Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, I also rise to support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. Many noble Lords, from all sides of the House, have expressed concern about the planned abolition of the right of appeal for international students who are refused visas, arguing that the right of appeal is an important safeguard. Numerous examples have been given of poor-quality decision-making under the current system. We know that, last year, 33 per cent of students were initially refused visas. Of those who appealed, about one in four was successful. I was alarmed to hear about the case of a student refused a visa because the entry clearance officer did not believe it credible that if the student wanted to improve his English, Northern Ireland would be his destination of choice. The Minister has argued that mistakes under the current system will no longer be made under the points-based system which will replace it. Although the Command Paper published last week is light on that detail, I am prepared to accept that there will be substantial improvements in the way decisions are made. However, as Universities UK and others have pointed out, the system will not be 100 per cent objective. That is why it is so important to ensure that the administrative review scheme promised by the Government really provides an adequate means of redress where mistakes are made. It cannot be right, for example, that the administrative review should consider only factual errors. Since there will remain an element of subjectivity in the process, can the Minister reassure me that that review will be able to overturn faulty judgments? Although the Minister has said that mistakes of the kind that I have described would not be made under the new system, what happens when there is human error? After all, the judgment in the case of the student who wanted to study in Northern Ireland would not have been supported by the current Immigration Rules, and the same personnel will be making decisions under the new system. So what guarantee is there that personal prejudice will not creep in to influence the apparently objective allocation of points? After all, the Command Paper has given us no clear idea about how points will be allocated. Another point that has caused concern is the question of who will have the right to ask for a visa refusal to be reviewed. The Minister told the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on Report that the administrative review will be available to ““anyone who is refused””. Is that consistent with the statement on page 12 of the Command Paper that administrative review will support the points based system ““where appropriate””? I want to know that anyone who feels they have been unfairly refused a visa will be able to have that decision reviewed, if they so wish. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case? I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and others, that the person with final responsibility for the review should not be the person whose original decision is being questioned, or indeed their immediate manager. An official at least one step removed from the original decision should be involved. It is disappointing that the Government have insisted on moving to abolish the right—