Clause 64 - Consolidation of appeals
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
5:45 pm

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 368.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

If an appellant raises additional reasons for staying in the UK in the course of an appeal, they can be argued as part of a one-stop appeal and incorporated into that, rather than treated as a separate decision with a separate right of appeal. If, unusually, a further decision attracts a separate right of appeal, it should be possible for them to be linked pursuant to rules made under clause 84.

The clause is unnecessary, and consequently clause 84 should be amended, as it refers to the clause. We are therefore in the odd position of asking members of the Committee to vote for the amendment, and then to oppose that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

For the benefit of members of the Committee, let me point out that the decision on amendment No. 368 will be taken when we discuss the clause to which it is relevant.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I was not confused, but I am now.

I make this comment and the next in a non-confrontational manner. Clause 84 relates to the rules that the Lord Chancellor may make. Amendment No. 368 amends subsection (2)(m) on page 42, which I marked in anticipation. I believe that the Minister is

saying that all the things that were to be covered in the clause will be shipped into the rule-making powers in clause 84. I am happy with that if that is correct.

The Bill as a whole would benefit from consideration at the end of the Committee stage to ensure that we separate immigration and asylum where that is possible. I always try to make the point to the great public outside, as well as to the Committee, that the two are different. We are obliged to grant asylum, but not to allow someone in as an immigrant. One is governed by international law, the other by domestic law. The public need to understand that, as they often get confused.

Part 5 is entitled ''Immigration and asylum appeals''. Clause 61 is headed ''Appeal: claim for asylum''. Clause 62 is headed ''Grounds for appeal'', which I believe relates only to immigration and should therefore be headed ''Grounds for appeal: immigration''. I believe that clause 63, ''Matters to be considered'', relates only to immigration, not to asylum. The title of clause 64, ''Consolidation of appeals'', also relates only to immigration appeals. Under the clauses, therefore, one could not consolidate an asylum application in an immigration case, although both bounce around in theory at the same time, as the Minister knows. Will the Ministers consider reordering this part of the Bill with advice from colleagues, so that we can separate the asylum and immigration processes?

We should separate immigration appeals, not consolidate them. I do not think that it is technically possible to consolidate asylum appeals, because only one of them can be alive at any given time. If we are talking about consolidation of Home Office matters about status, at the end of this clause it would be logical to pull those together. I am merely making a request. We are trying to get clear clauses and clear headings to clauses, so that everyone can find what they are looking for.

Part 1 is about nationality and citizenship. It is entitled ''Nationality'', but when we went through it, we agreed that it is about citizenship and nationality—that some bits of the clause deal with the one subject, and other bits with the other. We argued for different names, but the Government took a contrary position. However, we should try to ensure that there is consistent language throughout the Bill, so that people following it can find their way through it more easily. I am sure that that could be done if people were to apply their minds to the task.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I confirm the hon. Gentleman's view that clause 84 effectively subsumes the need to have clause 64. I hope that we can move on to discuss clause 84 before today's deliberations come to an end, so that he can talk about that.

The hon. Gentleman asks for everything to be separated, but at the same time he wants us to consolidate. We are trying to consolidate. It is not always possible both to separate and to consolidate; he can use both words in the same sentence, but it is not always possible to achieve that. We are doing what we can about how the Bill is ordered, but, as he said—to borrow the memorable phrase of the hon. Member for

Woking, who made the same point—the tackle sometimes gets mixed up. That is certainly the case in some of these areas, where people have immigration cases, appeals and asylum cases running at the same time. In such circumstances, those cases will be considered together. Therefore, there is some consolidation, but there is also some separation. We will make that as neat as possible, but it will never be perfect.

I will move that amendment No. 368 be incorporated into clause 84, but I ask the Committee to disagree to clause 64 standing part of the Bill.

Clause 64 disagreed to.