When we announced this inquiry in February 2003, one of our main aims was to consider the effects of the 2002 Act and whether it had produced efficiency savings and improved the quality of the appeal process. We also intended to examine the efficiency and fairness of the system of asylum and immigration appeals. We visited India and Turkey to address issues arising out of family visitor appeals and other matters relating to immigration appeals.

Proposals for the appeals system have been constantly updated since the inquiry was announced. We have taken account of the new developments contained in the latest Bill, and the major concerns which have been raised about them.

The new proposals do too little to address the failings at the initial decision making level and the low level of Home Office representation at initial appeals, which must add to the delays in the system. We think it unlikely that the abolition of a tier of appeal can by itself increase "end to end" speed and achieve improvements in the quality of judicial decisions. We doubt whether many of the proposals contained in the new Bill are necessary to deal with the current issues relating to asylum and immigration appeals.

We accept that there is a need for mechanisms to ensure that appellants are unable to abuse the appeals system and to string out asylum claims simply in order to remain in the country. It is not clear how serious this problem is, or whether abolishing the second tier of appeals will prevent abuse. We support efforts to remove poor quality, unqualified, immigration advisors from the system and prevent them from advertising for custom. Nonetheless, we believe that the current reforms have been drafted mainly to deal with the issue of asylum, without properly addressing concerns relating to immigration appeals which are equally affected by them. There has not been sufficient time to monitor the effects of the reforms contained in the 2002 Act and the impact that they might have had on cost and delay.

We are concerned about the measures intended to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts and the fact that under the proposed Bill the President of the new Tribunal will have sole responsibility for allowing references to the Court of Appeal.

• We recommend that judicial oversight of the new tribunal is maintained as a matter of principle; and we do not believe that measures to restrict such oversight should be introduced at the same time as the appeal system is itself compressed.
• The right of appeal to the House of Lords should be retained.
• We recommend that the removal of a formal tier of appeal should not be undertaken until it can be shown that there has been a significant improvement in initial decision making and that the rise in the number of successful first tier appeals has been substantially reversed.
• We welcome further restrictions and penalties being imposed on unqualified legal advisors.
• The adversarial process the system operates most fairly when both sides are represented competently. It is wrong in principle and inefficient in practice to deny Legal Help to those who need it in asylum and immigration cases.
• The proposals appear to have been drafted in order to deal with concerns relating to asylum appeals, without proper consideration of the system as a whole. The position of those who are making immigration applications, such as for family visits, may be prejudiced by many of the proposed changes. It is unclear what the impact will be on immigration appeals, which appear to have been overlooked.
• We are deeply concerned at the current disparity in success rates between oral appeals and appeals which have been decided only on the basis of the papers in relation to family visitors. This indicates that there may be substantial injustice done to those who decide not to opt for an oral appeal.