Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

The noble Baroness is never stupid; in fact, I am always wary when she gets up at the end of a debate, because there is always some question waiting to get me. I think that I know the answer to this one. I was trying to describe someone who picks up a random sample and visits different posts as well. Two things happen. One is that, on a random sample, you can see trends that might occur across all the entry clearance officers’ work that may indicate issues that need to be addressed. Decisions may work in a particular way—I am talking not about mistakes, but about the way in which the policy works on the ground—which will enable the monitor to be able to pinpoint issues that may be of great benefit, as things may have got better, as well as issues of concern. The second point is that, in visiting and getting information from individual posts, the monitor will be able to look at the sample of particular decisions, why they were made and the pathway that the entry clearance officer took to make that decision. That will identify in individual places any issues of concern about the way in which decisions are made. We do not have to wait for an appeal process; indeed, an appeal process might not give one that result, because not everyone appeals by any means. The monitor will be able to look at how the decision was made, and the criteria and process used, and to make specific recommendations and comments on that. That addresses the noble Baroness’s point; it is exactly how you get to the point of recognising, in an individual place or as a trend internationally, that you have an issue that needs to be sorted out.