Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I do not want to steal the thunder from Amendment No. 7, but I want to come back on Amendment No. 2 to which my noble friend Lord Avebury and I have added our names. I listened carefully during Second Reading when the matter was discussed and thought that a powerful case had been made by those involved with our educational institutions across the country. We have no difficulty because Clause 1 takes away the rights that have been enjoyed in particular by students. We agreed to put our name to the amendments for a clear reason: that it gives all students studying at an approved institution an in-country right of appeal against a refusal to vary leave. Clause 1 abolishes most existing appeals against decisions to vary leave. The amendment provides a new right of appeal on the face of primary legislation. It meets the Government’s five-year strategy on immigration where they clearly state the need for sponsorship. Where sponsorship is available, I see no reason why it cannot work with the general strategy in the five-year plan which rightly places a greater emphasis on the role of sponsors. If work to identify responsible sponsors is successful, and a recognised educational institution wants a student to stay and that student wants to stay, there should be an opportunity to challenge a refusal before it takes effect and the student is forced to leave the UK. The Minister should consider that point in responding to the amendment.