The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mrs.
Janet
Dean
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Borrow,
Mr. David S.
(South Ribble)
(Lab)
Browne,
Mr. Jeremy
(Taunton)
(LD)
Byrne,
Mr. Liam
(Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and
Nationality)
Campbell,
Mr. Alan
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Clappison,
Mr. James
(Hertsmere)
(Con)
Crausby,
Mr. David
(Bolton, North-East)
(Lab)
Curry,
Mr. David
(Skipton and Ripon)
(Con)
Donohoe,
Mr. Brian H.
(Central Ayrshire)
(Lab)
Dorries,
Mrs. Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Green,
Damian
(Ashford)
(Con)
Kennedy,
Jane
(Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab)
Michael,
Alun
(Cardiff, South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
Reed,
Mr. Jamie
(Copeland)
(Lab)
Rowen,
Paul
(Rochdale)
(LD)
Simon,
Mr. Siôn
(Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
Trickett,
Jon
(Hemsworth)
(Lab)
Hannah
Weston, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 12
March
2007
[Mrs.
Janet Dean
in the
Chair]
Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2007
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr.
Liam Byrne):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees)
Order 2007.
It is a
great pleasure, Mrs. Dean, both to be under your
chairmanship and to be able to speak about this extremely important
order.
The order is
part of a series of reforms to the immigration system that we are
pushing through. It follows my right hon. Friend the Home
Secretarys announcement last July of a wide-ranging and radical
shake-up of the immigration system. Indeed, it is the largest shake-up
ever.
About two weeks
ago, the Government were proud to announce that in 2006 we hit the
tipping point target, which means that we removed more failed asylum
seekers than the number of unfounded claims. However, the Home
Secretary and I have made it clear that that is not sufficient of
itself.
The
immigration system needs greater ambitions. We need to tackle illegal
immigration wherever it is found. That is why, at the beginning of the
year, I set out five measures that we would drive through over the
first quarter of the year. First, a cross-government strategy will
bring together public services across the United Kingdom to tackle
illegal immigration and to block British benefits to those who are here
illegally. Secondly, new powers will be available under the UK Borders
Bill. Thirdly, new technology is available to identify people and to
help count people in and out of the country. Fourthly, we have stronger
international alliances that will allow us to share information
mutually on those about whom we are concerned. Finally, there are new
resources.
Last year,
we set out our long-term goal of doubling the amount of money that we
spend on enforcement and removal. I am pleased to be able to say that
this afternoon, we are taking the first step towards that
goal.
Todays
debate is technical, in that we seek permission to lay a section 51
order before the House under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality
Act 2006. That will allow us set out a range of activities for which we
can provide charges. In effect, it brings together a number of powers
that are scattered throughout legislationin the British
Nationality Act 1981; the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and the Asylum and
Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. The
powers have a complex structure, but we would like to trigger one
consolidated power.
There is more to come. Over the
weeks that follow, we will seek further powers. In some instances, we
want to impose over-cost charges for certain types of immigration
services; others, of course, will remain charged at cost. That is
important because at present, we do not charge what the market will
bear. We do not price intelligently, and that is something that should
surely be changed.
We
are of course engaged with the Opposition parties in a much wider
debate about the funding of the immigration service. The Conservative
party has laid out some ideas. For example, it suggests cancelling the
identity cards project in order to provide new resources. That, of
course, will not work, because there is no pot to be redistributed. We
think that ours is a much more sensible approach, as it will raise
money from those who benefit from coming here. I commend the order to
the
Committee.
4.33
pm
Damian
Green (Ashford) (Con): I echo the Ministers words
of pleasure and delight, Mrs. Dean, in serving under your
chairmanship.
As the
Minister said, the order is a technical precursor to an important
debate on the level of charging that the Government propose to insist
on for the various forms of visa and permit. Nevertheless, some of his
assertions should not go unchallenged.
The first was
his claim that the Government have hit the tipping point. I note that
he then redefined the tipping point for the umpteenth time, leaving out
the crucial word anticipated when he said that the
number that the Government have managed to deport was more than the
number of unfounded claims. He will be as aware, as I am, that it is
the anticipated number of unfounded claims. That is extremely
convenient for Ministers; they can anticipate any number and then claim
that they have hit their target. That is ideal for the Home
Office.
The second
point made by the Minister that should not go unchallenged was that the
ID card system would not cost any money, and thus that there would be
no pot of money to be saved by scrapping it. That is one of the most
extraordinary assertions that I have ever heard. He will be well aware
that his own Department expects the system to cost some £6
billion, and that outsiders who have cast an independent eye on it cost
it at anything up to £20 billion. He will also be aware that not
all of that will be spent on passports, visas and such
matters.
Nevertheless,
with those caveats, I agree that the Government are seeking a general
permission. We will no doubt have another debate shortly on the price
rises that the Government are planning. As the Minister is aware, we
have no objection in principle to charging fees for the various
instruments and permits included in this aspect of legislation, but I
hope that when we come to the substantive debate on the fee
risesthey are of the order of magnitude of seven times the
existing fee for some of the permitsthe Minister will let us in
on some of the real figures, because he has made it explicit today that
the extra money that he proposes to spend on enforcement will be funded
out of these rises. Therefore, it is important for the House to know
how much extra money the Government
propose to raise from the extra charges. There appeared to be a hint in
a debate in another place that the figure was in the order of
£100 million. I should be grateful if the Minister either
confirmed or denied that
figure.
Have the
Government made any estimate of the sensitivity of demand? The Minister
will be aware that even if Britain remains a desirable destination for
people from various countries, there will come a point at which the
charges will either deter people or, much worse, encourage them to try
to get to this country illegally. I am sure that he will be sensitive
to this point, as he started by referring to the tipping point. If the
Government put up the charges for legal immigrants so much that they
encourage illegality, they will be shooting themselves in the foot. I
suspect that we will not address that issue today, but we should
certainly do so when we come to the substantive
debate.
A further
consequential issue that I put the Minister on notice that we ought to
address next time is the Governments estimates on the numbers.
Does he think that these steep price rises will reduce applications
and, more particularly, reduce applications from certain parts of the
world? Obviously, it will be easier for individuals from developed
countries to find the extra money that is required. It will be much
less easy for many applicants from, for example, the Indian
sub-continent. Have the Government calculated the detailed effects, as
well as the aggregate effects, on numbers of the charges that they are
proposing to push up so
much?
We have no
intrinsic objection to the charges, but they give rise to a number of
serious questions. I think that it is only two Committees in which we
will debate the measures, and I hope that, certainly in the second of
those, the Minister will address those
questions.
4.38
pm
Paul
Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): It is a pleasure to speak under
your chairmanship, Mrs. Dean. The Liberal Democrats have no
objection to what is being proposed today. The order considerably
simplifies the range of orders that already exist and that allow
charges to be levied. However, like the hon. Member for Ashford, we
believe that the order needs to be discussed in the context of the
£100 million that has been cited andof the
Governments strategy, from which I think the £100
million came. In fact, this money may well go beyond the actual cost of
dealing with an application and deal with some of the wider aspects of
border policing. Although we have no objection to the principle of cost
recovery, we want to see the basis on which these stringent, in many
cases, increases are
founded.
As we heard
in another place, this country benefits hugely from the number of
students and post-doctorate researchers who come here and contribute to
our economic well-being. Although the Minister seeks to mitigate some
of the effects of the increases inthat respect, we shall need
to see the background information when the second order is laid. What
is the real basis on which the costs are arrived at? How do they vary
in the different orders? As has been said,
there might be some drop-off in demand once the fees are introduced, but
what will it be?
What
will the money be used for once it has been raised? The draft strategy
states that £100 million extra will be found, but it should not
all be recovered purely from fees. Most of the people who come into
this country legitimately will not need to be affected by some of the
enforcement activities in the order; it is unfair that a legitimate
visitor, who might be hereon a highly skilled migrant
programme, should face crippling increases. However, that is a debate
for another day, and we await the Ministers comments on our
points.
4.51
pm
Mr.
Byrne:
I think that I detected that Opposition Members do
not want the immigration system to be a soft touch, and I am glad of
that; indeed, that is precisely why we propose to strengthen the system
with extra resources. The changes that we have proposed today and those
that we shall propose over the weeks to come should provide up to
£100 million extra for immigration policing, extra detention
space and systems that allow us to share data and intelligence on those
who are in this country illegally, so that public servicesand,
indeed, businessescan block those who are here illegally from
receiving the benefits that this country offers.
Important markers have been
laid down this afternoon as to the issues that we shall, I hope,
beable to explore next week. A particular issue is the
sensitivity of demand, and I was grateful for the responses from not
only vice-chancellors but the CBI, which said last
week:
Employers
support Government crackdowns on rogue employers who employ illegal
workers and undercut legitimate firms. They also back better help for
those who use the immigration
system.
That is a wise
remark, which reflects the fact that we have undertaken unprecedented
amounts of research into the demand elasticity of some of the
immigration services on offer. I shall ensure that that research is put
in the Library, and I know that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice
and Howden (David Davis), who is a colleague of the hon. Member for
Ashford, will take a close interest in it because he was expensively
educated at a world-leading business school. I hope that he will look
at the research that shows that we have pitched the prices very well in
terms of international comparisons, and of the demand curves that we
discovered through our research.
In summary, the proposals are a
more sensible approach to strengthening investment in our immigration
system. If we cancelled the ID cards project, we would of course wipe
out the costs, but we would also wipe out all the revenues. There is
therefore no pot of gold to be had from that course of action, and the
current proposals provide a much more sensible course. I look forward
to the debates that we shall have on them in the weeks and months to
come.
Question put
and agreed to.
Committee rose at Sixteen
minutes to Five
oclock.