Courts and Tribunals Bill
Order. I call Sir Andrew Mitchell.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Order.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Order. “The problem that he states”. We cannot have “yous” creeping into the debate. <em>[Interruption.]</em>
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Order. May I remind Members that debate in this Chamber occurs through the Chair? I will not have Members yelling at each other in an unseemly way across those Dispatch Boxes.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Order. Mr Kohler, please could you focus your comments on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and not give a dissertation on history?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reserve arguments about his amendments for Committee, so that we can focus on the carry-over extension.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
The hon. Gentleman will confine his comments to the carry-over extension. He may gesture all he likes at the Secretary of State, but I remind him that I am in the Chair now.
- Hansard source
Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme
I beg to move, That this House has considered the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. The Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme—BREP—is a niche topic for Westminster Hall. I am here because Bromsgrove is suffering under the chaos of BREP and the mismanagement of its delivery. To provide some background, Bromsgrove is a busy commuter town in the West Midlands with two motorways, the M42 and the M5, running through it. That is crucial for context because, when the M5 is congested and snarled up, the A38 running through Bromsgrove—the route affected by BREP—becomes a pressure release valve. As a result, Bromsgrove suffers additional congestion once all that traffic is displaced from the motorway and running around the town. I would argue that the A38 running through Bromsgrove is a part of our key national infrastructure, given the role that it plays in alleviating pressure on the M5. Bromsgrove is currently seeing investment to the tune of tens of millions of pounds into BREP, but the reality is the delivery of acute disruption to the local economy, businesses, schools and residents. Any road project will inevitably bring some degree of disruption. The folk of Bromsgrove are reasonable and expect disruption when investment takes place, but the scale is beyond anything envisaged by those living and working in the town. Crucially, it is beyond anything that Worcestershire county council appears to acknowledge in its engagement with me or local residents. Accepting that work has to take place does not mean accepting endless delays, lack of accountability, poor communication and date slipping, which are characteristics of the BREP work. The impact is profound, including safety concerns. Losses for businesses are particularly profound. I routinely meet and speak with businesses that quote BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks in Bromsgrove as one reason why their businesses are suffering. I note that when the BBC, ITV or other media outlets speak to local businesses, the congestion caused by BREP and other roadworks is routinely quoted. The result is severe reputational impact for Bromsgrove, which should have a vibrant economy, given its location, relative affluence of the hinterland and the connectivity the town previously enjoyed.
- Hansard source
Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme
I feel that the presence of the hon. Member vindicates this debate, not because of the worthiness of the point being discussed but because he is attending a debate about something happening in Bromsgrove. He is correct and I will touch on that point shortly. The impact of the BREP works in Bromsgrove is profound. There are safety concerns, the losses for businesses that I have already spoken about, endless delays for people on routine trips, and the reputational damage to the town that I mentioned. Let us think about it—who is going about their lives in any town? There are parents wanting to take their children to school, workers driving to work, businesses reliant on deliveries and on trade, carers, and other people going about their lives, such as those needing to get to appointments, GPs or hospitals. I read a statistic that the average UK driver spends 62 hours a year stuck in traffic. Well, I can guarantee anyone who wants to listen that the figure will be a hell of a lot higher in Bromsgrove because of the BREP roadworks.
- Hansard source
Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his intervention. He is absolutely right that all our constituencies deserve investment. However, the crux of the story, which I hope will become apparent as I go through my remarks, is that when infrastructure is delivered, that must be done in a consultative way with local people and local businesses. We cannot allow the fragmentation of the state to paralyse the delivery of infrastructure projects that are so essential to our prosperity. We have businesses in Bromsgrove that are struggling in the current economic climate, regardless of BREP and the compounded effects of the roadworks. The situation is particularly acute in Bromsgrove. Having spoken to so many residents and businesspeople, I know that there is a general sentiment that those responsible for delivering the scheme—it is important to note that Worcestershire county council is the body responsible for delivering it, even though it is backed by tens of millions of pounds of central Government funding—do not care or are not listening to the voices of those who <span id="106WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="106WH"></span>are affected by it. I fear that a long period of time will elapse before the reputation of Bromsgrove recovers, even after these works are eventually complete. Nationally, 83% of businesses claim that congestion is a problem; I can guarantee that in Bromsgrove 100% of businesses will make that claim. Nationally, 41% of businesses claim that their profitability is affected by congestion. Again, I can guarantee that practically every business in Bromsgrove will cite BREP and the compounded effect of roadworks as one of the reasons why they are struggling in an already difficult economic climate. It should not be an abstract concept for any of us to believe that it is the responsibility of the state in all its forms—including central Government, local authorities, Government agencies—to do everything possible to ease the burden of the effect of roadworks on our communities. However, I am afraid that where Worcestershire county council is concerned, I am bewildered. I have had a reasonable amount of engagement with the county council over this project but it has felt incredibly tokenistic. I have had meetings with the council to discuss different parts and different phases of the project that are being delivered. At times, I have had meetings with the council and residents to discuss specific concerns about particular parts of the project, but I am afraid that the responses are only ever tokenistic. We get responses such as “We have consulted” or “We have engaged.” Part of my conclusion can only be that the lives of some of those responsible for delivering the scheme, whether that is contractors or officers of the council, are not as affected by the scheme—perhaps because they do not live in Bromsgrove or they may not travel through the town. I fear that those taking decisions, whether on this or other aspects of investment, are far too often removed from the consequences of what they are delivering. That means that there is a real loss of the voice of the community affected in this process. To the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about the fragmentation of the state, whether we are talking about BREP or the delivery of all manner of different public goods, we too often see the delivery of projects with far too many stakeholders involved. As a consequence, there appears to be a significant lack of accountability in the process. Here we have a scheme that is largely funded by central Government. Bromsgrove would be incredibly grateful for those funds if there was a genuine sentiment that this was being delivered for the betterment of the town, but I am afraid that the patience and the good will of the public has worn thin. There is probably not much patience left to squeeze out of the very patient and dutiful residents of Bromsgrove. There is a lack of accountability, and a perception that things fall through the cracks and that if it is the responsibility of people from one body, they will tokenistically engage, but they will get on with their lives and not necessarily have to live with the consequences, while, in this case, I am afraid that the residents of Bromsgrove do. It is advertised that BREP is an enhancement, but the reality is that it has made things worse. We will wait and see at the end of the delivery of the scheme what things actually look like. However, this £40 million investment is due to improve a typical journey along the A38 by just two minutes. That is without taking into effect the 85% increase in the housing target being imposed on my constituency by the Government. That is based on infrastructure and an <span id="107WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="107WH"></span>idea of our society that is arguably already out of date. The compounded effect of growth in future will see this BREP scheme effectively become a white elephant—a complete waste of money. That is the fear of many of my constituents, and I am afraid it is a fear and suspicion that I now share. It is a bizarre contradiction that we have this multimillion-pound investment—£40 million is not a small sum of money—and if it was spent on something that I believed was truly for the betterment of the town, I would be rejoicing at this. That £40 million could buy a lot and tangibly improve a community in so many different ways. But the question everyone is asking is, “Should it be spent for that two minutes, and will those two minutes even materialise?” I am afraid that from start to finish this entire project has been a catalogue of mismanagement and communication failures. Most of all, there has been a severe failing of all involved to really consult those who will be most affected. As is probably understood by now, my constituents are fed up. I have appealed to Worcestershire county council to halt all unnecessary roadworks that are over and above the BREP scheme. I believe that BREP should have been delivered in phases rather than there being one large scheme from start to finish. We are seeing hauliers and traffic on the M5 displaced through the town so we have additional heavy and unsafe vehicles and a larger load of traffic. That is in an already relatively crowded area of population. I have had parents get in touch with me because they are worried about the journeys that their children take, particularly if they are crossing the A38. There has been a complete mess and a confusing mix of signage and road blockages. One constituent got in touch yesterday to say that, because of an unmarked kerb, he had split his tyre, and he showed me a photograph of that. This is having a profound effect. I want to stress that I do not bring a debate of this kind to Westminster Hall or the House of Commons lightly. It is because my constituents and I really are at the end of our tether with this. I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to an 83-year-old cyclist who tragically lost his life a few weeks ago on New Road in Bromsgrove. I would like to stress I am not linking the two events, but it is unquestionable that traffic and congestion in Bromsgrove have got worse and I would like to pay tribute to him. My thoughts are very much with his family and I support the investigation of the authorities as they ascertain the facts behind what happened. Since I was elected at the general election two years ago, I have been pretty relentless in holding Worcestershire county council to account over BREP. There needs to be a much more co-ordinated approach to reduce emissions, congestion and disruption, and to minimise community impact. Instead there has been this nonsensical approach. Let me cite one example in particular that has affected many residents. We have a housing development known locally as the Oakalls and the entrance to that, Regents Park Road, is used by thousands of cars every single day. A large stretch of the road has been narrowed. I have been there multiple times and seen cars flooring it, to be frank—putting their foot down to get through the narrow junction before another vehicle appears. That has undoubtedly increased the safety concerns about that junction. As for Worcestershire county council— <span id="108WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="108WH"></span>well, I have invited the cabinet member to come down and meet with me and residents, but I am afraid I have not had a response in the affirmative. I can only conclude that on that front that Worcestershire county council is not interested in engaging on a junction that it has changed and that is unquestionably more dangerous than it was before. My constituents are sensible people—they are prepared to put up with reasonable disruption and they expect unknown hurdles to present challenges—but their sensibleness and patience depend on mutual respect and that has been lacking, seemingly throughout the process. I just cited the lack of collaboration at Oakalls. We have recent ministerial communications, which I am grateful for, that say that the programme is now scheduled to end in early 2027, but it is important to put on the record that this BREP scheme, if it is completed by then, will have been delayed effectively twice from its original scheduled completion date. There are some things that need to be done. On 11 August I sent a letter to the Secretary of State to plead on behalf on my constituents for serious consideration to be given to asking National Highways to intervene in the scheme given the role of the A38 as a key part of our national strategic infrastructure and that pressure release valve that I described. I believe it is pretty apparent that Worcestershire county council lacks the expertise, for whatever reason: this could be a project that is just far too big for it to handle or it may have bitten off more than it can chew. There might be council officers or contractors who are not as invested in delivering a successful scheme for the town because their lives are based in other places. I suspect that that is a factor, even though that is a bold statement to make. I am grateful to the Minister for coming here today, and I reiterate my plea to him to consider engaging with National Highways on this to take the scheme under its control, and get it completed using its skills and expertise. If the Minister will not do that, I sincerely hope he will support me in gaining answers to a litany of questions—34 in fact—that I recently sent to the Secretary of State on a range of topics around how the scheme is being delivered. This is about who shoulders the burden of additional cost. My constituents want to know how far behind schedule the project is compared with the original tender. It is right that my constituents, who are also taxpayers, and the businesses that are funding the project, not just in Bromsgrove but across the country, should not shoulder burdens that have been brought about by poor contractual timekeeping. There are so many unanswered questions. I do not want to go through them all now, because I am conscious of time and want to allow the Minister to respond in what I hope will be a positive spirit. I emphasise to him that I do not come here lightly; I come here because my constituents deserve answers. I am prepared to meet him in the search for those answers and to engage with National Highways, if that would help to reach a swift, successful and efficient conclusion for the taxpayer and to get this scheme delivered once and for all.
- Hansard source
Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme
I appreciate the Minister coming to the Chamber and responding to my points, but does he accept that this is an example of the fragmentation of the state? The public, including my constituents, are sick and tired of the idea that, “It’s not us, it’s them”. I understand and accept that Worcestershire county council is responsible for delivering the scheme and that it is funded by central Government, but is it not just another example of passing the buck to say that it is nothing to do with National Highways because it is simply a local road when I demonstrated that a key piece of national infrastructure, the M5, is affected by what is going on on this road? It is that fragmentation of the state; we have to do better.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 3, page 3, line 34, at end insert— “(3A) The Chief Appeals Officer must, for each financial year, publish— (a) the number of applications for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal against decisions of the IIAA, and the number of such applications granted; (b) the number and proportion of decisions of the IIAA set aside by the Upper Tribunal; and (c) the number of decisions reviewed under section 6, and the outcome of those reviews.” <em>This probing amendment would 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.</em>
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart; I hope you are ready for a lot of Divisions over the next few weeks. While clause 2 decides who the adjudicators will be, clause 3 decides how the quality of their decisions will be protected. That matters because poor-quality decisions will result in appeals, and appeals mean delays, fewer removals and increased costs for the taxpayer to bear. Clause 3 sets out who is responsible for what: adjudicators decide on the cases; the chief executive must ensure that the adjudicators are adequately trained, as the Minister explained earlier; the chief appeals officer allocates cases, organises a system of legal support and oversees quality development and assurance; and the professional standards officer sets standards and publishes a code of conduct.<span id="132" class="column-number" data-column-number="132"></span> Dr Casey warned that adjudicators without legal training would be more likely to make “errors of law” and that the backlog, rather than genuinely decreasing, could simply relocate to the upper tribunal. The solution to that potential consequence must lie in this clause. What exactly is the “system of legal support” for adjudicators in subsection (3)(b)? A question occurred to me over the adjournment, following the earlier debate about magistrates: will adjudicators sit with legal advisers, as lay magistrates do? That may or may not be helpful, but I would be interested in the Minister’s response. If so, at what cost? The Law Society points out that the chief appeals officer is responsible for quality but has no power to intervene in any decision. What powers will the chief appeals officer have to act on poor performance? Amendment 88 is a probing amendment. It would require the chief appeals officer to publish the number of applications for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal, how many are granted each year, the number and proportion of appeals authority decisions that the upper tribunal sets aside, and the number of decisions that the appeals authority reviews under clause 6, with their outcomes. In her oral evidence session before the recess, Dr Sumption told this Committee that one of the key measures of success should be how many decisions are overturned. This amendment would ensure that Parliament is told every year whether that relocation of the backlog to the upper tribunal, which Dr Casey described, is happening. Will the Minister confirm whether the appeals authority will publish annual data on the quality of its decisions, including the rate at which they are set aside? If the Minister can give assurances on that, we will not press this amendment. Finally, what training standards will apply under clause 3(2), and will they be published? Will the code of conduct be published before the first case is heard? The Opposition support clause 3, which ensures that the quality of the decision making is the best answer to the criticism that the appeals authority would generate more appeals than it resolved, but only if it is real, resourced and reported to Parliament.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn</em><em>.</em> <em>Question put, </em>That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
The procedure rules will determine how fast the appeals authority works in practice, time limits, hearings, evidence and late claims. As Professor Ekins warned in oral evidence, they are also the part of this scheme most exposed to legal challenge. The group that we are considering includes clause 4, schedule 3 and clause 5, which cover the rules and the board that makes them, together with amendments 63 and 68 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, a set of Government amendments to schedule 3 and Government new clause 2 on advice and representation, so there is a lot in there. Clause 4 provides for the appeals authority procedure rules, made by the procedure rules board after consultation, with regard to the objectives in clause 1. They are to be <span id="137" class="column-number" data-column-number="137"></span>made by statutory instruments subject to the negative procedure. Schedule 3 sets out what they may contain, including time limits, restrictions on fresh applications, decisions without a hearing and the treatment of late evidence. Clause 5 sets up the board that will write the appeals authority’s procedure rules, including the chief executive, the chief appeals officer, the professional standards officer and standing members appointed by the chair.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
The clause allows the IIAA to review its own decisions once, to correct errors, amend reasons or remake the decision. An internal review of that kind is consistent with the Opposition’s own plan for a short internal appeal. Clause 7 provides the only route from the IIAA to a court—appeal to the upper tribunal on a point of law, with permission—and also applies to the post-Cart ouster in section 11A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, with refusals of permission. Government amendment 36 limits the IIAA’s power of review to errors of law. Errors of fact will instead be corrected under the procedure rules. We do not oppose that. A review that can reopen the facts is a rehearing by another name. That changes the argument about clause 1(8), however. The narrower the IIAA’s own remedies, the harder it is to say that there is an adequate alternative to judicial review. How will errors of fact be corrected, and how quickly? Do the Government still regard review and appeal together as an adequate alternative remedy? What time limit will apply and will a pending review delay removal or an onward appeal? I think that the Minister touched on that in her remarks, but I will be grateful if she could unpack that somewhat. How many reviews do the Government expect, and what effect will <span id="147" class="column-number" data-column-number="147"></span>those have on the upper tribunal? Do the Government regard review and appeal together as an adequate alternative remedy that justifies excluding judicial review? The Government’s own impact assessment—admittedly the one published earlier, not the one published yesterday, because I have not seen that—expects a “sustained increase in demand” on the upper tribunal. What additional capacity—judges, sitting days and so on—has been funded, and how many onward appeals does the impact assessment assume? What proportion of IIAA decisions do the Government expect to be set aside? Clause 6(3) is significant; it applies the partial ouster that the previous Conservative Government enacted in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, which was drafted precisely with narrow exceptions and is accepted by the courts. Professor Ekins, in his oral evidence a few weeks ago, told us that the model could be applied here to IIAA decisions. If that is right for the upper tribunal, why is it not right for clause 1(8)? I have two final questions. First, will time periods such as those in clause 8 apply to upper tribunal appeals? Secondly, where an error of law is found, will the upper tribunal remake decisions itself or send them back? We support Government amendment 36 and clauses 6 and 7. A credible internal review and speed at the second stage, as well as the first, are part of a system that is fast, final and defensible in court.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
I am going to start using the words “appeals authority”, because “IIAA” is doing my head in. Clause 8 lets the Home Secretary set time periods for the appeals authority decisions, with extensions where compliance is not practicable or not in the interests of justice. The Opposition supports statutory deadlines; 67-week waits for an appeal are, frankly, indefensible. Amendment 89, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, is a probing amendment. It would require the first regulation setting time periods to be made within six months of the appeals authority being established, and require the appeals authority’s annual report to say how often a deadline was extended. A power to set deadlines is, of course, not a deadline. What periods do the Government intend, and when will the first regulations be made? Extensions “in the interests of justice” could become routine. How often do the Government expect them, and will extension rates be published? There is also a puzzle in here: schedule 1 repeals the 24-week statutory timeframes in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 before they have even come into force, and I would like to know from the Minister why that is the case. Why are out-of-country appeals, including deportation appeals after certification, excluded? What happens if the appeals authority simply misses a deadline? Is there any consequence beyond a line in an annual report? Amendment 83 would broaden the list of those the Home Secretary must consult before setting time periods to include people with protection status, those with lived experience of the asylum system and legal practitioners, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Consultations of course have their place, but this list would turn every set of regulations into a lengthy exercise and delay the very deadlines we need, so we intend to oppose that amendment.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank my hon. Friend for those very kind words about how powerful my arguments are. I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will respond to that when she has the opportunity.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The Opposition will support clause 8 and oppose amendment 83. We want deadlines that are set, met and reported on. If the Minister can tell us when the first regulations will be made and that extension rates will be published, we will not press amendment 89 to a vote.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
The clause lets the Home Secretary ask the authority to expedite a case where it is in the public interest. The authority must agree unless it is not practicable or not in the interests of justice. The Home Office has said that the power will be used for cases such as high harm foreign offenders and human rights claims that are clearly without merit. The Opposition support that. On amendment 90, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, the principal question is: why leave it to discretion? The public have a direct interest in foreign criminals being deported and being deported quickly, so why leave it to the Home Secretary’s case-by-case discretion? Amendment 90 would <span id="156" class="column-number" data-column-number="156"></span>require the authority to expedite any appeal by a person who is liable to deportation and has been convicted of an offence either here or abroad, exactly as if the Home Secretary had asked. Will the Government accept that incredibly sensible amendment, which I think the British public would support? I have a couple of basic questions. What criteria will the Home Secretary use, and will they be published? How many requests do the Government expect each year? Government amendment 37 requires anyone deciding bail to consider whether the authority is expediting the person’s appeal at the Home Secretary’s request. We support that—someone whose appeal is being fast-tracked should not be released while it is heard—but it has a cost. How many additional people do the Government expect to remain in detention as a result, and is there the capacity? How do the Government intend to implement that? On legal robustness, the House of Commons Library notes that lawyers are already asking how an appellant could challenge a decision to expedite, given clause 1(8)—we come back to clause 1(8) and the robustness, or otherwise, of that clause. That question will be answered in the courts if it is not answered here, so how do the Government expect expedition decisions to be challenged, and do they expect them to be judicially reviewed? When will the process regulations be made, and how long will the authority have to respond to a request? We support the clause and the Government amendment. We will oppose any attempt to remove the power. Our amendment 90 would ensure that the appeals that matter most to public safety are always at the front of the queue, and I will seek to press that to a Division.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
<em>rose</em><em>—</em>
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
You never know, Chair, we may be asking the same question. I asked the Minister whether she would provide some criteria—I am expanding my question, in fact—to give the public some certainty as to the decisions that the Home Secretary might make. Does the Minister expect some criteria to be published?
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
Clause 10 allows the authority to charge a party or representative who acts “improperly, unreasonably or negligently” and wastes its resources, and the Opposition support it. Last-minute applications and poorly prepared cases waste time the system does not have. I have a couple of questions. The Bar Council objects that non-lawyer adjudicators could charge or fine barristers, with a chilling effect. We do not accept that representatives should be immune from the consequences of abusing the process, but the power must be clear. What level of charge is envisaged, and will there be a cap? How often are wasted costs orders made in the tribunal now? Will a person who is charged have a right to review or appeal? Of course, fairness cuts both ways. The Home Office is a party. The Library records that 36% of asylum appeals disposed of last year were withdrawn, and the Refugee Council attributes that to poor initial decisions, a point that was made earlier in the debate. Will the Home Office be liable to charges when it withdraws a decision shortly before a hearing, and will guidance define what counts as acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently? Government new clause 1 makes sums payable under a decision by the authority, including charges under clause 10, recoverable as if they were county court orders in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and enforceable in the sheriff court in Scotland. We support that. A charge that cannot be collected is no deterrent at all. Will charges against the Home Office be enforceable in the same way? What sums do the Government expect to be recovered each year? We support clause 10 and Government new clause 1. A clear, fairly applied and enforceable power will discourage abuse of the process, which we think is important.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 11, page 8, line 36, at end insert— “(7A) Where the recipient of a claim notice provides any reasons or grounds after the claim notice deadline, those reasons or grounds may not be relied on in any appeal before the IIAA or the Upper Tribunal unless the IIAA is satisfied that they arise from a material change of circumstances occurring after the claim notice deadline.” <em>This amendment would require people served with a claim notice to raise all their grounds by the deadline, so that grounds raised later could not be relied on in an appeal unless they arise from a material change of circumstances.</em>
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
Clause 11 tackles one of the most damaging features of the current system: claims raised at the last minute to prevent removal. It allows the Home Office to serve a claim notice on anyone liable to removal or deportation, requiring them to set out every reason they should be allowed to stay, including any modern slavery information, by a deadline. Clause 12 gives teeth to clause 11. Where someone ignores a claim notice and raises new grounds only once they are detained or given removal directions, their appeals will be fast-tracked and the late claim will count against them when bail is considered. The Opposition support that approach, but there is a problem. The Minister told the Committee during the oral evidence sessions: “More than a third of our charter returns that fail to go ahead have involved a modern slavery referral raised after the return arrangements have been made.”<span id="vol_col5" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="5" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="3DE2D91D-AA1B-4C49-A2E3-F4C64187DD16"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 5, Q3.]</span> That is exactly the gaming of the system that the public will no longer tolerate. Our plan would require applicants to submit their claim in one go, with later claims disregarded unless there has been a material change in their home country. Clause 11 moves in that direction but stops short: a late claim goes into the late claims process and damages credibility, but it can still be heard and can still succeed. How long will people have to respond? Where will that be set? Who will be served? Beyond clauses 12 and 36, what are the consequences of failing to comply? Can late grounds still succeed on appeal? Amendment 91 would close the gap: reasons or grounds raised after the claim notice deadline could not be relied on in an appeal before the appeal authority or the upper tribunal unless the appeal authority is satisfied that they arise from a material change of circumstances after the deadline. That is the principle of our plan: claims must be made in one go, and later claims disregarded unless something has genuinely changed. Will the Government accept that approach and therefore our amendment? Clause 11(10) repeals a large part of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including provisions on late evidence in section 26 and accelerated detained appeals in section 27. Why repeal them rather than bring them into force? What will replace them? The Immigration Law Practitioners Association points out that the priority removal notice regime gave recipients a period to access legal advice and clause 11 does not. We do not support the ILPA’s proposed legal advice precondition, but the Government should explain their answer to that point, because if they do not, it will be litigated. Government amendment 38 goes further, repealing section 19(2) of the 2022 Act on credibility statements, which is replaced by new clauses 3 and 4. We do not oppose <span id="162" class="column-number" data-column-number="162"></span>that approach. The risk is legal. Justice and the Bar Council remind us that, in the Detention Action case, the Court of Appeal quashed the detained fast-track rules because they were systematically unfair, and that the Court took comfort from specialist judges hearing those cases, which will not be true of the appeal authority. A fast track that is quashed delivers nothing. What timetable will apply? Justice reports that the Home Office intends decisions “within a week”. What legal advice do the Government have that this process will survive legal challenge? How many cases are expected and what will happen to other appeals pushed back in the queue? What effect will the new bail conditions have on detention numbers and capacity? Will these cases, which often feature detention and are often complex, be decided by senior adjudicators? Government amendments 39 and 42 mean that a person who gives modern-day slavery information late, after detention or after removal directions, will not go into the late claims process. I understand the reasoning, which responds to concerns from anti-trafficking organisations, but the Minister told the Committee that more than a third of failed charter returns involved a modern slavery referral raised after return arrangements were made. Does this change not reopen exactly that gap? New clause 3 requires adjudicators in late claims cases to treat late information and late evidence as damaging credibility unless there are good reasons, and new clause 4 does the same for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We support them, but everything turns on “good reasons”. If that phrase is read generously, the rule will be swallowed up by the exception. Will the Government look to define it in the Bill or in guidance? The written evidence adds two points to ILPA’s concern about legal advice. First, ILPA notes that nothing in clause 11 exempts under-18s from the credibility consequences of missing a claim notice deadline. Will children be exempt or protected by guidance? Secondly, Women for Refugee Women says that the Home Office’s guidance on gender-based claims “recognises that late disclosure is common among survivors of trauma.” The organisation After Exploitation and a coalition led by Hibiscus call a requirement to disclose everything at the outset “highly unrealistic”. How will the claim notice regime be applied consistently with the Home Office’s own guidance? Will trauma-related late disclosure count as a good reason? We want grounds raised early, but a regime that the Home Office’s own guidance contradicts will not survive its first test case. Justice adds a point on Detention Action that the Minister should look to answer. When the Court of Appeal considered the fast-track rules, it took into account that independent specialist tribunal judges were hearing the cases. That will not be the case with the appeal authority. Has the Government’s legal advice taken that into account? We support clauses 11 and 12 and the Government’s amendments, and we oppose attempts to weaken them. One notice, one deadline and one claim: that is the principle, and the Bill should apply it fully. I will seek to press amendment 91 to a Division.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 13, page 10, line 33, at end insert— “(d) the proportion of decisions of the IIAA set aside on appeal to the Upper Tribunal; (e) the number of persons removed from the United Kingdom following the dismissal of an appeal by the IIAA.” <em>This probing amendment would require the Chief Inspector’s reports on the IIAA to cover the outcomes of its work – decisions set aside on appeal and removals after dismissed appeals – as well as process.</em>
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
Clause 13 brings the authority within the remit of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, with an annual report and the chief executive’s response laid before Parliament. The Opposition support accountability to Parliament, as we have discussed on several occasions today. Amendment 92 is another probing amendment. The inspection regime in clause 13 focuses on process: premises, technology and training. Parliament will also want to know whether the authority is working. Dr Sumption told us that the data needed to judge those reforms—what happens to refused cases and how many decisions are overturned—largely does not exist. Amendment 92 would require the chief inspector’s report to cover two outcomes: the proportion of the authority’s decisions set aside by the upper tribunal, and the number of people removed after the appeals authority dismisses their appeal. Will inspection reports cover those outcomes? What additional resources will the chief inspector receive? Is one report a year enough in the first years? When would material be omitted from published reports? New clause 28, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require quarterly publication of data of the authority’s work on appeals, outcomes, representation, the backlog, timings, withdrawals and reviews. It overlaps with our amendment 88 on decision quality. Transparency around whether the new body is <span id="168" class="column-number" data-column-number="168"></span>working is in everyone’s interest. I hope the Government will say whether they intend to publish data of that kind. We support clause 13. Scrutiny should measure results, not just process. If the Minister can give assurances on the outcome data, we will not press amendment 92.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
Given the insufficient assurance on the outcome data, I wish to press the amendment to a vote. <em>Question put,</em> That the amendment be made.
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
This group brings together the machinery clauses of part 1: transfer schemes in clause 14, the transition in clause 15, and the consequential power in clause 16. I will speak to amendment 93 tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and to Government amendment 43. Clause 14 is technical in nature. It allows transfer schemes to move property, rights and liabilities to the appeals authority. The Opposition support that, but it is also where the costs of the reorganisation begin to show. The impact assessment—again, the previous impact assessment, not the one that was issued yesterday—warns of significant judicial liabilities in winding down the tribunal, because full-time judges hold lifetime appointments and there are the additional costs of running two systems. What is the estimated cost of winding down the tribunal? How many staff will transfer? Why does the Lord Chancellor, as well as the Home Secretary, need this power? What will the parallel running costs be? We want the new body up to speed as quickly as possible. Will existing first-tier immigration judges be able to transfer or apply as senior adjudicators, for example, should they wish to? How many of them do <span id="173" class="column-number" data-column-number="173"></span>the Government expect to apply and employ? The Law Society points out that the impact assessment says the implementation plans are “not yet fully developed”, which I think the Minister reflected earlier. Will a full costing of the transfer be published before any scheme is made?
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
The Minister did not respond to my question about the projection that by the time the appeals authority gets up and running, approximately 200,000 people could be waiting for an appeal. Does that projection resonate with the Minister? Is that situation a possibility?
- Hansard source
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)
The figure is taken from the evidence the Committee received from Refugee and Migrant Justice.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
All our constituents are paying a high price for energy. It is impacting households and we all know that it is impacting small businesses. The Secretary of State said earlier that she would take any action necessary to get bills down. Does that include reducing green taxes and levies to reduce gas bills?
- Hansard source
Energy Costs for Businesses
Businesses are being crushed by the weight of energy costs in this country, and that is leading to the deindustrialisation of Great Britain, everywhere from the ceramics industry in Stoke to the chemicals industry in Grangemouth. Labour’s policies are making Britain poorer and more vulnerable, and are leading to thousands of job losses. Does the Minister think that is why Gary Smith of the GMB described Government energy policy as “batshit” and the Department as the “ministry for P45s”?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
I welcome the Secretary of State and congratulate her on her new post; I look forward to working collaboratively with her on issues on which we agree—I am sure we will find some at some point. In the last 20 minutes, <em>The Daily Telegraph</em> has reported that, in an act of extreme irony, the former Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), has signed off on drilling for new oil in the South Atlantic, off the Falkland Islands. Why is drilling for new oil and gas okay in the south Atlantic but not in the North sea?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Oil and gas workers in Scotland will be feeling cold fury. The Labour party is creating jobs in oil and gas in Port Stanley while killing them in Aberdeen. Why does the unusual pragmatism that the former Secretary of State for Energy has applied in the south Atlantic not apply to the North sea oil and gas industry?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
As the Secretary of State says, the Falkland Islands are independent, but she seems to gloss over the fact that the Foreign Secretary still has to give approval to oil drilling. Will she therefore give her full-throated support to the decision today and support the Falkland Islands in this important venture? Will she also tell us when she was consulted on the decision?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Minister did not mean to, but one might say he seemed keen to misrepresent the relationship between the Falkland Islands and the UK Government. The Falkland Islands are independent, but the Foreign Secretary has a responsibility to sign off any such decision on oil drilling, which is not what the Minister said. It was also a surprise that when I directly asked the Secretary of State my question, she chose not to give her support and directly answer the question. How might I get Ministers to ensure that they accurately represent the relationship between the overseas territories and ourselves?
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over Extension)
Could the Secretary of State set out in greater detail for us what the word “essential” will mean in law?