Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

69: Schedule 1, page 130, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Civil legal services provided to an individual for a matter arising out of any rule laid down under section 1(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 making provision for family members to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the family member of a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection.”

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I must apologise to my noble and learned friend for failing to address this issue when it was listed at an earlier stage. Amendment 69 is also supported by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, which does such tremendous work in this very difficult field and not for any great return. It is to be commended.

Amendment 69 would retain legal aid for applications and appeals by family members of refugees and family members of those who are found to be at risk of serious harm such as torture but are not granted humanitarian protection for a refugee convention reason. The legal aid would be for applications and appeals for those reunited with a refugee recognised in the United Kingdom. When a person is recognised as a refugee or granted humanitarian protection, they are entitled under the Immigration Rules to apply to have certain family members, spouses, partners and minor children to join them. Such persons may themselves be living in danger in the country of origin, may be refugees themselves or may be living in a precarious situation in a third country. There are considerable parallels with asylum cases, which remain within scope. Without this special provision in the rules, refugees would have to wait until they were settled to have their families join them and would have to fulfil additional criteria.

Someone who is granted humanitarian protection is at risk for some other reason than the refugee, who is at risk by reason of,

“race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”.

These cases concern family reunion for persons whose applications for international protection have been found to be well founded and to whom the United Kingdom’s protection has been extended. The UNHCR stated in a report published in June 2010:

“Family reunification plays a significant role in meeting the long-term needs of resettled refugees … The family is often the strongest and most effective emotional, social and economic support network for a refugee making the difficult adjustment to a new culture and social framework”.

When in another place my right honourable friend Simon Hughes urged the Government to bring refugee family reunion back into scope for legal aid in this Bill, the Minister with responsibility for legal aid then acknowledged that these cases can be complex. He said that he would look further into those cases. That was an assertion made in another place and we are hoping that we will hear a little more on that in this Chamber.

Several factors contribute to the complexity of these cases and the need for legal aid to be retained. First, as my noble friend Lord Avebury and others have pointed out, the United Kingdom Border Agency's record in dealing with these applications has been especially poor. Some 61 per cent to 66 per cent of refusals are overturned on appeal. It is a terrible result for a government department that 61 per cent of its decisions are found to be wrong. Secondly, the often precarious situations of applicant families overseas and the distress and trauma of sponsoring refugees in the UK mean that they are particularly ill placed to make and pursue applications by themselves in British consulates in other countries.

The United Kingdom Border Agency also frequently disputes family relationships and accordingly many applications are protracted and evidentially complex. It alleges bad faith that the person concerned is not related. But the UK Border Agency loses 61 per cent of its cases. On appeal, the immigration judge is confined by the evidence presented to him, however careful he may be to treat litigants in person. Of course, when you are dealing with applicants who are abroad, the hearing is restricted by the absence of the family members at the appeal hearing. They are still overseas and therefore cannot be called to give evidence. Continued separation is a major obstacle to a refugee’s integration into the United Kingdom.

Refugee family reunion applications are complicated by the fact that not all applications are permitted to be made under the rules. Child refugees cannot secure family reunion and must rely on applications made outside the rules. There are all sorts of complex problems relating to family members. At the end of the day, it prevents the person who has been accepted and is able to enjoy the protection of this country from settling down and becoming integrated into our society.

Amendment 71 deals with matters that we have already covered. It is almost an omnibus provision that deals with refugee family reunion, on which I have just addressed your Lordships, to immigration matters concerning trafficking victims, which we addressed before the dinner break, and onward appeals relating to immigration—a matter that I raised at the outset of the Committee deliberations. I beg to move, and I trust that my noble and learned friend will have his responses ready.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear what my noble friend says. I will check, but I was not aware that the Government had encouraged people to come in in those circumstances. The point that I was about to make was that UK Border Agency guidance in these cases, when people are coming in under an immigration route, is that it sets out presumption of a grant of an application if the relevant criteria are met. The evidence required, such as marriage and birth certificates, should not require specialist legal assistance to collate. Indeed, the entry clearance officer may on occasion ask for DNA testing to prove a family relationship, but in these circumstances the test will be free of charge to the applicant.

These cases do not require specialist legal advice and, as we have indicated with other immigration cases, it is not necessary for them to remain within the scope of civil legal aid. Nevertheless, I recognise what my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said in moving his amendment. In spite of the fact that most cases should be relatively straightforward, as my honourable friend the parliamentary under-secretary Mr Djanogly indicated, there are some cases which are complex—I would certainly repeat what he indicated in the other place—so we will look at this again. I say this without wanting to raise an expectation, but it is important that we look at the issues where there are complex cases, and I undertake to look at that aspect again.

On Amendment 71, as my noble friend indicated we have dealt with most of these issues in the course of the evening. I am prepared to elaborate on the answers again, but perhaps he could just take as read the answers given in respect of those cases. Again, the issue relates to the fact that, as a general rule, we have taken the view that, unlike cases of asylum, where legal aid will be in scope, in cases of immigration the number of cases that turn on a point of law are relatively low and the cost of funding them is one that we believe can be better applied and applied in a more focused way on cases where the needs are greater.

On the question asked by my noble friend Lord Avebury about the UNHCR letter, I do not recall seeing the letter and nor does my noble friend Lord McNally. However, it is my understanding that Mr Djanogly has not only seen it but replied to it and has done so in the terms in which I have replied to the debate. In those circumstances, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

I am grateful for the assurance that the Minister has given that he will look at this matter again and consider what the attitude of the Government should be in complex cases involving family reunification.

I would point out that, on the question of claiming asylum, the Government said in their response to the consultation:

“Applications to join family members are treated as immigration cases, and are generally straightforward because they follow a grant of asylum”.

That is what my noble and learned friend told us just now. The Government’s response went on:

“Respondents argued that these cases are akin to claims for asylum … if a person wishes to claim asylum it is open to that person to do so either as a dependant of a primary asylum claimant or to do so in his or her own right. Legal aid for any such asylum claim will be in scope”.

As my noble friend Lord Avebury has said, the family members with which this amendment is concerned are outside the United Kingdom and cannot claim asylum unless they get here. The only way that they can get here would be through some hazardous and clandestine journey to get to this country and make a claim. It would be unlawful under the Immigration Act 1971 for a person in this country, including a person who has been granted asylum, to assist them in any way but if they can get here and claim asylum, they then apparently get legal aid to fight their claim. That seems ludicrous. I am sure that my noble and learned friend, in considering the matter further as he has promised to do, will take that into account, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 69 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that that was quite a gallop through a very detailed set of amendments about what I fully acknowledge is an important issue, and I am sure that noble Lords will want to take tomorrow’s Hansard as their bedtime reading. I hope that they will see that some of the issues raised by the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others are already covered by the Bill and that the Government have listened to some of these concerns. Perhaps we will return to some of them on Report. In the mean time, I ask noble Lords from both ends of Newcastle to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, listening to this debate on housing reminds me of being told when I was very young that a stitch in time saved nine, that for want of a nail a shoe was lost or what would happen if you went out courting on Ilkley Moor without your hat on—I could not think of anything relating to the Lambton Worm, but I am sure there was something along those lines as well—the point being that the Government are prepared to fund at the most expensive end, when you get to court or near to it. I think of all those days as a solicitor when you settle things by picking up the phone, writing a letter or meeting face to face. That is the hidden part of the iceberg that I do not think the Ministry of Justice appreciates at all. It is sad that there is a perverse incentive for lawyers to escalate a case to the point at which they are about to go to court, as opposed to funding at a lower level where things can be sorted out as they always have been. That is a brief comment; I have sat here long enough, and I think I am entitled to make it.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his contributions to identifying what is at the heart of this. I am grateful to the Minister for the very full answers that he has given to this set of amendments, but of course broadly speaking what he said is what the Bill says—it was a restatement of the current position.

I ask the Minister to look again at two things. One is the King’s College/Law Society evidence base for what the knock-on costs might actually be. The contribution of my noble friend Lord Phillips helped us to understand that some of the indirect costs have not been counted in the King’s College calculations. That being so, there might well be an evidence base that tells us that it will be more expensive. As opposed to saving a little money, it might end up costing the Government more.

Secondly, I wonder whether we might look at the basis of the cost-shunting around Whitehall, which I take very seriously. When cuts are required, there is a tendency in Whitehall departments to do things that deliver the cuts in that department but cause someone else additional cost. That other department tends not to pick up that cost until it has happened and there is suddenly no alternative.

We have had a full and frank debate. Many of us in the Committee think that there is a problem that we need to address in greater detail. It may well prove to be in the interests of the Government to save money by adopting some of the amendments that have been proposed this evening. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.