§ 27. Mr. VazTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to clear the backlog of cases before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. [391]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)The new Government are committed in their manifesto to ensuring that decisions in these cases are swift and fair. I agree with my hon. Friend that the backlog is unacceptably large. As a result, about 40 more part-time adjudicators will be recruited over the summer. Our plans to abolish the primary purpose rule should have a substantial effect.
§ Mr. VazI congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. I am certain that he will do an excellent job. As he has said, he has inherited an intolerable situation from the previous Government. My hon. Friend must be aware that the delay in obtaining IAT dates causes enormous distress and hardship to the thousands of applicants who are awaiting their hearing dates, especially those who have made pre-entry applications and are waiting abroad. Will my hon. Friend please consider the representations made by various organisations that efforts should be made to ease the backlog? The appointment of 371 more adjudicators will help, but perhaps my hon. Friend will consider the possibility of a fast-track system for cases that involve children.
§ Mr. HoonI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes. I repeat: the Government are determined to reduce the level of the backlog. We recognise that it is imperative that we deal with it before dealing with new cases that are coming through the system. I have already had a preliminary meeting with Home Office colleagues to discuss the matter. My hon. Friend will know that a new listing system has been piloted successfully at a new hearing centre at Lambeth, and consideration is being given to replicating that success elsewhere in the country.
§ Mr. MalinsMay I suggest that the Minister consider increasing the time limit within which an appeal may be lodged following an adjudicator's decision in an asylum case from the current five days to, say, 14 days? The problem with the five-day limit is that enormous numbers of appeals being lodged are not well thought out. Appeals are being lodged in haste as a protective measure. Those appeals clog up the system, increasing the time within which individual appeals could be heard. Increasing the time limit might help.
§ Mr. HoonI am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. We shall consider urgently all proposals to deal with the backlog. The hon. Gentleman should know that, of the 33,000 appeals outstanding, 22,000 relate to asylum cases. It is clear that there is an urgent need to deal with this problem.
§ Mr. GerrardMy hon. Friend has mentioned possible changes in policy, such as abolishing primary purpose. Such changes will be welcome and will make a great difference to the number of appeals being heard. Will my hon. Friend confirm that when those changes occur his Department will liaise with the Home Office so that appeals, the number of which will be reduced, are dealt with speedily? That would be another method of reducing the backlog.
§ Mr. HoonI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. As he suggested, it is primarily a matter for the Home Office. My hon. Friend will be aware that about 10 per cent. of the backlog of cases are concerned with primary purpose. We anticipate that abolition of the primary purpose rule will speedily sort out many of the problems.