Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I do not want to belabour Amendment No. 2, which has already been dealt with very thoroughly, except to point out that we got over the problem that at one time there were colleges that were operating mainly by way of enabling people claiming to be students to gain entrance to the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, told noble Lords when we were considering the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill in 2004, the Government dealt with that problem as part of the managed migration review by creating a register of approved providers, which he said would be operational by the end of 2004. The Minister will no doubt confirm that any person entering the UK as a student has to be enrolled at an institution which is listed in the register of education and training providers and that she is satisfied that effective arrangements are in place to ensure that the institutions themselves are effectively monitoring that their overseas students are not abusing the system, as outlined in the Home Office’s Selective Admission: Making Migration Work for Britain, which was published in July last year. That Home Office document refers to the register of learning providers, which is a different title from the one used in the rules. It is a small point. They are no doubt referring to the same register and I suggest that the wording might be harmonised. As regards Amendments Nos. 6, 31 and 33, we wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, even though those amendments have a more limited effect than Amendment No. 2 and would be seen as a second best—or, rather, a third best because we really want the Minister to agree to alter Clause 1. This would avoid all the discussions on different categories that we are having now. We consider that even more than the sponsors of workers and the self-employed, educational institutions that are on this register should be trusted to ensure that students leave at the end of their course of study or, where they apply for an extension, that it is with the support of the sponsoring institution. There is a list of requirements that have to be satisfied by a student applying for an extension under the rules. Rule 60 contains eight different provisions that have to be satisfied—for example, the student has to have performed satisfactorily both in attendance and exams. If he does not comply with any of the eight conditions that are listed there, he is not entitled to appeal anyway. If the Minister can satisfy the Committee that there are other requirements that ought to be complied with in granting an extension, she could produce a text and the Committee could consider whether they ought to be written into the rules. We agree with amendments Nos. 7, 32 and 35 and I draw attention to the fact that at Second Reading the Minister reiterated the undertaking originally given by Mr McNulty that former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will have a separate right of appeal against refusal or curtailment of leave. At Second Reading the Minister undertook to raise this matter in Committee, so it is disappointing that there is nothing in the Minister’s name on the Marshalled List for us to look at today—unless, of course, she is going to stand up and accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, or say how she intends to fulfil her promise after we have left this clause. It might be rather difficult to come back to it at a later stage in the Bill. Any child who originally applied for asylum should have an in-country appeal against refusal of variation whatever the length or nature of the leave he was given on entry. That right should extend to any person who had not reached the age of 18 on the date of the original application. It should be maintained whether or not the person reaches the age of 18 before the application for variation and irrespective of the purpose for which the variation is sought. Going back to Amendment No. 3, I do not understand why the Government want to deprive spouses and civil partners of a right of appeal against refusal of indefinite leave to remain under Rule 288 of the rules, which says that ILR may be granted if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conditions in Rule 287 are satisfied. Any person who does not comply with those conditions is already disqualified from appealing under Section 88 of the 2002 Act. So here we are talking about someone who has been living with his or her partner for two years, under the same roof, in accommodation that they own or occupy exclusively, and who has not had recourse to public funds over that period. If circumstances other than those need to be incorporated in the rules, let us do so, but almost every refusal against an application for an extension in circumstances where someone has complied with every condition in the rules will be on Article 8 grounds. It is difficult to imagine a set of facts where the parties are fully in compliance with Rule 287 and yet the Secretary of State could certify that the case was clearly unfounded. Therefore, extinguishing the existing right of appeal of this category of applicants is not likely materially to reduce the number of appeals but merely to ensure that all of them are based on Article 8, with added potential for embarrassment for the Government if any of those cases go to Strasbourg. What we are saying about spouses and civil partners seeking ILR also applies to spouses and partners who are bereaved during the probationary period of two years, children or adopted children asking leave to remain with a parent or relative, and parents, grandparents and other dependent relatives. In all those cases, as the Minister can well imagine, Article 8 considerations are likely to arise and the Government’s draconian proposals will therefore not achieve a material reduction in the number of appeals.