Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I cannot promise my noble friend that the Government can be ahead on these issues but I am grateful for the opportunity to debate his amendments. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the Government keep the workings of the asylum process under review. Indeed, it would be wrong not to do so.

Amendment 113D would create a right of appeal whenever someone is refused asylum and granted any form of leave. As a result there would be more appeals against a refusal of asylum for a group of cases where no immediate right currently exists, and multiple appeals from individuals.

As my noble friend Lord Henley acknowledged in Committee, it is an unfortunate consequence of the otherwise very sensible 12-month restriction that some unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will experience delay in bringing an asylum appeal. My noble friend agreed to review the policy in respect of children to ensure that there were no unintendezd consequences. We have completed that review and concluded that this policy, seen in the context of the statutory appeals framework and current economic circumstances, operates as intended. As my noble friend has said, I have written to him to confirm this.

This amendment is to Section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that an individual may appeal against an asylum refusal when leave is granted for a period longer than 12 months. Amendment 113D would remove the 12-month restriction and create a right of appeal against the refusal of asylum regardless of the period of leave granted. It is not unusual for short periods of leave to be extended more than once. Recent case law means that this amendment could create a right of appeal against the earlier refusal of asylum every time further leave was granted. Therefore, this amendment would have serious and undesirable consequences for the existing appeals framework as it could result in multiple fruitless appeals being used to prolong someone’s time in the UK. In the current economic circumstances, it is vital that resources are used where they are most needed. While I recognise that the intention of this amendment is to reduce delay for children and trafficked persons, the consequences for the appeals framework are not justified for the following reasons.

First, the amendment is too broad. It would extend the right of appeal under Section 83 of the 2002 Act to anyone granted leave after a refusal of asylum, not just children and trafficked persons. This would result in additional costs and resources to administer each appeal. Secondly, only a minority of unaccompanied children who claim asylum are affected by this policy in the way described by my noble friend. It would affect only those who are older than 16 and a half when refused asylum but granted some other form of leave. As we have said, these children are close to adulthood and have a right of appeal should a decision be taken to remove them after their leave runs out at age 17 and a half. This delay is not unreasonable.

Thirdly, while it is correct that trafficked persons are similarly affected, for similar reasons to those we have given in relation to children we believe that the current policy may be equitable in all the circumstances. Section 83 of the 2002 Act affects only those trafficked persons who claim and are refused asylum. It is important to remember that in all cases before a child or any trafficked person is removed from the UK, they will be entitled to a right of appeal. The Government’s policy ensures that individuals do not have multiple appeal rights over a brief period, possibly raising the same arguments on each occasion as matters may not have evolved since their last appeal. The amendment proposed would undermine this key principle of the Secretary of State’s asylum appeals framework. For the reasons set out above, we are not persuaded that the current policy for appeal rights under Section 83 of the 2002 Act, either for children or more generally, has an impact of the magnitude necessary to justify incurring additional expense in relation to appeals.

Amendment 113E concerns the Secretary of State’s powers to certify, under Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, that removing a person to a safe third country will not breach their human rights where the presumption is that the country to which the person is to be removed is safe. The effect of the certificate is that an appeal can be brought only after the person has been removed. This provision prevents appeals being used to delay removal in hopeless cases. Persons will be removed to a third country only if that country will not remove the person to another country other than in accordance with the refugee convention. If the certificate is challenged by judicial review, the court is required to regard the third country as one where the person’s rights under the refugee convention will not be breached.

Amendment 113E is tabled on the basis that Section 94(8) seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a court to consider the safety of the country of removal. It is, however, unnecessary. The courts are already able to consider whether the person’s human rights might be breached where judicial review challenges the issuing of the certificate. Once removed to the third country, an appeal may be brought and refugee convention issues can be considered. My noble friend asked for some detail here, and I will have to accept his very kind offer to allow me to write to him to give him a response to the data he was seeking.

Amendment 113E also seeks to remove those provisions in Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004 that reduce the circumstances in which removal to a safe third country can be frustrated on the grounds of unmeritorious claims about treatment in, or removal from, those countries. The amendment would have a considerable practical impact on removals made to other European countries under the Dublin regulation. That regulation determines which state is responsible for examining an asylum claim. It plays a key role in tackling abuse of asylum systems through the phenomenon of “asylum shopping”. Indeed, the value of the Dublin regulation to the UK is clear. Since 2004, the UK has been able to remove more than 10,000 individuals under the Dublin regulation.

It is argued that the amendments are necessary to reflect the terms of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 21 December 2011. My noble friend referred to this case. The Government respectfully disagree. The ruling in NS gives useful guidance on the correct approach to fundamental rights as a matter of EU law. However, as a matter of practice, it does not significantly change the approach to domestic legislation. The concept of a rebuttable presumption in legislation when considering the impact of the Human Rights Act is not new. It was firmly established by existing case law from the European Court of Human Rights in KRS v UK in 2008 and from the House of Lords in Nasseri v Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2009. What the Luxembourg court has done in NS is confirm that a similar approach should be taken when it is alleged that there is evidence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights being breached.

I turn, finally, to Amendment 113F. The effect of this amendment would be to allow an appeal to proceed where the appellant has been granted leave by the Secretary of State. The purpose of many appeals is to overturn a decision to refuse to grant leave. Consequently, it is the Government’s position that in the majority of cases an appeal should not proceed where leave has been granted. Currently, Sections 104(4A) to 104(4C) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provide that an appeal cannot proceed where the appellant has been granted leave. The exceptions are where the appeal is brought on the ground of race discrimination or where the appeal is against a refusal of asylum and the leave which has been granted is in excess of 12 months. This is consistent with Section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was the subject of Amendment 113D. Where the appeal does not fall into these two groups, we do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for it to proceed where leave has been granted. The appeal is unnecessary because leave has already been granted. There is no detriment caused by the absence of a right of appeal which will be cured by this amendment. However, making this amendment would have a detrimental impact as additional rights of appeal would arise, each of which represents an additional cost to the Government and the taxpayer. The increased number of potential appeals will place an additional burden on the tribunal and court systems, which are already dealing with significant numbers of immigration appeals.

We do not believe that preserving an appeal right where leave has been granted is necessarily appropriate. Frequently, the Secretary of State makes a grant of leave while an appeal is pending for pragmatic reasons. This avoids unnecessary litigation at a cost to both parties. Where leave has been granted, an appeal can proceed only on an academic, rather than an individual, basis. The tribunal is primarily a fact-finding tribunal and therefore it is not appropriate for a case to proceed before it on an academic basis only. In light of these points, and in the knowledge that I will continue to work with my noble friend and respond to his questions on this issue, I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his thorough reply to these three amendments, although—as he would expect—I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with his response. In the case of Amendment 113D, he did not go into the consequences of giving limited leave to remain to unaccompanied children and trafficked persons—a matter which I tried to outline in moving this amendment. There is room for further examination, and if he is prepared to let me have sight of the review that was undertaken, that would be the most helpful basis on which we might proceed.

As he will have realised, these amendments were all framed by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association and it, too, would like to be consulted in any review that will be undertaken in the future on the implications of the present situation for these unaccompanied children and trafficked persons granted limited leave to remain. My noble friend said that the amendment was too broad; we would be perfectly happy if, as a result of further discussions bringing in the legal advice of ILPA, we could agree on a more limited version of Amendment 113D.

With regard to Amendment 113E, removing someone to a supposedly safe third country does not eliminate the right of appeal, but if you have to exercise the appeal from an overseas country with all the disadvantages that that entails in the way of consulting lawyers, obtaining written statements and so on, the right is really not worth very much. The cases we considered mean that the designation of safe third countries is not a satisfactory way of proceeding, particularly when one considers the position of LGBT asylum seekers. I mentioned them in my remarks, but the Minister did not touch on them in his reply. I realise that I was asking for detailed information about what has happened to LGBT asylum seekers who were returned to supposedly safe countries. Maybe we can review the situation once we have that information in front of us.

On Amendment 113F, I mentioned the remarks of Mr Justice Beatson and thought that maybe my noble friend would not have had time to consider that judgment. Perhaps we can pursue the matter in more detail later. He did not respond to the point that, by granting leave to remain in a series of cases that touched on the same matter of principle, the Secretary of State was avoiding any resolution of the matter of principle, which would be helpful in cutting short proceedings of the tribunals in later cases. Therefore, I do not accept what my noble friend said about the saving of time in the courts; I think the reverse is probably true, but again, perhaps we can leave this for further discussion with the benefit of advice from ILPA at a later date. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.