Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

The noble Lord anticipates me. I was going to say that the noble Lord himself made the point that, in a sense, singling out the Chinese community was to describe by example something that is a pertinent point across all of our minority ethnic communities. At Second Reading and in certain other debates, the noble Lord has made clear—I wholeheartedly support him—the contribution made by so many of our communities. I also pay tribute to the Chinese community for the educational achievements of its children which, from my memory as an education Minister, were outstanding. Inevitably, I suppose, that means that such young people will move on into different parts of our society and enrich those too. It is very important that we ensure that the ability of people to invest in our country—to bring their business acumen and their skills to this country—should continue. That is, in a sense, the whole basis of why we think that a points-based system may take us in a more objective direction. We shall come on to discuss that, but I shall be delighted to meet with the communities to discuss these issues in greater depth and to make sure that they are fully recognised. On behalf of her noble friend Lady Morris—who I fortunately met just before coming into the Committee and was able to have a brief conversation with her—the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised the important point of extending leave granted to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I did not say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, at Second Reading that I would put this on the face of the legislation, for reasons that I will come on to. I did say that I would make sure that it was very clear that we intended to do this. As I said to my noble friend Lady Turner, I, too, met with the Refugee Children’s Consortium last week. I do not know how to put this, but I will be as clear as I possibly can be: they will be designated under the order-making power in Clause 1(4)(fb). There is no question but that this category of children will be designated—full stop. The reason I cannot accept the amendment is because it is broader and refers to children who are part of families. That raises different issues and, as I am sure noble Lords will understand, puts the children in a slightly different place. The reason I do not want it on the face of the Bill is reflected in the point I made about Moses and the tablets and secondary legislation versus primary legislation. Particularly when one is dealing with children and young people, flexibility to ensure that we have got this right is essential. It will be carried out by the affirmative procedure. I have already indicated that in my experience as a Minister, and also in my view, the opportunity to look back and have the regulation-making power made by an affirmative regulation of both Houses is very important. It is something that I take very seriously because it is appropriate to ensure that we are able to respond to changing circumstances, as I have indicated. There is no question but that we will make sure that these children are covered in the way that I have said categorically, 100 per cent, will be done. As I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, outside the Committee, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that is what we will do. So that is the context in which I am very grateful for the contributions on this group of amendments. I think I have addressed most of the points that have been raised—I am sure noble Lords will indicate if I have not—and, on that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.