Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I hope that my hon. Friend will manage to catch the Speaker’s eye because he can cite a pertinent and personal example from his constituency that should be brought to the Minister’s attention. The Government’s track record is far from perfect, hence the problems that we are encountering. Let me return to the point about engineering made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Some 39 per cent. of postgraduate research students who are here are international. There are especially high proportions of such students in science, engineering and technology subjects. As the European Commission tells us—goodness knows why I believe the European Commission on this occasion, but I think I probably do—Europe is 700,000 scientists short of meeting what was originally the Lisbon goal of making Europe into a competitive and dynamic set of knowledge-driven economies. The Prime Minister himself launched an initiative in 1999 to attract an extra 50,000 international students to higher education and another 25,000 to further education by 2004. I understand that the Government plan to renew that initiative, but at the same time they are sending out conflicting messages through the Bill. The UK attracts 13 per cent. of all international students, with the US attracting 31 per cent. However, we are losing market share. As I said, according to the OECD, the UK lost 3 per cent. of its market share between 1998 and 2002. That was the fastest decline of any OECD country. I admit that the US also lost market share after tightening up on visas following 9/11. It suffered a 2 per cent. drop in 2002–03, but it has learned its lesson and eased up on its visa restrictions. The UK could learn a lesson from the Americans on this matter. Amendment No. 6 would delete clause 4 in its entirety. Depending on the Minister’s response to the debate, I might be forced to press the amendment to a Division. If that happens, I hope that Members of other Opposition parties—and, indeed, some Labour Members—will join me in the Lobby. The amendment is an attempt to address the heart of our concerns about the Bill. The removal of rights of appeal is opposed on principle and on practical grounds by such a wide range of organisations that I wish to focus the Minister’s mind clearly on the problems. The Minister has argued that when the new points system on which the Government have been consulting is introduced, it will represent a new and better system. However, the details have not even been finalised yet, let alone road tested and proven to be effective. In Committee, the Minister repeatedly asked us to trust him. He said that he was confident that the new points system would improve initial decision making. He implied that if we just wait and see, we shall understand that the Government are correct to predict, as they appear to do, that the right of appeal will be rendered unnecessary by improvements to the immigration system. The Minister also said that clause 4 was unlikely to commence immediately. I have read carefully what the Minister said in Committee about amendments to clause 4. His words on the timing of the abolition of appeal were not exactly reassuring. He said:"““I cannot say absolutely that clause 4 will not be introduced until after the points system. To be helpful to the Committee—I say this on a personal level, so do not put me up against a wall and hold me to this—I think that it is very unlikely that clause 4 will be implemented before, at the very least, the transition period between the absolute points system and the introduction of elements of the system . . . Do not shoot me should some of clause 4 be implemented before the points system is introduced, but in all likelihood it may not.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 20 October 2005; c. 116.]" That was as clear as mud. Quite frankly, on the basis of that performance, I would quite like to put the Minister up against a wall and shoot him, because that was probably one of the most inarticulate utterances that we heard from him in Committee.