---

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 46:"Page 29, line 12, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—" ““(2)   In this section— ““the Refugee Convention”” means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951, and ““terrorism”” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11).”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, after the introduction of the Bill, we identified an overlap between the appeal provisions in Clause 52(2) and Section 33 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 as regards appeals on Article 1F of the refugee convention. The provisions have a similar intention; that is, to provide in cases where the Secretary of State considers that a person’s criminality or other activities excludes them from the protection of the refugee convention for the appellate bodies to consider those issues first when determining an asylum appeal. However, while these provisions have the same aim, there are procedural differences between them which mean that they cannot work together. The amendment is designed to address them. It removes the appeals provisions from Clause 52, repeals Section 33 of the 2001 Act and inserts into the Bill a new clause, refugee convention certification. I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to three aspects of the new clause. First, it has a broader scope than Clause 52(2) as it makes statutory provision for appeals brought on grounds relating to the national security aspects of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention as well as Article 1F. Secondly, under the new clause, the Secretary of State will certify that an appellant is not entitled to the protection of the refugee convention because 1F and/or Article 33(2) applies and requires the asylum immigration tribunal and SIAC to begin substantive deliberations on the asylum appeal by considering the certificate. Thirdly, while Section 33 of the 2001 Act excludes the possibility of judicial review in relation to decisions connected with the certification, the asylum claim or decisions made as a consequence of all or part of the asylum appeal, we have decided not to replicate this in the new clause. Individuals affected by SIAC decisions have a statutory right of appeal to SIAC. Decisions taken in connection with a certificate can therefore be challenged through this appeal route. In summary, the amendment does two things. First, it tidies up the statute book to ensure that two legislative provisions do not impact on the same situation in a slightly different way. Secondly, it removes from the statute book a provision that excluded the possibility of judicial review on specific SIAC decisions. I beg to move.