and more robust. She believes the IIAA will provide the necessary confidence and security for the public.

Tom Gordon expresses concerns about the potential misuse of 'Henry VIII powers' in the Bill and the subjective nature of the public interest test, questioning how future Governments might apply these provisions.

Ben Goldsborough draws a parallel with the police system, suggesting that the public interest should cover a wide range of considerations to ensure the effective operation of the IIAA.

Concerned about the definition of public interest and the flexibility in the IIAA’s functions. Opposes amendments 87 and 85, and will press amendments 48 and 49. Seeks clarity on the scale and timing of benefits and costs.

Will address the points made by the hon. Gentleman later in the debate.

Not convinced by the Minister's arguments and highlights the risks to human rights and justice. Will press amendments 65 to a Division.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 85, which would remove the possibility of appeals to the upper tribunal. Discusses the rule of law and the need for a fair appeals process.

Supports amendments 85 and 65, arguing for the removal of a whole tier of appeal to reduce the burden on taxpayers and to ensure robust and defensible decisions by the new authority. Discusses the fairness and efficiency of the proposed changes.

Anna Turley discusses the establishment of the IIAA as a public body independent of Government, outlining its primary function of determining immigration and asylum appeals and applications for immigration bail. She highlights the statutory duty to uphold access to justice, fairness, and independence. She explains that the clause includes measures to ensure the authority's independence from political influence and details how challenges to authority decisions must follow the review and appeal framework.

Siân Berry intervenes to seek clarification on whether the upper tribunal can hear appeals based on issues related to the processes or administration of claims, expressing concern that this could limit the ability to challenge procedural issues.

Ben Goldsborough intervenes to address the Opposition's concern about the system being too slow, pointing to clause 9(4) which allows the Secretary of State to expedite individual cases, ensuring swiftness and certainty for individuals in urgent cases.

The Government are taking immigration appeals away from the first-tier tribunal and giving them to a new body, but unless something fundamental changes in how quickly cases are decided and in how many people are removed at the end of them, this is rearranging the deckchairs. The Committee has been given very little to go on, and it has not been told what the Government heard before they wrote the Bill. In March, the Home Office opened a call for evidence on how the body should be designed, which closed on 6 May, and no response to that call for evidence has been published. The public will rightly ask what all that upheaval is for. More than 150,000 people are waiting for an appeal. Do those cases move to the new authority? Do they stay with the first-tier tribunal until they are finished? The Government will be aware, from the difficulties of folding NHS England back into the Department of Health and Social Care, how hard it is to move functions, staff and buildings from one body to another while keeping a service running. What lessons have been learned, and when will any of this actually happen? The Bill does not say. Part 1 comes into force when Ministers decide. The authority opens its doors when Ministers decide. Under clause 15, the first-tier tribunal carries on hearing immigration appeals for as long as Ministers decide. The Committee is being asked to approve the replacement of the tribunal without being told when it will be replaced. I ask the Minister for three dates. When will the first case be transferred to the authority? When will the last? On what date will the first-tier tribunal hear its final immigration appeal? If the Government do not know, they should say so. Turning to the breadth of what the authority will decide, subsection (2) goes well beyond asylum. The authority will decide applications for immigration bail, appeals against deprivation of British citizenship and appeals under the EEA citizens’ rights regulations. Those are serious decisions about liberty and nationality. Under clause 2, many of them could be taken by adjudicators with no legal qualification. Will deprivation of citizenship appeals and deportation appeals brought by foreign criminals be reserved for senior adjudicators? Also, how will clause 1(8) operate where the complaint is about a procedural decision taken during a case, rather than about the final outcome? Finally, on the practicalities, when will the authority start hearing cases? How many cases will it handle in its first year? Are the staff and money in place? Will the Minister publish the staffing, funding and transition plans, including the arrangements for appeals that are already listed for hearing?

Siân Berry argues that the Government is focusing on the wrong part of the system, as the number of cases overturned is a clear indication that the initial decision making process needs improvement. She also mentions that 44% of human rights appeals are being allowed, suggesting that the initial decisions are often wrong. She emphasises the importance of clearer processes and proper access to legal guidance to ensure accurate information is provided to the Home Office. She concludes that the IIAA represents another ill-thought-through proposal to create a truncated legal process, which will prove impractical, expensive, and ineffective in addressing the backlog, and will hurt the most vulnerable people in the world.

David Smith intervenes to ask if expediting the process is not about supporting those who seek asylum and doing justice to them, as much as it is about wider society.

Zubir Ahmed shares concerns about the initial quality of assessment and acknowledges the Home Secretary's efforts to upgrade the quality of initial appeals since she has been in post. He also notes that the status quo is unsustainable and a fresh look at the system is needed.

Melanie Onn asks if the hon. Member agrees that the fact that people have been left for far too long in the appeals process and have multiple routes of appeal needs to be resolved.

Ben Goldsborough asks if the hon. Lady will give way.

The current asylum system is unsustainable and is failing to serve genuine asylum seekers efficiently. The IIAA will ensure independence from the Government, streamline the process, and enable quicker and fairer decisions. The authority will offer increased capacity and prioritise cases in the public interest. The Bill includes safeguards for the authority’s independence and a phased transition to ensure continuity and address backlogs.

Amendment 66 would require the Chair, Chief Executive, Chief Appeals Officer, Professional Standards Officer and adjudicators of the IIAA to be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.

Government amendments 25 and 26 would allow for the full operation of the IIAA when it begins its important work of determining cases. Amendment 67 would require all adjudicators deciding appeals for the IIAA to have legal qualifications or experience.

Tom Gordon raised a point about the quality of decision-making, referencing UNHCR's concerns that lowering professional requirements may undermine the quality of decision-making and prove counterproductive.

Melanie Onn questioned whether people with extensive experience in refugee charities or migrant work could be equally well-qualified as those who have gone through an academic legal route.

Paul Foster highlighted the work of magistrates, noting that they do a great job despite not having legal qualifications and often dealing with low-level crimes.

Tom Gordon pressed further, questioning whether the work of magistrates, often dealing with low-level crimes, is comparable to understanding complex immigration and asylum claims from people fleeing political violence.

David Smith reiterated that there was no requirement for legal qualifications for those standing to be magistrates and highlighted that first-instance asylum decision makers in the Home Office do not require legal qualifications.

Turley responds by emphasising the independence of the new authority, asserting that the chief executive and chief appeals officer will manage the training and quality assurance of adjudicators. She clarifies that the Government does not dictate the specific qualifications or accreditation required for adjudicators, who will operate independently.

Berry critiques the proposed measure, arguing that the lack of legal qualification requirement for Home Office officials undermines the need for expertise in appeals. She references written evidence from JUSTICE, which highlights inadequacies in the training of Home Office asylum decision makers and questions the effectiveness of the new system without adequate legal expertise and training.