[Continuation from column 288]
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk, Conservative)
Page 2 of the briefing describes the Bill as follows:
''In effect what has been billed as a measure to speed up immigration decision making is a barely disguised attack on the function and jurisdiction of the judiciary at a time when that function and jurisdiction is needed as never before'',
and over the page:
''Whatever the substantive law is there needs to be access to a court to ensure that it is being complied with.''
There needs to be access to a court to ensure that it is being complied with. Either we believe that the courts should uphold Acts of Parliament and the rule of law, or we do not. But if they are to uphold the rule of law it is essential that whatever the law is, people should have access to the courts in order to uphold it. The Matrix brief continues:
''It is this principle''—
the principle of access to the court to ensure that the law is being complied with—
''that is threatened by the ouster clause.''
My hon. Friend referred to the list of extraordinary events—the lack of jurisdiction, irregularity, error of law, breach of natural justice and so on—that the Bill would oust. Notwithstanding those matters, there would be no power of the court to look at the case to review the decision.
There is a very good brief from the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and the Refugee Legal Centre and I strongly support its conclusion:
''The attempt to prevent judicial oversight is of major constitutional significance and seeks to put the decision-making process beyond the law.''
I cannot easily add to that, save to say that if members of the Committee were to think that only what I would describe as right-on lawyers come to that conclusion, I refer them to the opinion of the Law Society, a sober group of people, who came to the conclusion that the Bill would mean that
''if a tribunal, in determining an application, made an error of law or failed to give proper consideration to relevant facts, the only redress would be to ask the tribunal to review its decision. This review would only be through written submissions. No matter how erroneous the decision, the applicant would have no means of challenging the tribunal's ruling.''
I have sat in on tribunals, although not immigration tribunals, covering issues such as the disability living allowance, and on behalf of some of my constituents I am extremely glad that the ability to review tribunals' decisions exists. Despite what some hon. Members
think, I have no doubt that while many tribunal presidents and chairman are not judges, their decisions are capable of being seriously wrong. They are capable of ignoring basic facts and the rules of natural justice and it is right that those bodies should be reviewable. The Law Society concludes:
''Clause 10 goes far beyond what is reasonable. The ability of the judiciary to oversee the actions of administrative tribunals is fundamental to the rule of law. This proposal to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court is unprecedented. Bearing in mind that decisions on claims for asylum can literally be life or death matters . . .''
I refer the Committee to the earlier speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. It is especially reprehensible that the Government should seek to eliminate proper judicial scrutiny of decisions in these cases.
I referred to the opinion of Mr. Ian Miller, the litigation partner at Wright Son and Pepper, a firm of lawyers in Gray's Inn. I say, for the benefit of the Committee and to avoid any appearance of not declaring my interest, that Mr. Miller used to be a flatmate of mine, although in the present climate—