129. During the course of our inquiry, it became apparent that not enough time has been taken to assess the impact of the proposals implemented by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, in particular relating to the system of statutory review. It is difficult to see how the effectiveness of the system of statutory review could have been properly considered, when it had only been in operation for nine months.

130. 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. Those problems identified tended to revolve around delays in the system and the ability of applicants to string out asylum claims and abuse the appeals system simply to remain in the country for as long as possible. It is difficult to see how the Bill will resolve these matters.

131. None of the evidence provided to us suggested that the abolition of a tier of appeal would hasten the process of removals where appropriate. Indeed, it was argued that the establishment of the new single tier tribunal might cause further delays, since the new 'immigration judges' would have to ensure that their decision was right first time in the absence of an adequate appeal mechanism.

132. 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.

133. In evidence to us, the Minister made two important concessions in relation to the jurisdiction of the House of Lords on immigration and asylum appeals; and the ouster of judicial review of executive actions.[99] We trust that these will be implemented in the Bill.

134. None of the proposals appears to address key longstanding concerns about the asylum and immigration system, arising from poor initial Home Office decision making and the failure to removed failed appellants.