Interpretation: general

I beg to move amendment No. 355, in clause 122, page 82, line 9, at end insert ‘and [Appeals against designation]’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 59—Appeals against designation—

‘(1) A designated person may appeal against his designation.

(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations about appeals under this section.

(3) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument and are subject to amendment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’.

This is about appeals—there are none. However, I think that, out of natural justice, there should be an appeal if someone feels aggrieved because  they have been designated in this way. Also, the JCWI again makes the point that there appears to be no route out of designated status.

I rise to support the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me, reading this element of part 11, that not only is there no appeal against designation but there is no potential challenge to any part of the process, which is all dealt with by Executive action, including any conditions that may be applied as part of that process. At no stage, other than by recourse to the Human Rights Act 1998 or, presumably, judicial review of a decision taken by the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, is there any capacity for any challenge to be made to anything that he has done to a person who is designated as having special immigration status. Of course, there is the very real assumption that in the absence of any form of legal aid provision, there is no capacity—unless the person has particularly deep pockets from elsewhere, which is unlikely in this context—to mount a judicial review application or an application under the Human Rights Act in any case. The hon. Gentleman’s point about the lack of an appeal is very serious, but I would go wider and say that it is not simply the issue of designation that is relevant, but the other factors encompassed in this part of the Bill.

I wish to follow on from those remarks, rather than repeat them. They are valuable in relation to the lack of appeal. I ask the Minister to consider whether by not having an appeal mechanism, we may have built a delay into the process when the only option left to an applicant is to go to the European Court of Human Rights or seek judicial review. Would it not be appropriate to have an appeal mechanism at least to allow any challenge to proceed expeditiously and appropriately?

I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members, but the Government’s view is that someone who fulfils those criteria should expect to be deported. If that is not possible for ECHR reasons, we should not be obliged, as we currently are, to grant them leave under the Immigration Acts. In many cases, judicial review is open to them, and those people would have legal aid available to them. I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members, but we feel that it is appropriate in the circumstances.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.