|
Extract
from House of Commons Hansard, Debates for 1st March 2004
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants,
etc.) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Mr.
Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
I shall be brief, as we need to give the
Under-Secretary time to reply. It has been mentioned several times already
that no one has spoken in support of clause 11, so let me reassure the
Under-Secretary from the outset that that is not going to change. I am
sure that he would not have expected me to say anything different.
This is the most serious issue in the Bill by far because
this part of the Bill will have the greatest impact on the greatest number of
people. It is quite unprecedented for judicial oversight to be removed
completely from any tribunal. No other tribunal in the whole of our legal system
is not subject to judicial oversight.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr.
Marshall-Andrews) mentioned earlier in a brief and powerful speech that we could
expect this to happen only to people who were not British. In fact, it will
happen to relatives of people who are British. As hon. Members have pointed out,
the provisions will apply not just to asylum claims, but to immigration cases.
Our constituents will tell us about their relatives, who will be affected by the
clause.
The Government's arguments have been twofold: delays and
numbers. I have yet to hear on Second Reading, in Committee or now on Report any
argument of principle from the Government. The delay argument does not stand up,
as has been pointed out many times in this evening's debate; nor do the numbers.
The Government have not really played a numbers game—my hon. and learned Friend
the Member for Medway was not quite right on that—as much as a percentage game.
They have said that only 3, 4 or 5 per cent. of appeals end up being won at the
end of the process. However, if that small percentage is turned into real
numbers, it is clear that we are dealing with 2,000 to 2,500 people every year,
and the decisions taken could well affect their very existence. I do not believe
that we should be taking any chances whatever in respect of getting it right on
that sort of issue. A clear issue of principle is at stake here—ensuring that
justice is done and taking cognisance of the consequences of a wrong decision.
Finally, I shall say a few words about Government amendments
Nos. 79 and 80. In some cases, a right of appeal to a tribunal would not exist
in any case, but the amendments will take away judicial oversight from people
who might be removed from the country and unable to challenge the decision.
There could be grounds for a challenge—that the wrong person is being removed,
for example, or that someone is being removed to the wrong place. We all know of
examples where that has happened.
It is a thoroughly bad clause. I would have liked to press my
amendment No. 32, but in the absence of that, I shall certainly vote in favour
of amendment No. 30.
|
