Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for standing up so quickly. Before I go into detail, I want to reiterate what I said in response to the earlier group. I want to consider the principle of extending the ability to appeal in-country in a much broader way. That will be the basis of the discussions that I intend to have with colleagues in the Home Office. I know that noble Lords would prefer that option although for very good reasons they have concentrated on particular groups. I am extremely grateful for those contributions because noble Lords have indicated some of the issues and concerns, with which, inevitably, I would not be as familiar as noble Lords who have studied them. This is an incredibly important contribution to the deliberations that I will have. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that my personal view is that to extend for one group over another is a difficulty when one is looking to see whether one can extend more fully. Therefore, I am not accepting the amendments on the basis that the way in which I want to go forward in my discussions with colleagues is to look at an extension that would cover all the groups that noble Lords have mentioned, not one above the other, for reasons that should be obvious. I will spend a little time talking about the groups that noble Lords have mentioned, and I begin with students. It is always a pleasure to rejoin the higher education debate. It is something that I miss in your Lordships’ House. It is a particular pleasure to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who was a joy to work with on the Higher Education Bill, although he gave me quite a hard time. I completely accept the point that noble Lords made that this is not just about the higher education lobby; it is far wider than that, although I am pleased to see that noble Lords who were very effective on higher education will once again be working together to ensure that the Government take seriously their particular questions. If I were the higher education Minister, I would want to challenge a few of the assertions that have been made. I hope that the noble Lords who made them will not mind if I say that there are a number of reasons why the figures, and the way in which higher education is being enriched, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said, by overseas students is changing, not least by competition from elsewhere and because, in some countries, home-grown universities are attracting their own students. I only make the point—without going into details because I am not an expert on it—that there is no need to over-make the case. There are interesting reasons why we need to consider carefully how we make sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, that we keep our market share, in terms of students, recognising that we may need to look further afield as the market changes. I would not want to lose that. When we come to consider the other issues concerning students, we need to look carefully at the points-based system that we are proposing to introduce more generally for students. I look forward to the representations from Universities UK, in the shape of my noble friend Lady Warwick and others, and to looking at what we might do to make sure that the system works effectively. I accept the point about word of mouth in various communities. I also believe that we have a huge responsibility across the higher education sector to talk up Britain and to make sure that students recognise the advantages they get. We are enriched and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, you make friends for life. Friendship, in a broader sense, is also about our relationships with other countries. I endorse all those sentiments, as I do our desire to make sure that students who come here enjoy the experience and enrich our universities and our lives. Some of the proposals made in the Budget by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enhance opportunities, particularly in shortage areas, enabling students to stay for 12 months and work, are very important. My noble friend Lady Warwick spoke about students’ passports being endorsed when they leave the UK. There is no intention of doing that. Assuming that people are compliant and do not break the law in any way, they will not have their passports endorsed if they leave the country voluntarily within the context of this Bill—I am not talking about what we might change in the Bill. My noble friend asked specifically about continuing leave during an appeal. Under the Bill, appeals will be made from outside the UK unless they are on asylum or human rights issues. Therefore, the position would be different. I am keen to listen to proposals on that when we put this in the context of the one-stop appeals system and of my discussions with colleagues in the Home Office about how this might change. I would like to do that as soon as possible. We already have a date in the diary to do that this week, and I will make sure that the Committee is kept fully informed. In introducing the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke about Amendment No. 59. It is not in my brief, but I understand that it was wrongly grouped. That was half the problem during the Commons stage. The ILPA briefing that I have seen, which the noble Baroness may have been quoting, partly reflects that. Just for the record, the purpose of that was to provide that a person who had leave as a refugee or leave of a type designated under Clause 1(4)(fb)—for example, humanitarian protection—would have continuing leave if he was refused variation of leave during any period in which an appeal could be brought and in which any appeal was pending. I hope that clears the matter up, but the noble Baroness will let me know if it does not. I accept that we must make sure that we have an attractive, thriving market so that overseas students come to Britain and study and, where appropriate, stay and enrich our society. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke about the NHS and about doctors and nurses. He indicated that I probably could not give him the kind of reply that would be as adequate as it might be, but I will write to him. The Government have been very clear that to do anything other than make sure that countries in need of home-grown doctors and nurses get that opportunity is not the way forward. We have an incredible track record in training and supporting doctors and nurses in this country and we want to continue to get that balance right. I will, of course, ask my colleagues in the Department of Health whether there is anything further I could add that would be sensible. As to the question raised by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Dholakia, in regard to civil partners and spouses, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quite rightly indicated that many, if not all, of them would appeal under Article 8—the right to family life—in any event. That is what I would expect them to do. On that basis, they would remain here while their appeal was being dealt with. But I say that within the indication I have already given of looking more broadly at what we can do to address these issues.