142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 11 to 14. <em>This amendment would remove the provision which prevents individuals from being able to initiate judicial review proceedings against decisions made by the IIAA.</em>
<strong> </strong>Amendment 65 to clause 1 would allow judicial review of decisions. It would remove the provision in the Bill that excludes all judicial review of IIAA <span id="103" class="column-number" data-column-number="103"></span>appeal decisions. Clause 1(8) is a so-called ouster clause, as the explanatory notes confirm. It is designed to immunise the IIAA’s appeal decisions from judicial review in the High Court. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the Government’s attempt to undermine the rule of law. There will be two ways to challenge an IIAA appeal decision in the Bill as it stands. The first is that the IIAA can review its own decisions, under clause 6, and the second is that the upper tribunal can hear an appeal based only on a point of law, under clause 7. I hope we can agree that judicial review is a mechanism of fundamental constitutional importance and therefore should be restricted in only very limited circumstances. The Ministry of Justice has referred to judicial review as “the rule of law in action”. It ensures that public bodies act only in accordance with their legal powers and with respect for our human rights. The Home Office’s wish for faster and cheaper appeals does not come above the rule of law. Ousting judicial review is unnecessary and disproportionate. Where there is a suitable alternative remedy, such as an appeal to the upper tribunal like the one for which the Bill provides, the High Court will normally refuse permission for a judicial review anyway. That is because the High Court considers that the alternative remedy will protect the rule of law. If the High Court considers that the upper tribunal appeal in clause 7 is sufficient, there will rarely be judicial review cases. Retaining the claimant’s ability to apply for judicial review would simply mean that the High Court could grant permission in residual cases where it believed that an upper tribunal appeal would not be an effective alternative remedy. Clause 1(8) attempts to remove that residual right entirely. It is a rare absolute ouster clause, which does not permit judicial review of an IIAA appeal’s decision in any circumstances. Even the previous Conservative Government, when creating an ouster clause in section 1 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, retained access to judicial review in some circumstances. Clause 1 of this Bill is constitutionally exceptional, and I would like the Minister to explain why this absolute exclusion from justice is deemed to be okay for those seeking asylum, when even the previous Government would not apply it to unnaturalised citizens.
I appreciate that, and I have laid out the possible alternative remedies, but judicial review is an essential backstop. I do not see why the Government are trying to remove it. This is constitutionally exceptional and I want the Minister to explain why it is okay.<span id="104" class="column-number" data-column-number="104"></span> This measure will not only undermine the rule of law; it will inevitably provoke litigation in the courts about how this ouster clause should be interpreted and effected. It is concerning that the Government want the IIAA, which is a novel—experimental, even—non-expert body institutionally close to the Home Office, making life or death appeal decisions, to be made completely immune from judicial review at the outset. It demonstrates the Government’s continuing and concerning prioritisation of speed over the rule of law and justice, which we have seen in other Bills. In those circumstances, my amendment is completely necessary. It would ensure that judicial review remained available in those cases where the High Court believed it was necessary. I hope that all Members will support it.
I appreciate the hon. Member’s laying out the process, but can he honestly say that, if he were subjected to any area of justice, he would accept those arguments and the process for taking away his right to appeal twice, which the amendment would effect? Does he believe that that genuinely represents justice without fear or favour?
On a point of clarification, is it not correct that under clause 7 the upper tribunal can hear an appeal only based on a point of law? Will the Minister comment on the way that challenging the processes or the administration of someone’s claim could therefore not be taken to the upper tribunal? Is she removing that safeguard? I remain concerned that the complexity of the law and the lack, often, of legal representation, as well as the difficulties that we all see in our casework of people claiming asylum, dealing with the Home Office’s processes and making their way through all this, mean that quite often there are process problems that ought to be challenged, and that this has been denied to people at the upper tribunal.
I will speak to why clause 1 and schedule 1 should not form part of the Bill. Although I will not speak to every clause, all these reasons equally apply to the rest of part 1, which deals with the creation and implementation of the IIAA. It is a real shame that this policy has not yet become another U-turn from this Administration. I compare this Bill with the Courts and Tribunals Bill, particularly how adjustments were made following feedback from the legal profession and human rights experts on the establishment of truncated legal process and rights, which was one of the Bill’s most misconceived parts. After the Government pressed on with those plans during the Bill Committee, on which I also sat, today it is being debated on Report without several of the clauses that would have put jury trials out of reach for far too many offences. Although they were quite rightly not selected, I tabled amendments to this Bill that would have removed part 1, which creates the independent immigration appeals authority and all its workings, and I look forward to seeing such proposals also being removed before its Report stage. The Government said that clause 1 and the rest of part 1 are needed to clear a backlog of more than 150,000 appeals, which currently take an average of over 60 weeks to decide. That backlog is real, and it is important that actions are taken to clear it, but part 1 <span id="111" class="column-number" data-column-number="111"></span>misconceives the issues. Evidence shows that delays are driven by poor initial Home Office decisions and a severe shortage of legal aid, but part 1 addresses neither. Instead, the Bill would replace a working, independent judicial tribunal with a costly body that risks being ineffective and lacks independence and fairness. Above all, creating unfair processes and further adding to a hostile environment for asylum will not help stop the boats. In its written evidence, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees called for “a comprehensive strategy addressing the drivers of irregular movement, expanding safe, regular pathways, strengthening international responsibility-sharing, and enhancing practical cooperation with European and other partner States.” In oral evidence, the Government’s own National Crime Agency had no analysis or explanation about the real drivers of small boat crossings, being concerned only with the Government’s approach of layering an even harsher deterrence and enforcement regime on to the real causes. It is those real causes that need attention. I want the Government to listen on this issue, and that depends on Ministers hearing the arguments—that is what this Committee is for. I will be here throughout the Committee to highlight the points made by experts on the needs and real lives of those seeking asylum. They are talking about the difficulties they face in gaining a hearing for their case or in dealing with Home Office processes. In particular—this is something we all know as MPs, because we try to help constituents navigate this system in our casework—they talk about how poor the decision making in the Home Office is, and how the Bill does nothing to improve it. I want to bring some evidence from Brighton, given by one of a large number of charities that are providing direct support to refugees, as befits a city of sanctuary. The organisation One Church, which does a lot of work in this area, told me: “The impact of UK immigration policies for the past 15 years has at times crippled our ability to do business and operate a charity focussed (ironically) on marginalised people across Sussex. The escalating cost of filing for visas, the precarity and punitive nature of asylum claims and other proceedings, and the emotional devastation when facing all-too-common Home Office errors have all contributed to outcomes including business costs we can’t afford, charitable work that we’ve had to stop or rein in, and full-on mental health breakdowns that rupture communities and cost incalculably more in long-term complications.” One Church gave me several examples, but here is one: “An asylum seeker from Zimbabwe…was unable to earn income or work a job for more than eight years—even as he also was barred from public funds—while his own appeals went through the Home Office system, requiring the community to house him for free and support his basic living needs for many years. He ultimately won his case as well, including a public apology from a judge, but struggled to cope with the effects of such a long stint in a precarious and dependent position. This entire cascade of events was due to an unclear Home Office deadline that meant his paperwork was alleged to have been filed less than 24 hours late.”
I disagree. I think that the Government are focusing on the wrong part of the system here. As MPs, we are all aware of the processes involved in the initial decision making of the Home Office. The number of similar messes that my caseworkers have had to try to clear up—we often succeed—is absolutely huge, so not to focus on getting that initial decision making right the first time, and instead for the Bill simply to take away people’s rights of appeal, is absolutely the wrong approach. With all such problems, the people who need asylum also need real knowledge of their rights and real access to people who can support their claims, but all that is really hard to get. Late claims and appeals with new information, when people finally get the right support and legal guidance about the grounds on which they should be making their claim, are all necessary to protect asylum rights. Therefore, judicial processes should not be downgraded and truncated, and people who are not legally qualified should not be hearing those cases.
As I am sure the hon. Member will have imagined, I cannot agree, given the number of cases overturned. We have had some data from the Minister in her letter of 6 October, and 44% of human rights appeals are being allowed. Those are appeals where the initial decision was wrong. Emphasis needs to be on clearer processes, in which people can truly participate and get their information to the Home Office the first time, with the Home Office not losing it or reading it mistakenly, or any of the other problems. That is so important. These changes to the judicial process are the wrong solution to the wrong diagnosis, as with those in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
I agree about the growth in the backlog, but as I said earlier, the analysis is pretty clear that that growth comes from an increase in refusals as well as the increasing speed with which the Home Office is making decisions. To me, those two things go together. The increase in refusals is likely to represent an increase in mistaken refusals—refusals that should not have happened. We cannot get away with just looking at the proportions here, either. We have to recognise that this will result in <span id="113" class="column-number" data-column-number="113"></span>a number of people being treated as badly as they possibly can be by a country in which they are trying to seek asylum, having already had to leave the country in which they would much prefer to stay due to human rights considerations that are not properly taken into account at the initial decision stage in 44% of cases.
I have very nearly finished, so I will press on. At its heart, the IIAA fundamentally represents another ill-thought-through Government proposal to create a truncated legal process. It is part of the previous Prime Minister’s misconceived attempts to pander to the disturbing ideas of Reform UK and its even more unsettling offshoot, Restore Britain. We saw from Reform UK’s proposals yesterday that only standing up for asylum rights will do in the face of its politics, and that the far right of politics will never be happy with anything other than the total removal of asylum rights. Meanwhile, measures like those in clause 1 of this Bill will prove impractical, expensive and ineffective in addressing the backlog, and they will hurt the most vulnerable people in the world. These proposals must be dropped, if not today then well before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I will vote against clause 1.
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert— “(2) The executive and non-executive members of the IIAA specified in subsection (1) are to be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.” <em>This amendment 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.</em>
I will speak to amendment 66, about the appointments process to the IIAA, and amendment 67, about the legal qualifications and experience of adjudicators. Under the Bill, the chair of the IIAA will be a Home Office appointee. The chair will decide the IIAA’s chief executive, who will then appoint adjudicators. By contrast, I believe that the leadership and decision-making roles in the IIAA should be decided by the Judicial Appointments Commission, the body that appoints judges. That would plainly and simply ensure independence from the Government and Parliament, which the Bill does not currently guarantee. We cannot risk leaving policies like this under the day-to-day political control of anyone in Government. Every safeguard must therefore be in place to make sure that this or any future Secretary of State cannot direct the outcome, prioritisation or disposal of these cases. My amendment 66 would fix that and make appointments to the IIAA the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments Commission, not Ministers or their appointees. I will expand on some key points. According to the Bill, all members of IIAA, senior and junior, will be appointed either directly by the Home Secretary or by someone appointed by them. The chair of the IIAA, for example, will be appointed directly by the Home Secretary, and adjudicators will be appointed by the chief executive, who is given their role by the chair. The Home Office’s fingerprints will therefore be all over the membership of the IIAA, from top to bottom. As has been consistently clear, this Bill drags asylum appeals closer to the Home Office, risking the independence and fairness of appeals <span id="117" class="column-number" data-column-number="117"></span>in a serious way. By contrast, tribunal judges, who currently hear asylum appeals, are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is independent, with no direct input from Ministers. Evidence has consistently shown over many years that Home Office officials face significant and sometimes inappropriate pressure to make decisions, including asylum decisions, in accordance with political goals. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found that that was the case as part of Operation Bridora in 2022, which was a Home Office strategy designed to speed up the processing of Albanian asylum claims. The chief inspector concluded that Ministers imposed an arbitrary and secret target on Home Office officials for only 2% of Albanian claims to be successful. In addition, in a report from the chief inspector this year, it was found that the Home Office was prioritising the quantity of decisions over their quality. The Home Office’s institutional history is anathema to the independence and fairness that is needed. The ties between the IIAA and Home Office could impose political pressure on the IIAA to operate in accordance with Home Office preferences rather than law and facts. If Ministers are sincere about creating a truly independent appeals body, the safeguards to ensure independence should be robust and tried and tested. My amendment would make all appointments the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments Commission, not Ministers.
The hon. Member is right that, sometimes, appointments of supposedly independent commissioners are made—I had experience of that recently in relation to equalities—but there is often a political element to the appointment and the direction they seem to take. We must always appreciate that and guard against it. Taking the appointments one step away from the Home Office may not completely remove the possibility of that, but the Judicial Appointments Commission is a robust body doing a similar job already and should have this role. That is what my amendment seeks to introduce. The Judicial Appointments Commission has two decades of experience in appointing independent judges, and I think it is the body best able to ensure the independence of candidates for adjudicators.
All I am pointing out is that the Home Office’s record on this kind of thing is not brilliant, and that there exists a body far more appropriate than the Government’s proposal for direct appointments. I do not quite understand why Members are arguing so hard against that, when I am certain that the Judicial Appointments Commission would be happy to take up the role.
I do not agree with that at all. This body will be making legal decisions. I will talk in a moment about how the chief executive and chair, who will be under the Home Office’s wing, will not be legally qualified to make those appointments. I cannot understand why every single safeguard should not be introduced in the Bill. Furthermore, this is a judicial process, so why should it not be the Judicial Appointments Commission? I fail to see the controversy with the amendment. The adjudicators will be making judicial decisions and considering law, evidence and facts. The Judicial Appointments Commission has the experience, the processes and—I am certain—the willingness to fairly test candidates’ skills and aptitudes in judicial functions. Therefore, the amendment would be highly appropriate, and I hope Ministers consider it.
I have heard arguments from Government Back Benchers and the Minister that, for example, Home Office officials are not required to be legally qualified. This is a notoriously complex area of law, and I cannot see how that does not reinforce the need for <span id="126" class="column-number" data-column-number="126"></span>true expertise in appeals. We have also heard that magistrates are not required to be legally qualified, but magistrates’ decisions are backed up by appeals to a body of legally qualified people. The Bill seeks to remove that, so I cannot honestly agree with this measure. There are two extra points I want to make from the written evidence that we received from JUSTICE. The first is about training. The Minister talks about the fact that adjudicators will be properly trained. According to JUSTICE, Home Office asylum decision makers were given 22 weeks’ training, but it was found that that was inadequate and did not provide them with the necessary information to perform their job effectively. I fail to see how things are going to work out any better for adjudicators taking the place of legally qualified professionals. The Minister mentioned that legally qualified people advise magistrates and that legally qualified people will be available to advise the adjudicators. JUSTICE makes the point very well—
I have not made the point yet, so I will carry on. JUSTICE makes the point that there is a paucity of specialist lawyers able to advise in human rights and asylum appeals, and that these lawyers are doing—
It is great to have you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I was just summing up on my amendments 66 and 67. When we adjourned, I had only one further point to make, which is a practical one. I well remember the arguments and discussions we had on the Courts and Tribunals Bill: yes, taking things off judges and putting them on to magistrates seems efficient, and we would save on judge time, but a serious concern is whether magistrates could fill the gap, given the number of magistrates that we would need. In its written evidence, Justice stated that non-legally qualified adjudicators are going to require legal support. It raised the issue of the paucity of specialist lawyers able to advise in human rights and asylum appeals. A serious risk is that if those specialist legal advisers are brought into the tribunal system, they will be drawn away from their existing work, which is lower paid, of advising and preparing individuals in their appeals. That might even compound existing backlogs. The Minister has said, I think, that a new impact assessment has more clarity, and I hope that in future debates—because I am just winding up this one—she will be able to say more about what is going on with the practicalities and the obvious shortages of specialist people needed to advise the new legally qualified people. That is a real issue, and I will press my amendments to a vote. <em>Question put,</em> That the amendment be made.
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 4, page 4, line 21, leave out “have regard to the desirability of” and insert “do so with a view to”. <em>This amendment would make the requirements relating to the IIAA Procedure Board equivalent to those of the Tribunal Procedure Committee when exercising its power to make rules.</em>
The Bill currently states that the IIAA procedure rules board must “have regard to the desirability of” ensuring that justice is done and that it is accessible, fair and independent. The amendment would simply strengthen that duty and ensure that it must act “with a view to” securing those things rather than merely considering them “desirable”. Importantly, the amendment would make the IIAA’s duties equivalent to the duties of the Tribunal Procedure Committee, so it would prevent the watering down that the clause represents. Watering down and undermining fairness is a golden thread that runs through the Bill. We saw it originally with the watering down of the duty to be independent and fair, which was made an aim rather than a requirement, and we see it again in the IIAA’s powers over its procedure rules, which will govern the processes by which the IIAA hears and decides appeals. Currently, the Tribunal Procedure Committee, which makes rules for the tribunals, has an obligation in section 22(4) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to make procedure rules “with a view to securing…that…justice is done”. By contrast, clause 4(5) of the Bill says that the IIAA will have an obligation only to “have regard to the desirability” that justice is done. That is clearly an attempt at watering down and weakening obligations of fairness—from “duty” to “aim”, from “duty” to “desirable”. The amendment would ensure that the IIAA has equivalent obligations to ensure fairness as the Tribunal Procedure Committee currently does—no more, but certainly no less. In such high-stakes appeals as asylum, that is the least of what claimants, Ministers and the public should expect. I will briefly quote the Bar Council’s written evidence, because it brings home that there are real people behind this. It says that on account of errors by the IIAA, “a British citizen may wrongly be deprived of British citizenship, a refugee be returned to a place where they risk persecution or torture, a British family with a foreign member may be broken up, or an EU citizen be denied Withdrawal Agreement rights.” Those are all serious consequences. We must strengthen this clause. It is not sufficient for this to be left to chance, to the courts or to later guidance on the IIAA produced by Ministers. It is so basic to fairness that it should be on the face of the Bill. Amendment 68 fixes an omission from the Bill by the Government. It proposes preventing an IIAA adjudicator from reviewing their own decision. Under clause 6, the IIAA currently has the power to review its own decisions. In principle, there is nothing objectionable in this. The mechanism could provide a cheaper, quicker way to <span id="136" class="column-number" data-column-number="136"></span>overturn inaccurate decisions than an appeal to the upper tribunal and provides a way for mistakes to be corrected quickly and without fuss. However, there is no provision in the Bill to say that an individual IIAA adjudicator cannot review their own decision when it is challenged. I should note that the first-tier tribunal currently has the power to review its own decisions but adjudicators will not have the independence, experience and legal expertise of tribunal judges—at least if the Government have their way. It would be against fairness for such a non-judicial adjudicator to be in effect a judge in their own case. The adjudicator reviewing their own decision would also have an uncomfortable conflict of interest: either validate their own professional competence or vindicate the rule of law. No adjudicator should be put in that position and no asylum appellant should have their appeal dealt with in this unfair and potentially biased way. Any internal review of an IIAA asylum decision should be heard by a different adjudicator who is as independent as possible from the original adjudicator. Amendment 68 is the best way to secure the psychological and emotional distance needed to conduct a fair review. It is perhaps indicative of the lack of serious thought that has gone into the Government’s proposals that the Bill does not contain a safeguard so basic and so clearly needed. The amendment would prevent an adjudicator from reviewing their own decision in any circumstances, thus increasing the chances of a fair and independent review. I hope it will be supported by us all today. Government amendment 29 provides for information to be given on legal representation. That is an improvement on the original Bill, but a lot more should be done to prevent an appellant from being disadvantaged because they cannot obtain legal representation. I welcome new clause 2, which inserts some concrete steps to provide some assistance in some cases, and the Government’s recognition of the significant issues when it comes to the availability of legal advice for people in different parts of the asylum system, which I have seen with my own eyes. It would be helpful, though, to know more about the Government’s thinking and their plans for providing this advice. How much additional funding and resource will the Home Office provide to deliver it? Will the Government commit to consulting with relevant groups and organisations that support people seeking asylum on how this advice can best be provided and routed to those most in need?
The Minister has not justified why the wording is different. She said that members of the board would be expected to comply; my amendment would simply make that even clearer. Why say that they should “have regard to the desirability of” instead of using the wording that I suggest in amendment 63?
The Minister’s insistence that this is not a watering down of previous rules does not wash. In my opinion, it is a double watering down: clause 4 makes a change to “have regard to”, and clause 1 includes a double use of “aim to” rather than “must”. That is certainly a watering down of the previous duties, and I think we should go along with the wording in amendment 63.<span id="143" class="column-number" data-column-number="143"></span> On amendment 68, we have heard a lot of assurances from the Minister that the quality assurance and rule-making processes are unlikely to do the opposite of what this amendment asks. We have heard the Minister say, “They can do this.” If she were prepared to say, “They will do this,” I could potentially withdraw the amendment, but in the absence of that assurance—with only “This is possible” and “We might see this,” and with only the negative procedure—I am afraid I will have to press it to a vote.
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, leave out “the IIAA” and insert “individuals and organisations with an interest in how the IIAA operates, including— (a) the IIAA, (b) people granted protection status, (c) people with lived experience of the asylum system, (d) legal practitioners and organisations representing the interests of people with, or seeking, protection status, and (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”<span id="149" class="column-number" data-column-number="149"></span> <em>This amendment would expand the list of those whom the Secretary of State must consult before making regulations about time periods for IIAA proceedings to include people and organisations with experience of the immigration system.</em>
Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to set time limits for the work of the IIAA. That is in notable contrast to all the claims of independence, and I think it is very wrong to do that. My amendment 83 therefore expands the list of people whom the Secretary of State must consult before making those regulations, although I would still be against the clause as a whole. I have worked on this amendment with organisations that represent people who claim asylum and with people with lived experience, including Freedom from Torture. It would require a wide consultation, including with people with lived experience, before any time limits are set. That is because clause 8 gives the Home Secretary the big power to set default time limits. I think it is concerning that the IIAA itself will not be able to decide those, based on the time that it thinks it needs to decide appeals fairly, as if it were a truly independent body. Clause 8 is a prime example of how, in fact, the new system will not be as independent or fair as is claimed. Through those regulations on time periods, the Home Office could overtly put pressure on the IIAA to fulfil a political wish for rushed appeals. There is a long history of seeking to rush immigration appeals through fast-track proceedings; every time that has been tried, it has turned out badly. In 2014, for example, the Tribunal Procedure Committee introduced fast-track rules setting time limits for asylum appeals. The Court of Appeal and the High Court both found those fast-track rules to be structurally unfair and unjust, because “the time limits are so tight as to make it impossible for there to be a fair hearing…in a significant number of cases.” The Court of Appeal explained in 2015: “The scheme does not adequately take account of the complexity and difficulty of many asylum appeals, the gravity of the issues that are raised by them and the measure of the task that faces legal representatives in taking instructions from their clients who are in detention”, and, as the Court of Appeal robustly summarised, “justice and fairness should not be sacrificed on the altar of speed and efficiency.” We need to make sure that history does not repeat itself. My amendment would, at the very least, require the Home Secretary to consult widely before issuing regulations about time limits, including with people with lived experience of the asylum system and professional <span id="150" class="column-number" data-column-number="150"></span>bodies that represent individuals in asylum decisions and appeals. That should increase the chances that the time limits set are not politically driven only, but are realistic, workable and fair. Under the current version of the Bill, however, the Home Secretary is obliged to consult only the IIAA itself. Open consultations are essential for good government and good decisions. They make sure that decision makers get all the relevant information that they need, including information that they do not know they do not know, which comes from people experiencing the systems that they set up. It is incredibly important to ensure that the Home Secretary has access to the full range of external opinions and advice when setting those time limits. My amendment would mean that people with lived experience of the asylum system—the kind of people directly affected by the Home Secretary’s policies—could offer their views and explain what different time limits would mean for them in practice. When we took oral evidence in September, I asked the Minister about the issues around engagement and making sure that what is done is fit for purpose as far as people experiencing the asylum system are concerned. She said: “I am always a believer in service user feedback, including from people who have been through the process and have lived experience, to help us develop better policymaking.”<span id="vol_col81" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="81" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="E25A7CF5-62E6-454A-AD8F-B06108D88B97"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 81, Q148.]</span> In that light, I do not see why this amendment should not be fully accepted by the Minister. People with lived experience of the asylum system bring essential experience of how legal processes operate in practice and how they are felt by the people who are affected by them, and they can help policymakers to identify barriers, unintended consequences and gaps that may not be visible from institutional data alone. Meaningful consultation with people who have navigated the asylum appeal system strengthens the quality of policy and must be done.
My arguments were not that it should be longer, but that it should be the right amount of time to achieve fairness and justice. I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East would not disagree that the right amount of time is essential, and that shorter is not necessarily better.
I will not labour the point any further. I will press my amendment to a Division, and I hope the Minister will keep looking at how this kind of consultation can be made more statutorily inclusive. <em>Question p</em><em>ut,</em> That the amendment be made.
I agree with the shadow Minister that amendment 92 and new clause 28 are quite compatible. They both ask for more data from the Government and the IIAA about its work and what is going on. That is essential. My new clause 28 would require the Home Secretary to arrange for the publication, at least every quarter—that timing is the same as for the existing Immigration and Asylum Tribunal—of data relating to the work of the appeals authority. It sets out properly detailed requirements for quarterly data publication. It includes requirements for information on decisions, appeals and outcomes, including where the appeals authority has reviewed decisions ahead of appeals and where appellants withdraw; information about who has had legal representation; and information about backlogs, timelines and delays on decisions. The new clause also ensures that we can see that data broken down by nationality, gender and age, and what kind of appeal grounds are being made. Given the concern about the discriminatory and human rights impact of the Bill on people claiming asylum and our obligations under international agreements, all that information is essential. We cannot have a publication scheme only set out by the appeals authority itself or by Ministers. It is important that Parliament should put such essential reporting information into the Bill; otherwise, we will simply not know the consequences of those changes or their consequences will become a matter of contention and further politicise the lives of those seeking asylum here. I have a related new clause that asks for a report in a similar fashion on current decision making, and the comparison between the two is vital. I asked the Minister for some baseline data on the current situation during the oral evidence sessions. The reason I asked is that until March 2023 we had quite a lot of details, including around nationality, in the Home Office’s own quarterly statistics release. However, for over three years now, the appeal statistics have not been included, and we do not see the information about nationality broken down. The letter we received from the Minister on 6 October gave some information about the breakdown of different human rights grounds, which was useful, but unless comprehensive information is provided about the current situation and the changes that will take place when we introduce the appeals authority, we will not really see the impact of the Bill. This is absolutely essential.
The Minister said, “efficiency and effectiveness”. One of the issues that I raised was equalities issues and discrimination. Will that also be in the remit?
The Secretary of State has previously said that if we are to have any shot at meeting our climate change targets, “we can’t have any new oil and gas”. She also said that new fossil fuel development was “irresponsible and short-sighted”. There is nothing pragmatic about pouring more fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Does the Secretary of State still agree with herself? If so, why will the Government not rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw?
I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to tackling the crisis in social care. It does pensioners no favours if we kick the can down the road and continually fail to address it. This requires a cross-party approach and an honest and comprehensive conversation, including about the triple lock and other potential sources of funding. However, that conversation must be comprehensive. As the Secretary of State has pointed out today, this will not kick in until 2030, and yet the social care crisis is urgent. We need money now to fix it and much more money than will be released through the changes. Does the Secretary of State agree that funding to fix the crisis in social care also requires taxing wealth fairly?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali), who was with us here earlier, and warmly welcome her to her place in this House. I also warmly welcome much of what the Prime Minister’s international update contained, particularly his recognition of Brexit’s disastrous effects on our country—as far as I am concerned, the faster we move to rejoin, the better—but there was no mention of the climate crisis. Does he not recognise that the climate crisis is one of the biggest international challenges facing us, that it requires us to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and that therefore—given that COP31 is coming up next month—the Government must rule out Jackdaw and Rosebank, and move with all speed to the future of clean, green, renewable energy on which this country’s future prosperity depends?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. It was and remains a tragedy that we threw away the right to work, study, live and love in 27 countries. That is something felt deeply in my constituency, which a recent YouGov poll found demonstrates the strongest support in the country for rejoining the EU. Nationally, too, support for rejoining the EU is at an all-time high, with 61% of the country in favour—and no wonder, when all of us in the room today can think of and provide many examples of the economic disasters visited on our own communities as a result of Brexit. It bears repeating that Brexit has led to a 4% long-run productivity loss and, as we recently learned, has cost upwards of £208 million to the creative sector, which we particularly treasure in Bristol. To give an example, the owner of a music venue in my constituency recently said to <em>The Guardian</em> that the consequences are still “being felt in cancelled tours, lost work...and fewer opportunities for audiences on both sides of the Channel.” Add to that the millions of EU citizens living in the UK who are in limbo over their citizenship position, and all the opportunities that are lost because it is harder for UK citizens to travel, work and study in the EU. In a multitude of ways, the UK has been left worse off after Brexit, as we have heard in speech after speech today. It is more vulnerable to food prices, less safe from harmful chemicals and lagging behind on air quality standards in the face of an air pollution scandal that is killing tens of thousands of people every year. What we have heard recently from the Prime Minister is a welcome start: Brexit has indeed “done more harm than good”. Now we need the Prime Minister to be unequivocal and clear, drop his party’s red lines, and prioritise our future prosperity and wellbeing by working to rejoin in full. There are forces that continue to try to create fear and division. We have now heard the PM confirm that there was Russian interference in the referendum, so we must have robust leadership from the Government on rejoining to build a better, more equal, outward-looking society. The Green party has been clear that we should rejoin the EU as soon as there is a settled majority in favour of doing so. We have long since met that threshold. We need to be back at Europe’s decision-making table.<span id="28WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="28WH"></span>
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{9255BA19-494E-4085-8F51-DC9ECD38BA81}"> </QNum></strong> I have some further questions to Vicky. In your observations, you do say that efficiency should not be pursued at the expense of “procedural fairness” but also of “access to protection and successful integration.” You also warn that the Bill could “undermine conditions that support successful integration for those ultimately recognised as refugees.” Could you outline how you think the Bill, in practice, will harm integration? <em><strong>Vicky Tennant:</strong></em> I would say the key area is the recovery of asylum support. We understand that what is envisaged is potentially up to £10,000 per person to be recovered. Imagine that a refugee has gone through a long and difficult set of experiences before arrival in the UK, and has then gone through the uncertainty of the asylum process, potentially for an extended period of time, where they are unable to work or to start the process of getting back on their feet. Then, just as they are getting into employment and starting to rebuild their lives, the prospect of having to repay a potentially large sum of money could impede that. That was the main element that we felt was relevant to integration. The article 8 point and the ability to reunite with family members is also relevant. Many times when talking to asylum seekers and refugees, I have seen the anguish, the disruption and the sense of something that is unfinished. Being reunited with family and able to restart family life is an element that is fairly fundamental to integration, from the perspective of not only the refugee, but the UK public and communities. We think that giving refugees the possibility to start afresh and moving them as quickly as possible into the integration journey is important, and we know that that is also one of the Government’s stated objectives.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{3580BA14-03FA-4284-A44E-09C3A394F5ED}"> </QNum></strong> I want to return to something you said earlier, Vicky, about the expertise needed for the adjudicators on the new panels. The Government’s memorandum on human rights relies heavily on those people being able to weigh up proportionality, particularly in relation to article 8, and that is quite a high-level legal determination in many cases. Is that one of your concerns about the expertise needed on the tribunals? <em><strong>Vicky Tennant:</strong></em> It would certainly be really helpful to have more detail on the balance between legally qualified adjudicators and lay adjudicators, what the respective roles of the two profiles will be, and, more widely, how legal expertise and subject matter expertise will be built into the process. Other jurisdictions have a mix of legally qualified adjudicators and other adjudicators. Often, they sit together in panels, and the other adjudicators will often bring subject matter expertise for the specific requirement around knowledge of conditions in countries of origin, for example. The real issue is that it is important that legal expertise is strongly reflected in the appeals body, and more detail on that would be helpful for consideration of the Bill.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{B8AFCAC1-1034-470B-BF17-077C3B6D3AFE}"> </QNum></strong> On the way in which many refugees seek to reach this country to make asylum claims, what analysis has your agency done of the factors that led to a market for organised immigration crime? When did that increase in demand occur? <em><strong>Helen Rance:</strong></em> I am not sure that law enforcement is necessarily the right agency to approach for that answer, because we do not deal with the asylum claims.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{EF650CA2-0FE6-4762-89C5-988905464360}"> </QNum></strong> You look at the origins of the crimes, though, and the market that the criminals are exploiting. <em><strong>Helen Rance:</strong></em> Sorry, I do not completely understand the question; could you phrase that again?
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{CF6A1557-61FB-4D4F-A469-C5B48ED98E28}"> </QNum></strong> The criminals are exploiting a market by acting in a criminal fashion. That market is potential asylum seekers—many of whom, as we heard from the previous panel, have a legitimate claim to be here. Do you know when and why demand occurred for that kind of journey, which the criminals exploit? <em><strong>Helen Rance:</strong></em> No; I do not have the figures on when that increased.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{3694446A-6014-410E-8CB1-DE5C513A9A90}"> </QNum></strong> You have come here to comment on legislation that is intended to reduce demand, so I thought that might be a legitimate question to ask. <em><strong>Helen Rance:</strong></em> When demand rose?
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{BCFB3035-BF74-4E6F-96A4-F42D56DC60AF}"> </QNum></strong> To clarify, you say that the criminal investigation of the gangs is not in scope of the Bill. You have been asked to come today to testify about the potential of the Bill to reduce demand, so I think it is completely legitimate for us to ask you about your agency’s analysis of the roots of that demand. The question of the lack of safe routes to claim asylum is very pertinent; I would expect you to have a view on that, at least when it comes to the timeline of what you have noticed in response to previous Government changes.<span id="18" class="column-number" data-column-number="18"></span> <em><strong>Helen Rance:</strong></em> That is not something that I was specifically anticipating answering questions about on this specific Bill around modern slavery and human trafficking.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{FDFA5C67-CE35-42F6-883D-57C20E4A35FD}"> </QNum></strong> Could you come back to us on that? I am sure that there is analysis within the agency on that score. <em><strong>Helen Rance:</strong></em> Yes, I can come back with some written evidence on that.