Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 12:"Page 3, line 9, at end insert ““, or" (   )   following a course of study of more than six months’ duration at an institution on the approved register for which the person has been accepted”” The noble Baroness said: This amendment is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Avebury. I have also added my name in support of Amendment No. 14. We now, after three hours, leap from Clause 1 to Clause 4, but our hearts are still very much concentrating on how one should have an appeals system and whether appeals should be abolished in this primary legislation. In Clause 1 we were looking at the appeals system as it applies to people who are already here legally. We are now looking at the appeals system as it applies to people who hope to come here, who make apply for a visa. My Amendment No. 12 would preserve a right of appeal against refusal of entry clearance to a person who has been accepted on a course of study lasting more than six months at an institution that is on the approved register. I have concentrated on students yet again. I am not part of the higher education lobby but I am happy to reflect the views that the lobby has put to me, not because I always reflect its views but because it is right, which is always the best reason for tabling an amendment. Students will be adversely affected by the removal of appeal rights in Clause 4. Government figures have shown that 25 per cent of international student appeals against visa refusals are successful. Universities UK believes that the number of decisions reversed before reaching appeal is much higher—up to 90 per cent at some institutions. I have raised in debates on other matters the fact that problems may arise when temporary staff are sent to places such as Chennai to deal with log jams of applications. They simply do not have the expertise to be able to make appropriate initial decisions. I was impressed with the evidence given by Fiona Lindsley, the out-going Independent Monitor to the Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday, 13 December. I am grateful to our Opposition Whips Office, which was able to send a researcher to take a note for me, because I was not able to attend. Miss Lindsley pointed out that ECOs are not trained properly to conduct the 10-minute interview: they should identify the key issues before the interview, for example, and it is very hard to make a good quality decisions as the process stands. She recommended that there should be a formula to identify the reasons why a person might be unlikely to return home and to address those issues in the interview so that the applicant has an opportunity to defend himself. As she says, ECOs need a lot of confidence to do this and currently have only three weeks training. ECOs have no opportunity to get to know the appellant community. They live an expat lifestyle with six-week postings and do not have good training in local standards. Also, she says, ECOs do not record enough information in the file on the basis of their decisions. There is ample evidence that ECOs refuse visas for often highly subjective and sometimes entirely inappropriate reasons. Reasons mentioned in the Independent Monitor’s latest report and in evidence provided to Universities UK include that the ECO: does not believe that the student has applied to study an appropriate course; doubts that the student will complete the course or return to their home country; believes that the cost of the course is not commensurate with the benefits that the student will receive; believes that the cost of the course will impose an additional financial burden on the student’s family; or does not believe the course is appropriate for the student—because they could study the same course in their own country more cheaply, or because they have not studied a similar subject in their home country. Universities UK’s member institutions have supplied further anecdotal evidence, for example, of students being told that they do not have the financial resources to follow a course, even when, as in one case, the student has submitted evidence of a UK government-funded scholarship covering the full tuition fee plus maintenance costs. Why have the Government not considered, at the very least, delaying the removal of the right of appeal until there has been a demonstrable improvement in decisions made by entry clearance officers? That would not of course solve the underlying problem that would arise if we abolished the appeal system, but it would be better than nothing. The Minister in another place, Mr McNulty, said in Committee that it was unlikely that the provisions of Clause 4 would commence immediately following the passage of the Bill, but he gave no commitment on timing. I agree with Universities UK that it would be better if the Government returned with primary legislation at a later date to abolish appeals only when they can demonstrate that the quality of initial decision-making has been improved significantly by the introduction of a points-based system. The Government have argued that international students who are refused visas may simply reapply. We do not agree that that is a satisfactory alternative to the right of appeal. Immigration history is taken into account during the consideration of these applications, so an unjust refusal of a visa could have a permanently negative impact on an individual’s chance of successfully applying for other visas, whether for the UK or elsewhere. The UK should be doing all that it can to attract international students; we are at one with the Government on that—it has been proved by our debates this afternoon. The Government’s argument that if other countries do not offer the rights of appeal that they are abolishing here, there is no problem in our abolishing those rights of appeal, does not wash as an argument with me. If others choose to have a flawed system, that is their choice; we should not follow it. There is a danger that if one removes a student’s right of appeal when initial decisions are often flawed, the consequence is quite simply that the quality of those initial decisions will become even more flawed and arbitrary. If no appeal is permitted, there is a clear danger that the person making that decision will be less likely to think that it is a priority to get the decision right in the first place. I beg to move.