Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 1:"Page 2, line 22, at end insert ““, or" (   )   entering for any other purpose prescribed by order for the purpose of this subsection”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, first I thank the Minister and her Bill team for our briefing meetings. They have been most helpful, as is reflected in the large number of agreements that we have been able to secure during the passage of the Bill. Perhaps she will convey our thanks to her team for their efforts. Amendment No. 1 is grouped with Amendment No. 2—in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, my noble friend Lord Avebury and me—as well as with Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. I turn first to Amendment No. 1. It is probably the most non-controversial amendment that we have had and the Minister should have little difficulty in accepting our proposal. Sections 88A, 90 and 91 of the 2002 Act restrict rights of appeal against a refusal of entry clearance in respect of some visitors and categories of cases specified in an order made by the Secretary of State. Clause 4 substitutes for these sections a provision to limit all appeals against refusal of clearance and entry to certain limited grounds—for example, human rights and race discrimination—with the exception of those in the listed categories. I welcome the fact that a right of appeal for family visitors and people wishing to join dependants in the United Kingdom is maintained. The purpose of our amendment is to give the Secretary of State a power to restore rights to further groups should he determine that to be necessary. The amendment does not force the Government to do anything. It provides a power so that if in the future the Government determine that certain groups need to retain the right of appeal despite the points system, the right can be restored. Under the clause, rights of appeal can be restored only to visitors and dependants. The amendment also probes the Government’s intention in refusing to retain for themselves a power to restore a wider range of appeal rights, given that in debate the Minister has made much of the flexibility afforded by secondary legislation. We doubt the power of secondary legislation if it retains no flexibility whatsoever. The Minister had proposed to take a power at large to restore appeal rights under what had been new Section 88(2)(b), which it was proposed would be used for unaccompanied children. Of that provision, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated:"““The Secretary of State is empowered to give rights of appeal to others by order subject to the affirmative procedure. We consider it appropriate that he should be empowered to do so, and that the exercise of the power should be subject to the affirmative procedure””." The Home Office memorandum making the case for a delegated power appears as Appendix 1 to the report. Thus there is no scope for the Minister to refuse the amendment on the basis that it would introduce in secondary legislation a wide-ranging power to restore appeal rights. It is difficult to square promises of efficiency in the decision-making process of entry clearance officers thanks to training, guidance and review with the fact that provision for all that is currently made in the Diplomatic Service procedure and yet that system does not work. Overall, the Government are not obliged to do anything. The amendment would simply provide a power if, in the future, the Government considered there to be a need to retain the right of appeal in certain cases. I resist the temptation at this point to talk about Amendment No. 2. I shall speak to it only after the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, has done so. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 deal with Clause 62, concerning the commencement of the Act. The purpose is to make the implementation of the abolition of appeals in entry clearance cases subject to affirmative procedures. Our amendments are designed to ensure that standards in decision-making have been raised by the time of commencement. These are non-controversial measures designed to assist the Home Secretary, who, I am sure, would welcome powers to ensure that the system is geared towards making such provisions as may be necessary for the operation of Clause 4. I beg to move.