Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I find myself in general agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on the whole group of amendments. He made a particularly good point about the need for a genuine one-stop appeal system. I am also fully in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that this is a highly controversial Bill and should have been considered on the Floor of the House. My Amendment No. 28 I believe to be parallel in effect to Amendment No. 10. Perhaps I should have tried to amend Clause 1 or, indeed, Clause 11, or previous Acts. I have, however, accepted the best advice I could obtain from the Public Bill Office and put down this new clause. Its purpose is to improve the situation of people who are in this country perfectly legally, for example, under temporary or short-term leave to remain, and no doubt in many non-asylum cases, including spouses and students. When they are refused an extension, or even a variation of their stay, they cannot under the Bill make an appeal against the refusal. However, they have every right to appeal against a removal notice whenever that may be issued. No one can say how long the interval between the refusal of an extension and the removal notice is likely to be. However, experience of the Home Office and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate indicates that the interval may be quite long—months or even years. During that interval, the aggrieved person will be left in limbo, unable, in theory, to work or to obtain benefits. The right of appeal against removal gives him or her a perverse incentive not to go voluntarily and contest the refusal from overseas, which is always a difficult procedure, but to remain here to contest the removal notice. I think that I have been extremely moderate by including subsection (2) in Amendment No. 28, which limits the scope of the in-country right of appeal. It may well be that the amendment should have gone wider. However, I hope that I have shone a spotlight on an inconsistency and on an unintended consequence of the Bill. The Immigration Advisory Service rightly points out that if the Government want to establish a genuine one-stop appeal, it should be against the refusal to vary or extend. The IAS stated:"““Turning those who have abided by the immigration rules into criminals when they can do nothing about it does not engender confidence in immigration control or enhance the respect for the UK—especially if they are students who then become influential in their own countries””." I therefore trust that the Government will consider this matter very carefully. Amendment No. 29, which is tabled in my name, deals with a separate matter, but as it has been placed in this group I do not mind discussing it now. New Section 87A in the 2002 Act is designed to meet the need for accurate and independent advice about the actual situation on human rights at any time in particular states and parts of states. This need has been experienced for a good many years, partly because of divergent and conflicting analyses made by the Foreign Office and the Home Office, neither of which necessarily has personnel on the spot in remote parts of very large countries. At Second Reading, I gave Zimbabwe and the so-called Democratic Republic of Congo as examples of these difficulties. In this country, we have a lot to learn from Canada, which has had such an independent source of advice in operation for some years. Information could perhaps be gained from the Canadians and experience could be shared with other Commonwealth and EU members, to the benefit of all. Intelligence could be drawn in from the more reliable national and international non-governmental organisations. New subsection (1) empowers the Secretary of State to set up and fund a source of independent foreign country advice. I am mildly surprised at my moderation in not making this mandatory. I therefore ask the Minister to give the most careful consideration to this as something that is needed now, but which may become even more necessary in future. New subsection (2) seeks to ensure that the available independent advice will be taken into account when tribunals and others are considering appeals.