1. On 28 February 2003, we announced that we would be holding an inquiry into the immigration and asylum appeals process.

2. We have received written submissions from a large number of witnesses, both before the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill on how the system was working at that time and also once the Bill had been introduced on the proposals contained within the Bill. We took oral evidence at four meetings, from the witnesses listed on page 44.

3. The aim of the inquiry was:

• To consider the effects of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and whether it has produced any significant efficiency savings and/or improved the quality of the appeals process;
• To examine the proposed structural changes to immigration and asylum appeals, including the extent to which the efficiency of the Immigration Appellate Authority can be improved without any corresponding improvement in the quality of Home Office decision-making;
• To consider the costs and benefits of compressing the appellate structure into a single tier and to examine the implications of excluding further appeals to the higher appellate courts and of excluding judicial review as proposed by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill;
• To study the extent to which "non-suspensive" (i.e. out of country) appeals provide an adequate right of appeal and to study the quality of legal advice and representation which is provided to those claiming asylum or seeking to challenge an immigration decision; and
• To examine the system of immigration appeals and in particular family visitor appeals. In that context, the Committee undertook a visit to India and Turkey.

4. Originally, we had intended to examine the costs to public funds of supporting new appeals structures, such as the Asylum Support Adjudicators, and of supporting the extension of legal aid. This matter was overtaken in part by the Government's subsequent proposals relating to appeal structures in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill. We reported specifically on Legal Aid and asylum in our Fourth Report last Session.[1]

5. We are most grateful to all our witnesses. We travelled to India and Turkey in the course of the inquiry. We thank all those who assisted us there. We also wish to thank our specialist advisers, Chris Randall, a solicitor at Bates, Wells and Braithwaites and Dr Robert Thomas, a law lecturer at the University of Manchester.