I am happy to do that. I believe it would be helpful. One could say that I am giving in graciously. This is not the position that we started with at the beginning of the passage of the Bill. It is the consequence of the debate both in Committee and in the other place, and the discussions that we have had. I can assure the House that I have given Opposition and Cross-Bench peers access to advice from officials in a very open way, because the policy goal that we are trying to obtain is to cut some of the delays that we have discussed. There is a consensus across the spectrum that that should be done, from those who want to see fair administration and justice for asylum seekers through to those who do not want any, if I may put it that way. Because the fresh claims category is the most significant class, although not the majority, I can support the compromise that has been proposed, and at the same time guarantee access to the Court of Appeal on a reasonable basis.
The test would allow judges to refuse permission to cases where there was no important point of principle, as I said. The write-round with examples that the hon. Gentleman has asked for is a helpful suggestion, because it will show hon. Members in this place and in the other place our intent.
The Government amendments represent the discussions that we have had, and I hope they are sufficient to address Members' concerns about which judicial reviews should transfer, and when. Although I am disappointed that we have not been able to go further, I believe this is a sensible way forward.
Judicial review applications represent the biggest significant class of case not just in immigration hearings, but in the higher courts, I am advised. Our constituents will not understand why 4,600-plus can be made and, in layperson's terms, clog up the higher courts, and that 85 per cent. of those can end up being refused, when access to a judicial review application can be made in the upper tribunal and heard by an immigration judge with the relevant expertise. There is a common-sense case for the measure, and it provides the guarantee of access to justice that hon. Members on the Government and Opposition Benches have sought, so I ask the House to support the Government motion.
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Phil Woolas
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
496 c211 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:52:56 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577723
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577723
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577723