Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his final comments about entry clearance officers. I was mindful on Monday that, by and large, they do a very good job and they work very hard, and the noble Lord is right to credit them with being able to do work within the limits of their own resources. It is important in developing the strategy to make sure that they have the ability, training and support that they will need for the new role, as much as we want to ensure that for the existing role. It is absolutely right, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has indicated, that we are and will be giving more training opportunities, and we are looking at the number of entry clearance officers developing their skills appropriately. In part that is done through better support through the entry clearance management programme, through the existing structures and by looking at ways in which we can ensure that this happens appropriately. I indicated on Monday that I plan to write at the end of this week, I trust, to the Committee, to set out in more detail all the different ways in which we are seeking to support officers and the system. I did not go into all the details on Monday, partly because I thought it better to set that out in writing definitively. I hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill noble Lords will discuss with me their views on what we are doing and that we can reassure them that we are seeking to deal with the matter effectively. I was sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, withdrew his amendment as I had discussed the matter with DCA officials in order to give him a more definitive answer. None the less I shall write to the noble Earl, because we discussed the subject on Monday, setting out the relationship between the Constitutional Reform Act and this Bill. I refer to the position of the Lord Chancellor as seen from a DCA perspective. I hope that will allay the noble Earl’s concerns on that issue or, if not, that he will return to it. I return to Amendment No. 17. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to say that we are looking to make changes. At the moment there is a full right of appeal for someone who comes as a family visitor, regardless of the immigration status of the family member. The Bill would allow us to require the family members to be settled. Of course, that does not prevent people coming in as visitors. We are not saying that people cannot come and visit. We are simply saying that we are looking to those who are settled here for the category of full right of appeal that goes alongside family visitors. However, we are not suggesting that people should not come to this country to visit relatives. That may not satisfy the noble Lord but I want to put on record that we are not suggesting that people should not come and visit; we are simply trying to define that in a very particular way. I learnt about the primary purpose rule to ensure that I understood precisely what happened in that regard. It is absolutely not our intention to bring it back. We repealed it for good reasons—which I am sure the noble Lord supported—which I entirely support. If I may put it in a slightly more vernacular way, we are not ““love”” judges in any way, shape or form. We seek to consider the purpose for which a person comes here. I take the obvious example of a fiancé or fiancée who intends to get married. That person will tell us when they plan to get married. It is a straightforward matter of asking someone why they are coming here and what is the purpose of their visit. However, the measure is not intended to do any of the things that the primary purpose rule did. I say to the noble Lord that I shall look again to make sure that we have this exactly right as I am utterly in agreement with him in not wishing to see that measure reinstated.