§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 23 October (WA 14) on standard notifications of the removal of asylum seekers, what is the new wording of the form in question; and whether it makes clear that there is an opportunity for asylum seekers to ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision on human rights grounds. [HL4478]
§ Lord Bassam of BrightonThe phrase "Your above-named client has now exhausted all avenues of appeal following the Secretary of State's decision to refuse his/her asylum application" has been replaced with the phrase "Your client's asylum appeal has been finally determined".
The form does not mention the possibility of asking the Secretary of State to reconsider on human rights grounds. I refer the noble Lord to my Written Answer of 8 November (Official Report, col. WA 147).
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 23 October (WA 12), what steps will be taken by the Immigration and Nationality 8WA Department to inform asylum seekers and would-be immigrants appealing against decisions taken before 2 October of their entitlement to ask the Secretary of State to reconsider their cases in the light of human rights issues. [HL4428]
§ Lord Bassam of BrightonThe Immigration and Nationality Directorate informs people of their right of appeal when a decision is served but does not routinely inform asylum seekers and would-be immigrants appealing against decisions taken before 2 October of their entitlement to ask the Secretary of State to reconsider their cases in the light of human rights issues.
All such applicants are also informed how they can seek free professional advice and representation in connection with their appeal. I am confident that where there are human rights considerations which could make a material difference to the case, appellants will be advised accordingly. Unrepresented appellants who seek to argue that their case should be allowed on human rights grounds will be referred by the Home Office presenting officer or by the appellate authority to the precedent case of Pardeepan, which explains why they cannot do so. The precedent also explains that the human rights issue should be put to the Secretary of State for consideration and that if rejected there will be an opportunity to appeal on human rights grounds.
People appealing against decisions taken before 2 October do not have to wait until their appeal is determined or until any removal procedures are commenced before making a human rights claim. If they have an arguable case to make they should make it as soon as possible.