---

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I will try to address the point briefly but, I hope, effectively. The position that exists now will exist in the future. If you have received clearance, having gone through the process when you applied, and are for some reason refused entry at the port of entry, you have a full right of appeal. The person who determines whether you have changed your status is you, not the entry clearance officer. If on arrival you say, ““Well, I was coming in as a student, but I’ve decided that I want to work instead,”” you—not the entry clearance officer—have changed your story. It would not be for the entry clearance officer to make any judgment, so we are not going back to the bad old days. However, suppose you change your story and say, ““I was coming in as a student, I have gone through the process as a student and have a place at a university, but I do not want to do that any more—I want to work in industry””. In that case, you have no right of appeal, because you have to go back to the beginning and start the process again. That is right and proper, otherwise someone might go for the position that they thought that they could get in with, but on the doorstep say, ““Actually, I’m not doing that any more””. We would have no way of judging that. Of course, their rights in terms of human rights, asylum or discrimination always stand—that is always the backdrop to what I say. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I should say that there are not two levels. There is one level. We want to trust that the system is properly implemented on the ground. People who arrive with the right visa should of course be let in. If they choose to say, ““Actually, I’ve changed my mind and want to do this instead””, they do not have a right of appeal on that basis and have to start at the beginning. If for some reason—I cannot think of one—an entry clearance officer says, ““We’ve received information about you and I am not going to let you in””, the person has a full right of appeal if they have the right visa for the thing that they said that they were coming to do. The amendment would do only what we think the Bill already does. As we think that Parliamentary Counsel has got it right, we will not accept the amendment, although I think that we are probably all in the same place on the issue. The same position will apply in future. I hope that that is as clear as it can be.