Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

First, I apologise for slightly derailing the Committee and concentrating on issues that arose in the first debate. I do not want to repeat the points that I made during that debate; I simply reiterate that Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 would exclude international students from the scheme set out in the Bill and would deprive applicants for leave to remain or variation of leave of an opportunity to appeal against refusal from inside the UK. As I said, that approach would ensure that unsuccessful applicants for leave would be able to stay under the same terms until they had exhausted their appeals. I should like the Minister to confirm a point that she did not address in her response to the first question and perhaps I may repeat it now—that is, that the terms under which students stay will be on the same basis as those when they have leave pending the outcome of their appeal. In other words, the in-country right of appeal would include the right to study, the right to work and the right to healthcare, pending the outcome of the appeal. I have already set out why I think that the scheme introduced by the Bill is damaging to students. I remind the Committee that it is enormously valuable potentially to prevent the situation whereby students who apply for leave to remain and are wrongly refused are unable to complete courses, attend graduation ceremonies or examinations, move from one course to another or finish writing up their PhDs. I very much appreciate the support for that point made by other noble Lords. I do not wish to dwell on the argument that the UK’s reputation as a study destination may be adversely affected by perceptions that the UK is becoming less welcoming. However, I very much support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on that basis and I echo them. I am delighted that the Minister indicated her willingness to consider a more comprehensive solution. These amendments refer only to students. A more comprehensive solution would be a considerable step forward and would ensure that all categories of applicant enjoyed a one-stop in-country appeal. I hope that that will also allow for the continuation of leave pending appeal. Again, perhaps the Minister can clarify that. International students will obviously need to wait to see the terms in which the amendment is brought forward, but it sounds as though they may well be protected from the problems that we and others have anticipated. I look forward to seeing the text of the amendment from the Minister and I hope that the Committee will permit me to return to these issues if any outstanding matters are not addressed in her reply.