Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

I, too, pay tribute to Lord Kingsland for his work in the other place. We are seeing in tonight's debates the results of much of that work. I welcome the Government's change of heart on many aspects of this part of the Bill. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said about the changes that have been announced. We are concerned about a new tribunal that is only just operational and with no track record taking on the bulk of all judicial review cases to do with immigration and asylum. Can the Minister ensure that we get a report on the upper tribunal's first year of operation, say, before any new cases are transferred to it? There are still concerns about how it is going to operate, and a there will need to be a learning curve. I accept, with the caveats that have been given, that the only immigration and asylum cases that will be dealt with are fresh claims. I hope that the Minister can assure us that we will not, at some later stage, without necessarily having recourse to this House, see the scope of that decision widened. We all want to ensure that where there is a case that can be answered, people have recourse to the courts to seek justice. The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) referred to Liberty's point—many of these cases involve human rights issues—and it is a fundamental principle of British law that people have access to the courts when their human rights are threatened. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, a very small minority of the 900-odd fresh claims that go to judicial review will then proceed further. How does the Minister envisage that in the minority of fresh claims cases that may be dealt with by the upper tribunal, where the person feels that they have not had their case dealt with by a senior judge, there will be proper recourse to the Court of Appeal so that the decision can be appealed? I am grateful to him for his assurance that he will explain how the safeguards in the new provisions will operate. There will not be a problem in the bulk of cases. We already know—this is why the judiciary want to see a change—that most applications for judicial review in fresh claim cases are dismissed. However, we need an assurance that the 3 or 4 per cent. of cases each year in which there is a genuine issue at stake will be dealt with properly. The hon. Member for Ashford mentioned the point that the chairman of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association had made about the 85 per cent. figure. Certainly my experience is that when there is a solid case against a decision—usually when the UK Border Agency has not examined the information in front of it properly—UKBA's case collapses when judicial review is applied for. I do not want there to be a lack of proper recourse for someone affected to raise their points when UKBA has not dealt with information properly. Given the assurances that we have received from the Minister and the promise of further information, we shall not press our amendments. We believe that the Government have listened to the debates both here and in the upper place. Given the safeguards that we have asked for, we feel that we can live with the Government amendments and new clause 8.