Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 probe the Government’s intention on the future role of the independent monitor. We know that the Government intend to expand the role of the monitor, and that is welcome. Fiona Lindsley, who has only just stepped down, made the point in her last report that she did not have either the time or the resources to do a thorough job. Yet it is clear from our discussions in earlier sittings and this afternoon just how important the role is. If the Government are to get their way and abolish appeals in entry clearance cases as proposed in the Bill, the monitor will become even more important because, as other noble Lords have said, inevitably the volume and scope of the decisions he or she is considering will grow substantially. The amendments in this group go further than proposing that the monitor should have more time and resources. They suggest that the monitor should have some power to review individual decisions or to make recommendations regarding them to the Secretary of State. I believe that what lies at the heart of these amendments is a response to the palpable frustration that the reports of former independent monitors seem to have had so little appreciable impact on the quality of decision-making. Report after report has identified the same problem. Here I echo the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in saying that I would like my noble friend at the Dispatch Box to tell us what response has been made to the report of the most recent independent monitor, published last February and enumerating fundamental and widespread problems with the decision-making system. There is another way in which these amendments might be interpreted. In my view, the right course of action is to retain the right of appeal in entry clearance cases, but these amendments also offer an opportunity to debate whether some mechanism other than that of appeals could secure the same safeguards for individual applicants who have been failed by the system. If the Government are determined to abolish appeals, might there be another mechanism which would still allow for the reconsideration of individual cases by an independent body? I think that the debate is worth pursuing because the likelihood is that if the Government were to be successful in abolishing appeals, leaving no satisfactory means by which to address improper decisions, it is likely that judicial review will be sought. That would be expensive, time-consuming and, I suggest, very likely to bring the Government’s legislation into disrepute. Since that would be the likely outcome if no satisfactory means of challenging a decision is available, would not the Government be well advised to consider whether it would be appropriate to bring forward a mechanism by which some kind of independent adjudication of appropriate cases can be made? The Minister has offered to look at whether a formal administrative review could perform this role. Such a formal review could be very helpful and may reduce reliance on the appeal mechanism. But as I have already indicated, entry clearance officers and their managers should not be the final arbiters in decisions that they themselves have taken. Therefore I continue to feel that a final level of independent arbitration should be available where the review does not resolve disputes. Amendment No. 23 would allow the sponsor of an applicant to make representations in the case of a refusal. I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who said that this would be a ““second best”” solution compared with retaining appeals, but as indicated in the amendment, it is important that universities are given the opportunity to make representations on behalf of students who are refused visas. That should be a feature of the review scheme we are discussing. But again, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I feel that this should be additional to, rather than instead of, the retention of an appeals system. If none of the schemes proposed in this group of amendments finds favour, can the Minister tell us whether there is not some other mechanism that might be palatable to the Government? For example, I am reminded of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator that was established under the Higher Education Act 2004, legislation that my noble friend at the Dispatch Box and I know well. That office could act as a backstop for cases where the internal complaints procedure within the universities has been exhausted—it has proved invaluable in such cases. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the monitor will have a real role in safeguarding the quality of entry clearance decisions, but I hope that she will go further and give the Committee some hope that the Government are not opposed to the independent scrutiny of individual decisions taken by entry clearance officers.