Clause 3 - Grounds of appeal
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
6:30 pm
Andy Burnham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Leigh, Labour)
Nevertheless, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said that Conservative Members ''are minded to accept'' the Home Secretary's arguments about appeals. I do not know whether his word carries through to all members of parliamentary Conservative party, but he obviously still has some power. I urge Conservative Members, as long as he is shadow Home Secretary, to bear in mind the comments that he made on Second Reading. He said that he broadly supported the system that we propose.
The purpose of clause 1 is to allow decisions to refuse to vary or curtail leave to be challenged in the course of an appeal against removal. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked me to clarify that it is our intention to allow appellants to challenge the quality and the decision reached in the initial circumstance so that the first decision could be fully contested at that single appeal. We fully intend to allow that possibility. At that point the appellant would have the ability to raise all of the issues. That is the effect of clause 3.
Concerns have been raised in the context of clause 1. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was worried about the potential gap between the decision being made to refuse to vary or curtail leave and serving the decision to remove. The intention behind the repeals of section 82(2)(d) and (e) of the 2002 Act is to allow the decision to remove to be served as soon as the decision to refuse to vary or to curtail has been made. The reality is that the affected party will be able to challenge the decision just as quickly as under the current system. I know that in some ways that requires the hon. Gentleman to accept that the administrative changes to be put in place will be made. That is the intention of the clauses as drafted.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked whether the provision will not allow an appeal if the earlier decision is wrong. The way the provisions work is that the challenge to the decision facilitating the decision to remove is one ground of challenge to that decision to remove. I hope she is clear on that point.