Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

We now move on to the administration of justice, and judicial review in particular. In my opening remarks on the previous group of amendments, I mentioned our sadness, which I know is reflected across the House, at the death of Lord Kingsland at the weekend. He really was a superb politician who brought the best attributes of politics to his public service. He had a long and distinguished career in the areas of public policy, politics and the law. Indeed, I recall that he represented Stanley Adams, for those who remember that case. He was greatly appreciated in the Home Office. He genuinely improved our legislation by his scrutiny. His death at the weekend caused great sadness and was a great loss to the other place. The amendments that we have brought forward reflect our discussions with Lord Kingsland to seek an accommodation of his concerns and those of Members in the other House. With their help, I think that we have managed to make a good job of that. The Government's position, as I explained to the Committee, was and continues to be that we should give the judiciary the powers that they need to manage cases in the best interests of justice. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) expressed his frustration at a particular case, and I suspect that that reflected his frustration at other cases. Part of our objective is to ensure that the expert judges take the decisions. Judicial reviews often go above that level, or to the side of it, as some would put it. Part of our objective is precisely to ensure that it is the immigration judges, who have the expertise, experience and knowledge, who take the decisions. By that means, we are trying to address some of the frustrations felt by the right hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, other hon. Members; my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has raised similar frustrations with me on numerous occasions. In Committee, we reinstated the original judicial review clause to ensure that the judiciary has the necessary powers available to them. However, we said that we wanted to seek consensus on the Bill, so I am mindful of the views expressed in another place. New clause 8, amendment 25 and amendments 41 to 45 reflect the essence of the clause as it was when it left the other place. Concern was expressed about the timing of transfers of judicial review, and about overwhelming the upper tribunal. There were also differences on points of principle, but it is, I believe, recognised that the administrative court is under enormous pressure. We have made the case for the transfer of at least some cases. Fresh claims have been identified by the Lord Chief Justice as the most suitable class of case for transfer. I should explain to the House that a "fresh claim" is not a fresh claim; it is a renewed or refreshed claim. The effect of our proposed new clause is that the Lord Chief Justice, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, will be able to order the transfer of judicial review cases that deal with so-called fresh claims to the upper tribunal. Transfer of other cases, either on a case-by-case basis or on a class-of-case basis, will not be possible; that is the change to the earlier proposal. That will go a significant way, I believe, to alleviating the burden on the higher courts. Once the upper tribunal has established its ability to deal efficiently and effectively with fresh claims judicial reviews, the House may be persuaded that it should be able to deal with other cases, too, but that is a matter for another day.