Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I should be happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me, and for the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) to do likewise. I listened carefully to his rather lengthy recitation of the difficulties affecting the Institute of St Anselm. I think that many of his complaints relate to clause 4, which deals with entry clearance, rather than to new clause 1 and amendment No. 3, but if there are continuing problems affecting the institute and I can help with them, I shall be more than happy to oblige. Nevertheless, I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s starting point, which is that the 19 cases that he mentioned prove that the Bill is not appropriate. I should have made a point at the beginning of my speech. Someone kindly alluded to it earlier, and I accept that it is a difficulty. The Bill must be seen not just in the context of the consultation paper on the points system—consultation ended only on 7 November—but, as I said in Committee, in the context of all that we are trying to do in regard to the entry clearance officer decision-making process. I said in Committee, and will say again, that I accept the charge that all ECO decision making throughout the entire world that takes place under the auspices of UKvisas could, broadly, be improved. I have committed myself to ensuring that those improvements are undertaken now, and will continue to do so. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) kindly read out probably the most turgid remarks that I made in Committee about the link between the commencement of the orders on appeal and the improvements in ECO decision making. I shall say more about that later.