---

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I am sure that the whole House was delighted to see the Minister rise to move this group of amendments, given his slightly strange failure to reach the starting gate a couple of weeks ago, when we were meant to be discussing them. I am also very conscious that some in this Chamber, including him, have been toiling for months in the vineyard that is this Bill. I have been added to the toilers at the back-end of the eleventh hour of our proceedings; indeed, I feel like a substitute sent on in injury time, trying to find the pace of the game. As the Minister said, essentially this group of amendments deals with the vexed subject of appeals, which has been debated passionately throughout the various proceedings in both Houses. I welcome his agreement that they are a tribute to the debates in another place. I pay specific tribute to Baroness Ashton, who has shown that she is a Minister capable of listening and of engaging in constructive debate with Opposition parties. That welcome ministerial attribute is not always a universal one; however, it is a universal attribute of the better Ministers. There are a number of important issues to discuss when we come to the other groups of amendments, so I shall be brief, particularly given that, in essence, we support the changes that their Lordships have made to this part of the Bill. We share the aim of a shorter appeal process. Over-long legal proceedings bedevil the whole immigration process and, as has already been demonstrated in interventions, they are one reason why so many of those involved in the immigration process regard it as a failing policy area. We have just discussed the standard 13-week letter that all of us have received from the immigration and nationality directorate. The Minister says that he still has a stock of them that he needs to get through. To be candid, for many of us, the easiest way to get through them would be simply to cross out ““week”” and insert ““month””, because these days, 13 months is much more likely to be the time within which people expect to get a response. The Minister probably knows better than anyone that that is simply unacceptable. It is a symbol of the delays that have occurred throughout the process, so we welcome the attempt, through these amendments, to balance the desire to shorten the appeal process with the essential safeguarding of the legal right of those going through the process to feel that they are not being put at a particular and important disadvantage by the Government’s proposed changes, which do, of course, in some ways reduce the right of appeal. The key point is that these amendments meet the concern—expressed by Members of all parties—that an appeal against refusal to vary leave should be in-country, and that people’s leave should be preserved on the same terms and conditions until that appeal is finally determined. We therefore welcome them, and we also welcome the fact that appellants with humanitarian protection and unaccompanied minors—a key and sensitive area that, to judge by other groups of amendments, we will consider again later—will benefit from the changes. We welcome the fact that if an asylum appeal is certified as being clearly unfounded, it can still be heard out of country; however, the possibility remains of challenging the certificate by judicial review. That is a sensible step. Finally, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association seeks two valid assurances. First, can the Minister offer an assurance that the amendments do not create any new powers to subject people to restrictions, over and above the powers that already exist in respect of those with an in-country appeal against a decision to refuse to vary leave? Secondly, can he assure us that the Government are considering using their new powers to protect certain groups from certification of their asylum claims as ““clearly unfounded””? I believe that the answer to both questions is yes, but it would be helpful all round if the Minister could say so formally here today.