Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. My position is that I have looked at this and think that we have got it right. But the noble Lord makes an important point about the 2002 Act and, as I have indicated, I am more than happy to invite my noble and learned friend, in particular, to discuss the matter more fully. If that were to be suggested by the Constitution Committee or the noble Earl, perhaps we could, having had that conversation, make a note of it in the form of a letter to the Committee so that noble Lords can see where we have got to on the issue. There is not a resistance in the Government to a role for the Lord Chancellor/Secretary of State for Constitutional affairs where appropriate, but, in this particular case, it seems to us that it is important that the structure for immigration policy in particular needs to rest in one place—and that place, most appropriately, is with the Secretary of State for home affairs. I undertake, of course, to look at the issue again. As to Amendment No. 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I had the benefit of meeting the DIS—it was one of the organisations which came to see me—and I am grateful for its contribution to our deliberations. We have no intention of trying to turn any individual who is compliant with the law as it stands into a criminal. Indeed, I shall say that in very loud terms, particularly in regard to our discussions about students. My difficulty with the noble Lord’s amendment is that it creates a discrete right of appeal against refusal to vary leave on human rights grounds only. As the noble Lord will appreciate, it makes an incentive for appellants to go down that route, whether genuine or not, in order to extend their stay in the country. In this legislation and the work that accompanies it we must try to ensure that we have the best possible opportunity for appeals to be heard in appropriate circumstances. That must be true of human rights appeals. In other words, flooding appeals into the category of human rights, because that is the way that people feel that they can appeal, whether appropriately or inappropriately, does not do the system any good and it does not deal with some of the important issues. However, I have indicated that the groups of amendments that relate to in-country appeals will address the underlying point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I want to explain why his amendment does not stand but shall do so in the context of indicating that I will look more fully at the matter. Although I accept the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that Amendment No. 29 could have been in a different group, this is an important opportunity to talk a little about the way that the Home Office seeks to get information. In doing so, we can address some of the concerns that have been raised. This was a learning experience for me, too, in discovering precisely what happens. The system has moved on and is different from the system that I remember from some years ago. Noble Lords will probably know that country of origin information is compiled from a wide range of sources. That obviously includes the Foreign Office, the UN High Commission for Refugees, human rights organisations and the media. It does not contain any Home Office opinion or policy. The independent Advisory Panel on Country Information has been set up, in part to ensure that the Home Office’s country of origin information is accurate, balanced, impartial and as up to date as possible. The panel’s role is to review and provide advice on the information produced by the Home Office. The panel provides expert external scrutiny to ensure that the information meets the high standards and that an appellant is able to use any information produced anywhere by any organisation—governmental or non-governmental—about the situation that he may wish to bring forward and to ensure that the best possible information is available to him in making his case. The panel is chaired by Professor Stephen Castles, who is a director of refugee studies at Oxford University. Representatives include academics and people from organisations with expertise and experience in country information and refugee fields, including the Refugee Council and the UN High Commission for Refugees. We have now created a much better system. When my right honourable friend Des Browne was the Minister responsible for immigration and asylum policy, he announced that the country information and the policy functions carried out by the Country Information and Policy Unit would be separated. He accepted the advisory panel’s advice that, as a matter of good practice, these functions should be undertaken by different parts of the organisation because of perceptions that the Home Office country information material would not be impartial while it was produced by a unit engaged in the development of the country’s asylum policy. That change has now happened and the information has been transferred to a different section, which operates as a service in itself. We have now created the opportunity for high-quality, impartial, balanced and accurate information to be made available. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment because we think that we have achieved what he seeks. I am happy to provide the noble Lord with more information about that if it would be of any use to him or other Members of the Committee. Finally, exemption from prosecution as an overstayer is the subject of Amendment No. 30. As noble Lords have indicated, Clause 13 creates three conditions that need to be fulfilled for a person to be exempt, including that a removal decision must have been made. As I have indicated, if we are looking at in-country appeals, the amendment becomes redundant because it would have a huge effect on what happens in Clause 13(2). If people are allowed to stay in the country to appeal, the issue goes away. Regardless of that, the Government have no desire to criminalise anyone who complies with what he is asked to do within a reasonable timescale. I will look at the amendment in the context of what I have said on the other amendments. I hope that this has been useful in considering the overall, overarching policy. I look forward to the next group of amendments when we will be considering particular groups of individuals. Members of the Committee will no doubt make a very strong case, which will be useful as I discuss with Ministers in the Home Office how we take this forward. I hope that that is helpful and, on that basis, that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.