Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 tabled in my name, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend for her willingness to listen and to consult, and for the careful way in which she has sought to engage with stakeholders to find ways of ensuring that bona fide international students are not deterred from coming to the UK as a result of the changes in wider immigration legislation. The amendment is similar to one that I tabled on Report. My intention in returning to the issue is not to force the matter to a vote—I should like to make that clear at the outset—but rather to provide an opportunity for the House to probe the Government one final time on the shape of the proposed administrative review. Given the planned abolition of the right of appeals in entry clearance cases, this becomes a matter of central importance for me and for Universities UK, in which I declare an interest as chief executive. The Government have recognised that even under the new points-based system mistakes may well occur, so they have reiterated their commitment to introduce an administrative review scheme to ensure that, where an entry clearance decision is disputed, there is an opportunity for applicants to seek to have the decision reconsidered. Last week, the Government published their Command Paper Making Migration Work for Britain. It sets out in more detail what the points-based immigration system will look like. There is no doubt in my mind that the points-based system is likely to improve the quality of initial decision making. Some of the changes that the new system will introduce are very welcome. The emphasis on objective decision making, institution-specific visas and efforts to produce a quality-controlled register of approved education providers are all welcome. But some significant questions still need to be answered. Crucial, from my point of view, is that the design of the promised administrative review is still unclear. Indeed, I am worried that the wording of the relevant section—paragraphs 52 to 54—will not provide the wide scope I had hoped for, but might limit the review to a consideration only of the facts. That is a very important issue, because there is a general recognition that not all subjectivity can be removed from the process. As the immigration Minister, Tony McNulty, said in another place:"““100 per cent objectivity is a fool’s errand . . . It is not about simply ticking boxes and adding points up, although that is a large part of the measure””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 20/10/05; col. 116.]" I have shared with the Minister and other Members of the House, for whose support I am enormously grateful, an outline of the scheme that I would like to see. In my view, the administrative review should require entry clearance officers to provide detailed written reasons for the refusal of an application; should allow all unsuccessful applicants to request a review; should be overseen, preferably by the regional tier of UK visas staff; should enable sponsoring institutions to make representations on behalf of applicants; should be completed within a reasonable timescale; and should allow for the clarification of existing evidence. In addition, it is important that the entry clearance monitor should have oversight of the operation of the scheme. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on these points. Perhaps it would be useful if I ask four specific questions. Paragraph 53 of the Command Paper states that administrative review will be available if,"““an applicant believes a factual error has been made in the consideration of his application””." If the Minister accepts, as I believe she does, that there will be some element of subjectivity in the process, can she reassure me that the administrative review will be able to consider judgments and points of law, as well as facts? The Command Paper states, on page 12, that the points-based system will be supported by administrative review, where appropriate. Can the Minister confirm that, as she said to me on Report, administrative review will be available to anyone who is refused a visa under the new system? Will she undertake to consult fully on the design of the administrative review and to publish the final scheme so that all parties know what to expect? Finally, many in this House are uneasy about the fact that, under the system as we currently understand it, entry clearance officers and their immediate managers will be responsible for reviewing their own decisions. If the Minister accepts that there will be cases where subjective judgments are involved in reaching a decision, does she agree with me that there should be an opportunity to involve a third party—someone within the immigration system but not involved in that initial decision—in the review? Will the Minister consider, for example, how the regional tier of UK visas staff might be involved in the administrative review? I have shared these questions with my noble friend the Minister in advance of this debate, because this really is the last opportunity for us to secure reassurance, on the Floor of this House, about the operation of the new system during the passage of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend and, indeed, all Members of this House will understand that I have pressed this point simply because I want the system to be as fair and effective as possible. I know that that is a shared goal and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.