My Lords, is the Minister asking the BIA to consider any old evidence that the applicant may submit at his own discretion, which he is for some reason pretending to be an error or omission? If the Minister says that it is not the purpose of the BIA to be punitive for applicants who patch up submissions that are incorrect, that means that it will be able to exercise discretion between cases where somebody submits a piece of evidence along the lines of our suggestion and those where somebody is simply trying to find a lever to reopen the case as a whole. I do not agree with the Minister that it would be difficult to make this distinction.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and to the most reverend Primate for the support that they have given the amendment. The most reverend Primate has emphasised that errors and misunderstandings inevitably occur—that is the case in any large system. Our experience—as his is—is that this occurs constantly in the immigration and asylum system.
I have no doubt that the points-based system will be clearer and that errors are going to be rare, but that does not mean that they will not occur. As I understand the Minister, the person will be able to complete all the questions online and—assuming all the information that he has given is correct and that he has not mis-keyed and typed an ““I”” where he meant a ““7””—will then get a response from the system which is either favourable or not. In a sense, he is able to test the arithmetic of the application but not to verify that the documents to be submitted with the application—the noble Lord gave as an example a degree certificate—will satisfy the requirements. It is those cases—where there might be an error on the certificate from the university that he submits, for example—that we are anxious about, but we are not going to get any further with this matter this afternoon.
I express some gratitude to the Minister for at least saying—as I had originally thought—that if a person submits an incorrect application that is considered within time and the notice of refusal is served on the applicant, and if it turns out that refusal was based on some error or misunderstanding on his part, he will still be able to submit a fresh application within the 28-day grace period after his existing leave to remain has expired. That is not what the extra-statutory concession allows, but having the Minister’s assurance in Hansard will help to ensure that the final wording in the Immigration Rules satisfies what we had originally intended. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Children]:
UK Borders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on UK Borders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
695 c999 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:14:50 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419281
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419281
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_419281