The purpose of this inquiry was to investigate the effects of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and examine the efficiency and fairness of the system of asylum and immigration appeals. However, since it was set-up, proposals for the appeals system have been updated and the Government has introduced the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill. The Committee has thus evaluated these new developments. They are concerned that the current reforms have been drafted to deal with the issue of asylum rather than addressing the problems of immigration appeals, and they do not see how abolishing the second tier of appeals will prevent abuse. They are also concerned about measures to restrict the jurisdiction of courts. As for the 2002 Act, there has been too little time to monitor the impact.

The purpose of this inquiry was to investigate the effects of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and examine the efficiency and fairness of the system of asylum and immigration appeals. However, since it was set-up, proposals for the appeals system have been updated and the Government has introduced the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill. The Committee has thus evaluated these new developments. They are concerned that the current reforms have been drafted to deal with the issue of asylum rather than addressing the problems of immigration appeals, and they do not see how abolishing the second tier of appeals will prevent abuse. They are also concerned about measures to restrict the jurisdiction of courts. As for the 2002 Act, there has been too little time to monitor the impact.

Government reply to the second report on asylum and immigration appeals, see Vol. 1, HCP 211-I (ISBN 0215015657). Also Government response published June 2004, Cm.6236 (ISBN 0101623623)

The new system of control orders established by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (2005, c.2, ISBN 0105402052) will extend the role of Special Advocates (lawyers appointed to represent appellants within the closed hearing system before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) who have security clearance to examine material kept secret from the appellant and his/her ordinary lawyers). In light of this, the Committees report examines the operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) over the last eight years and the use of Special Advocates, in order to identify lessons to be learned to ensure the adequacy of procedural safeguards in the future system. Issues considered include: the background to SIAC and the passing of the 2005 Act; the operation of SIAC and its impact on the legal and human rights of appellants; the Special Advocate system as it operated under SIAC and its extension into the High Court. The Committee concludes that there are a number of defects with the Special Advocate system as it operated through SIAC, and a number of improvements can be made to improve its use under the 2005 Act, including the establishment of an Office of the Special Advocates to ensure provision of appropriate expert support and facilities, and that appellants are offered, where practical, a choice of Special Advocate from a security-cleared pool.

This volume examines the law and system of control which govern immigration and asylum in the UK. It begins with the historical and legal context, explains who is subject to immigration control, and describes the legal and administrative structure of the system.

The Committee's report examines the Government's proposed changes to the system of legal aid payments in asylum appeal cases in England and Wales, under the draft Community Legal Service (Asylum and Immigration) Regulations 2005 (ISBN 0110723015). Issues discussed include: the introduction of a system of retrospective funding, the merits test, and the implications of the new system for solicitors offering legal aid services. Conclusions reached include that the merits test will have to be set at a lower level if the system of retrospective funding is introduced, to ensure that appellants and suppliers are not to be disadvantaged, since the legal aid system should not be used to restrict legitimate appeals.