Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2007

rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 9 October be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will speak also to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2007. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission, known as SIAC, and the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, POAC, are two separate bodies, but there are broad similarities between their procedures. The two statutory instruments were approved in another place on 19 November. The amendments are necessary for us to implement an EU directive that comes into force on 1 December 2007. SIAC is a superior court of record. It was created by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 to deal with appeals against decisions made by the Home Secretary to deport or exclude people from the UK on national security grounds, or for other public interest reasons. It also hears appeals against decisions to deprive persons of citizenship status. SIAC is essential to the counterterrorism remit, as it provides judicial oversight of executive decisions. In most SIAC cases, parts of the evidence cannot be made public due to considerations of national security or public interest. In such cases, this evidence is designated as ““closed material””. Section 6 of the SIAC Act 1997 allows for a special advocate to be appointed by the Attorney-General to represent the interests of the appellant in closed sessions. The rules under consideration today amend the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, which prescribe the procedure to be followed for appeals to SIAC. The amendments are threefold. Two of them bring the SIAC rules into line with an EU asylum procedures directive, Council directive 2005/85/EC. The third provides a minor clarification. The EU asylum procedures directive that gives rise to two of the amendments is a key element of European asylum policy. It aims towards common standards for fair and efficient asylum procedures in member states, and consistency across their legal frameworks. That mandatory directive has an implementation deadline of 1 December 2007. It lays down basic standards on procedures for assessing asylum applications, and for granting and withdrawing refugee status. The majority of the provisions concern the initial stage of decision-making rather than appeals, and so fall within the remit of the Border and Immigration Agency of the Home Office. UK practice is currently in line with many of the provisions, but the Border and Immigration Agency is taking forward a number of amendments to its Immigration Rules where required. One article in the directive, Article 10, requires two amendments to the SIAC rules. Both amendments relate to procedures that SIAC already carries out in practice, but which were not specified explicitly in the procedure rules. Those amendments achieve the consistency across legal frameworks towards which EU asylum policy aims. Article 10(2) of the directive specifies that three guarantees for asylum applicants—set out in Article 10(1)—pertain to the appeals process as well as to the initial application process. First, asylum applicants shall be provided with the services of an interpreter for submitting their case, where necessary. Secondly, applicants shall not be denied the opportunity to communicate with the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. Thirdly, applicants shall be given notice of the decision in reasonable time. With regard to the first of those guarantees, interpretation is provided for SIAC cases but it is not explicitly specified in the rules. The provision of interpreters within the courts is clearly a key element of access to justice. We have therefore inserted a new rule setting out the existing SIAC procedure, whereby the appellant may be provided with an interpreter for giving evidence in his appeal, and in other circumstances where SIAC considers it necessary. The interpreter is paid from public funds. SIAC’s rule-making powers do not extend to making such a provision, thus other legislative regulations implementing the directive will achieve that. The second guarantee does not require an amendment. SIAC does not prevent the appellant communicating with the UNHCR, and the rules state that the UNHCR may be a party to the proceedings. In respect of the third of the guarantees, the rules include an amendment to clarify, using the language of the directive, that notice of the decision must be given to the applicant in a reasonable time. The third amendment clarifies the time limit to apply for permission to appeal from SIAC to a further appellate court. The current rule, as amended by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2007, is unclear because it could be read in a way that implies that the time limit is not necessarily the same for each party. However, it has always been the policy intention that both parties would have the same time limit to apply for permission to appeal to a further appellate court—10 days from receipt of the final determination on the appeal. The rule amendment adds clarity by making a clear distinction between the provisional and final determinations on the appeal and by expressing the time limit more fully. The inconsistency with the current rule is a very minor one that has not caused any practical problems within SIAC. However, as two rule amendments are required by the EU directive, it seems an opportune moment to make this clarifying amendment. The final amendment, which I have just outlined, is replicated in the amendments to the POAC rules. The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission was created by Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to deal with appeals against refusals by the Home Secretary to de-proscribe organisations which he believes are concerned with terrorism. Proscribed organisations are listed in Schedule 2 to the Act. The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2007 govern the procedure for appeals before POAC. POAC and SIAC have some similar procedures because the special advocate process used within SIAC is also applicable to POAC. The amendment clarifying the time limit to apply to a further appellate court ensures consistency between the two commissions’ rules in areas where their procedures are similar. My department has consulted stakeholders representing the spectrum of those involved with and who have an interest in SIAC cases and the POAC remit. We also wrote to the Home Office, the BIA, special advocates who represent appellants in closed proceedings before SIAC, the Special Advocates Support Office, the Treasury Solicitor, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the security services, the Law Society, the Bar Council and the chairmen of both commissions. Through such stakeholder interaction, we have obtained support for these amendments from our key stakeholders. In summary, the majority of these amendments arise directly from an EU directive that is a significant step towards a common European asylum policy. As outlined, these are minor amendments, but they are significant because they contribute towards ensuring that SIAC’s legal framework is consistent with that envisaged by the EU. I commend these draft statutory instruments to the House. I beg to move. Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 9 October be approved. 27th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee, Session 2006-07.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)