Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 19:"Page 3, line 32, at end insert—" ““(   )   A person who may not appeal under section 82(1) shall be entitled to request that a refusal of an application for entry clearance is reviewed by the Independent Monitor or his appointee.”””” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 19, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23. The overall purpose of those amendments is to examine and strengthen the role of the new full-time independent monitor. Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 are tabled in order to ask the Government to set out clearly how they expect the new system of the full-time post of Independent Monitor for Entry Clearance Refusals without the Right of Appeal to work? What will be the scope of any review? What will be the limitations placed on the remit of the monitor’s work? Last year, we were told that there were about 280,000 refusals of entry clearance without a right of appeal. After this Bill is passed, it is obvious that that number can only increase dramatically. When the most recent monitor, Fiona Lindsley, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, she stated that in most cases the visa files do not give enough information to know whether someone should have got a visa. There is really enough information to know only whether the decision was well made. While recognising that the post will now be full time—naturally, I welcome that—we should also note that the volume of work is therefore likely to increase significantly. It is vital that we are given a clear indication of how the new monitor will be able to operate effectively. A problem with the system is that it more or less does what it says on the tin. A monitor can do just that—monitor and report. But he or she cannot take up or make decisions on individual cases. An applicant who has been wrongly refused without the right of appeal has no redress even if the monitor identifies clear maladministration. I have tabled these amendments to explore deficiency in the system. Amendments Nos. 19 and 21 would introduce a formal independent review of non-appealable entry clearance decisions on grounds of maladministration. They ask the Government to clarify whether and in what circumstances the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration can entertain complaints about maladministration in the refusal of entry clearance appeals. Is it correct that if there is no detriment to a UK-based person, no complaint can be entertained and that there is that restriction? Do the Government intend that it should be accepted that in all circumstances a sponsor has suffered detriment and can complain about the handling of an entry clearance decision. The amendment highlights the fact that those applying for entry clearance have no equivalent of the ombudsman to whom to take complaints of maladministration. Amendment No. 20 simply probes the Government’s previously expressed intention to have a review system operated by immigration judges at entry clearance posts with the intention that such a system would be fully independent. How will this operate? When will it be introduced? Is there a guarantee that the right of appeal would be abolished only once the entry clearance monitor was satisfied that the review system was robust? I am not saying at this stage that such a system of review can obviate the need for an appeal system. We debated that earlier this week. I certainly do not intend to re-run my arguments. It is important that we know how the monitor will work if the Government decide to remain obdurate in the face of representations made by both Houses and outside organisations which have expertise in those matters. Of course, I appreciate that we will return to these matters today and at Report, no doubt, in further negotiations. My Amendment No. 23 adds new subsection (6) to Section 6 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. My subsection tries to make it clear that the UK-based sponsor of a person who is refused entry clearance should be able to make a complaint and that whether they can do so or not should not depend on their nationality. This amendment is not to suggest that an ombudsman could be any substitute for the appeals system. I am looking very much at second best; that is, what happens if there is to be no appeal. It serves to remind us of the inability of a monitor or others effectively to provide a form of redress and—as no doubt my honourable and right honourable friends in another place would say—the considerable burdens that are likely to be placed on them if people have no regular channels through which to raise their complaints, except through Members of Parliament. It also provides an opportunity to understand that the loss of those appeal rights will affect UK-based sponsors as well as people overseas. It is a reminder that posts overseas are more difficult to oversee than UK-based officials: geography, distance and the general feeling of being out of sight and out of mind can create their own problems of accountability and oversight, however well meaning those involved are and however careful Ministers may be to try to put in place what is hoped to be a robust system. I beg to move.