New
Clause
7
Border
and Immigration Inspectorate: Chief Inspector:
supplemental
‘(1) The
Secretary of State shall pay remuneration and allowances to the Chief
Inspector.
(2) The Secretary of
State—
(a) shall before
the beginning of each financial year specify a maximum sum which the
Chief Inspector may spend on functions for that
year,
(b) may permit that to be
exceeded for a specified purpose,
and
(c) shall defray the Chief
Inspector’s expenditure for each financial year subject to
paragraphs (a) and (b).
(3) The
Chief Inspector shall hold and vacate office in accordance with terms
of appointment (which may include provision about retirement,
resignation or dismissal).
(4)
The Chief Inspector may appoint
staff.
(5) A person who is
employed by or in any of the following may not be appointed as Chief
Inspector—
(a) a government
department,
(b) the Scottish
Administration,
(c) the
National Assembly for Wales,
and
(d) a department in
Northern Ireland.’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
8
Border
and Immigration Inspectorate:
Reports
‘(1) The Chief
Inspector shall report in writing to the Secretary of
State—
(a) once each
calendar year, in relation to the performance of the functions under
section [Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment] generally,
and
(b) at other times as
requested by the Secretary of State in relation to specified
matters.
(2) The Secretary of
State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any report received under
subsection (1).
(3) But a copy
may omit material if the Secretary of State thinks that its
publication—
(a) is
undesirable for reasons of national security,
or
(b) might jeopardise an
individual’s safety.’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Brought
up,
and
read the First and Second
time.
Amendment
proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 9, after
‘State’, insert ‘and the Information
Commissioner’.
Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
16
]
Davies,
David T.C.
(Monmouth)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
9
Border
and Immigration Inspectorate:
Plans
‘(1) The Chief
Inspector shall prepare plans describing the objectives and terms of
reference of proposed
inspections.
(2) Plans shall be
prepared—
(a) at
prescribed times and in respect of prescribed periods,
and
(b) at such other times,
and in respect of such other periods, as the Chief Inspector thinks
appropriate.
(3) A plan
must—
(a) be in the
prescribed form, and
(b)
contain the prescribed
information.
(4) In preparing a plan the Chief Inspector shall
consult—
(a) the
Secretary of State, and
(b)
prescribed persons.
(5) As soon
as is reasonably practicable after preparing a plan the Chief Inspector
shall send a copy
to—
(a) the Secretary of
State, and
(b) each prescribed
person.
(6) The Chief Inspector
and a prescribed person may by agreement disapply a
requirement—
(a) to
consult the person, or
(b) to
send a copy of a plan to the
person.
(7) Nothing in this
section prevents the Chief Inspector from doing anything not mentioned
in a plan.’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
10
Border
and Immigration Inspectorate: Relationship with other bodies:
general
‘(1) The Chief
Inspector shall cooperate with prescribed persons in so far as the
Chief Inspector thinks it consistent with the efficient and effective
performance of the functions under section [Border and Immigration
Inspectorate:
Establishment].
(2) The
Chief Inspector may act jointly with prescribed persons where the Chief
Inspector thinks it in the interests of the efficient and effective
performance of the functions under section [Border and Immigration
Inspectorate:
Establishment].
(3) The
Chief Inspector may assist a prescribed
person.
(4) The Chief Inspector
may delegate a specified aspect of the functions under section
[Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment] to a
prescribed person.’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New
Clause
11
Border
and Immigration Inspectorate: Relationship with other bodies:
non-interference notices
‘(1)
Subsection (2) applies if the Chief Inspector believes
that—
(a) a prescribed
person proposes to inspect any aspect of the work of the Border and
Immigration Agency, and
(b) the
inspection may impose an unreasonable burden on the
Agency.
(2) The Chief Inspector
may give the prescribed person a notice prohibiting a specified
inspection.
(3) The prescribed
person shall comply with the notice, unless the Secretary of State
cancels it on the grounds that the inspection would not impose an
unreasonable burden on the
Agency.
(4) A notice
must—
(a) be in the
prescribed form, and
(b)
contain the prescribed
information.
(5) The Secretary
of State may by order make provision
about—
(a) the timing of
notices;
(b) the publication of
notices;
(c) the revision or
withdrawal of notices.’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause
12
Border
and Immigration Inspectorate: Abolition of other
bodies
The following shall cease to
have effect—
(a) section
19E of the Race Relations Act 1976 (c. 74) (monitor of immigration
exception),
(b) section 34 of
the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41)
(Monitor of Accommodation
Centres),
(c) section 111 of
that Act (monitor of certification of claims as unfounded),
and
(d) section 142 of that Act
(Advisory Panel on Country
Information).’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause
13
Border
and Immigration Inspectorate: Prescribed
matters
‘(1) In sections
[Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Establishment] to
[Border and Immigration Inspectorate: Relationship with other
bodies: non-interference notices] “prescribed” means
prescribed by order of the Secretary of
State.
(2) An order under any
of those sections—
(a)
may make provision generally or only for specified
purposes,
(b) may make
different provision for different purposes,
and
(c) may include incidental
or transitional provision.
(3)
An order under any of those sections prescribing a person may
specify—
(a) one or more
persons, or
(b) a class of
person.
(4) An order under any
of those sections—
(a)
shall be made by statutory instrument,
and
(b) shall be subject to
annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of
Parliament.’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
5
pm
New
Clause
14
Senior
President of Tribunals
‘(1)
At the end of section 43(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement
Act 2007 (report by Senior President of Tribunals)
add—
“,
and
(e) cases coming before the
Asylum and Immigration
Tribunal.”
(2) In
exercising the function under section 43 of the Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007 the Senior President of Tribunals shall have
regard to—
(a) the
functions of the Chief Inspector of the Border and Immigration Agency,
and
(b) in particular, the
Secretary of State’s power to request the Chief Inspector to
report about specified matters.’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
New Clause
16
Fees
‘(1)
Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.)
Act 2004 (c. 19) (fees: power to set amount in excess of costs) is
amended as follows.
(2) In
subsection (2) after paragraph (d)
insert—
“(da) an
application or process in connection with sponsorship of persons
seeking leave to enter or remain in the United
Kingdom,”.
(3) After
that subsection
insert—
“(2A)
Regulations under section 51(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and
Nationality Act 2006 (fees), specifying the amount of a fee for a
claim, application, service, process or other matter in respect of
which an order has been made under section 51(1) or (2), may specify an
amount which reflects (in addition to any costs referable to the claim,
application, service, process or other matter) costs referable
to—
(a) any other claim,
application, service, process or matter in respect of which the
Secretary of State has made an order under section 51(1) or
(2),
(b) the determination of
applications for entry clearances (within the meaning given by section
33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)
(interpretation),
(c) the
determination of applications for transit visas under section 41 of the
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (transit
passengers), or
(d) the
determination of applications for certificates of entitlement to the
right of abode in the United Kingdom under section 10 of the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
(c. 41).”
(4)
After subsection (3)
insert—
“(3A) The
amount of a fee under section 1 of the Consular Fees Act 1980 in
respect of a matter specified in subsection (2A)(b) to (d) above may be
set so as to reflect costs referable to any claim, application,
service, process or other matter in respect of which the Secretary of
State has made an order under section 51(1) or (2) of the Immigration,
Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (c.
13).”’.—[Mr.
Byrne.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Byrne:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The purpose of
the new clause is to tidy up some of the powers to raise money to help
fund a robust and effective immigration system. I am afraid that I
cannot offer the Committee any constitutional imagination, as we
already have these powers. Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and
Nationality Act 2006 gives the IND the power to cost recover. Section
42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act
2004 gives the IND the power to over-cost charge. The clause allows us
to over-cost charge on the basis of the value of the service that we
provide to the migrant who applies for leave to enter.
There are currently a number of
limitations to the powers, however, and I should like to sketch out two
or three of them for the benefit of the Committee. First, we do not
have the power to charge for the introduction of sponsorship
arrangements. That is significant, because we are shortly to introduce
a points-based system, which means that sponsoring organisations,
whether businesses or colleges, will have a much more important role.
At the moment, there is no law that allows us to charge for such
arrangements, and they are expensive. They allow us to put in place an
enforcement and compliance network of people throughout the
country to ensure that sponsors behave appropriately. Given the
conversations that we had about illegal working and bogus colleges, it
is important that that network is robust and effective, so I would like
the power to charge for introducing sponsorship arrangements. The second limitation is a
vires issue, which affects UKvisas. UKvisas is allowed to charge for
its services under section 1 of the Consular Fees Act 1980. There are
constraints on what it can charge for, however. In effect, it can
charge only for administrative services that relate directly to
consular activity, rather than for any aspect of enforcement of an
effective immigration system that entails cost.
We want to do two or three
things over the next couple of years to render our immigration system
stronger. They include introducing sponsorship. The advent of the
points-based system means that a lot of decision making will move
abroad, so there will be no UK cost base against which we can charge.
That means that there will be a volume shift of business overseas. It
could be as high as 10 per cent., or it could be a little bit lower.
The risk is that the UK cost base will be spread over a smaller number
of applications. Given that many of the costs are fixed, one does not
have to be a Nobel prize-winning economist to understand that there is
therefore a risk of in-country fees going up.
The education and business
communities and indeed the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which
the hon. Member for Hertsmere is a member, have consistently said that
they want not divergence but convergence between out-of-country fees
and in-country fees. A week or two ago, the CBI
said:
“The
current system clearly needs to be reformed. If rises in visa fees are
necessary to fund these improvements, employers will see it as a price
worth paying”.
The Home
Affairs Committee
said:
“The
calculation of visa fees and in-country fees should be
aligned”
at least in
terms of what costs are taken into account and the impact assessment
that accompanies them. We want to ensure that there is a degree of
flexibility, so that there is not a great deal of divergence between
out-of-country and in-country
fees.
The new clause
allows us to do three things: it allows the IND to cross-subsidise
between in-country fee streams, it allows us to cross-subsidise between
out-of-country and in-country fees, and it allows us to over-cost
charge where necessary for new sponsorship arrangements. The fees to be
proposed for such over-cost charging will, of course, be subject to the
affirmative procedure, as they are today, and we will have to consult
on fees where we plan to recover over costs. Crucially, the new clause
will allow us to set fees at the market value and retain the
flexibility to protect key segments of the population, as we proposed
to do recently with students and
visitors.
It is not in
our interest, of course, to hike up fees to such an extent that people
do not want to come to this country anymore. That would be hugely
damaging for the British economy given that each year foreign students
pay about £5 billion in fees to our
universities
and foreign visitors bring about £13 billion into the economy. I
think that tourism is about the fourth or fifth biggest market sector
in the economy. The
proposal will not, I am afraid, provide the IND with carte blanche to
go crazy and put up fees as much as it would like.
That would damage the economy and the country, and I think that the
Treasury would have something to say about it. However, with new clause
16 we are seeking to acquire a degree of flexibility to help us render
the charging scheme fit for the
future.
Damian
Green:
The new clause is simply headed
“Fees.” It is a very short name for a very long
clause.
I would
describe the Minister’s performance just now as elegantly
cynical, which is part of a trend. The Government have found a
potential gold-mine about which nobody has complained too much, because
the proposal is for a stealth tax on foreigners, which is politically
more acceptable given the previous raft of stealth taxes that they have
imposed on the rest of us and given that they will use the money to
fund the activities of the
IND.
So far we have
not had any numbers. I shall be interested if the Minister will tell us
how much extra revenue the Department has calculated will result from
the flexibility that he is adding under this new clause. I dare say
that we will have the same debate on visa fees when that comes before
the Delegated Legislation Committee in the near future because the same
principle applies.
We
have no objection to the proposal in principle. The Minister’s
last point was a good one: clearly, it is not simply a question of what
the market will bear from individual applications or even classes of
application because—I assume—he is not proposing to
disaggregate it to such an extent that the Department will guess what
each individual visa will bear. Presumably, if Goldman Sachs wants to
bring in a bond trader, it would be in its economic interest to pay
millions for that visa, whereas even the most brilliant student at the
best university would not justify that kind of
payment.
As well as
figures, it would be interesting if the Minister would give us an
indication of the degree of flexibility that he is proposing and,
therefore, of who is likely to be funding the measure. As he said, the
new clause refers to sponsors and, therefore, to UK businesses,
academic institutions and, presumably, UK individuals. To put actual
figures in the new clause would be illuminating for the
Committee.
John
Hemming:
It is reasonable to have a certain amount of
flexibility and so the new clause has its rationale. There are some
strange situations regarding fees charged at the moment and there needs
to be some flexibility for
cross-subsidy.
Mr.
Byrne:
I am reminded that I should spend more time, rather
than less with the hon. Member for Ashford because I had not thought
about individual-specific charging regimes. That is an interesting idea
and I shall task my officials with working out a policy on it this
afternoon.
Mr.
Byrne:
I shall spend more time with the hon. Member for
Reigate if he would
like.
Mr.
Blunt:
I am grateful to the Minister, but what confidence
should we have in his judgment and foresight on that measure? Only last
night, he told Members in the Chamber of the House of Commons that he
was
“sure that the hon.
Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), who is representing the Liberal
Democrats on that Committee, will forensically interrogate our
proposals. On that basis, I commend the motion to the
House.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2007; Vol. 458,
c. 644.]
That was in response
to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who
in stentorian tones, to the whole of the main Chamber of the House of
Commons, said that
“it is
not proper for this House, which prides itself on its ability to
scrutinise when given the opportunity to do so, to allow to pass
without any comment whatsoever a Ways and Means resolution that allows
the Government, yet again, to ride roughshod over the House’s
ability to scrutinise its business
properly.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2007; Vol.
458, c. 643.]
The hon.
Gentleman will have heard the interesting intervention from the hon.
Member for Birmingham, Yardley, representing the Liberal Democrats
here, in which he said that it was reasonable to have flexibility. I
wonder whether the Minister would like to reconsider the terms in which
he proposed the Ways and Means resolution last
night.
Mr.
Byrne:
We have had to rely on members of the official
Opposition for the most forensic analysis of the proposals this
afternoon. The hon. Member for Ashford is right that further debates
are scheduled about the precise charges proposed for next year. I live
in hope that that forensic analysis is yet to
come.
The hon.
Gentleman made two important points, one about the degree of
flexibility and the second wanting me to estimate the kinds of moneys
that I might have in mind for the next financial year. We are putting
forward no proposals for individual-specific pricing, although that is
an interesting idea, which may warrant a bit more explanation. I am not
sure that we would quite have that latitude within the provisions of
new clause 16. More important, on the question of the amount of money
that might be raised, when we published our enforcement strategy a week
or two ago, I was optimistic that we might raise up to an
extra £100 million through the measures in the next
financial year. That is important because it means that we will be able
to fund extra detention space and immigration officers and to
strengthen our systems of immigration and of immigration policing.
There are of course volume risks, but those are conservative
assumptions. With that, I recommend the clause to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause read
a Second time, and added to the
Bill.
Ordered,
That
certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to
the proceedings of the Committee.—[Mr.
Byrne
.]
Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the
House.
Mr.
Byrne:
I take the opportunity before we conclude our
business to thank you, Mr. Illsley, and your co-Chairman,
Mr. Amess, for such courteous and efficient chairing of
business—so efficient that we have finished slightly earlier
than anticipated, despite the level of analysis and the depth of
discussion. I also thank the Clerks, the Hansard reporters, the
police and others who have been connected with the conduct of the
Committee. I think it has run extremely smoothly. In my Back-Bench
career, I served on something like six Bill Committees in a reasonably
short space of time, but this is by far and away the smoothest running
Committee that I have sat
on.
I was grateful too
for the exemplary organisation of the public evidence sittings. Like
many members of the Committee, I enjoyed the part that we played in the
constitutional innovations that the Leader of the House steered
through. I think that they were a valuable aspect of the scrutiny of
the Bill. I also thank the Whips for the way that they have helped us
stay on course. I would like to thank not only the Opposition
Front-Bench spokesmen but all members of the Committee for the helpful
and constructive way in which they have approached the debate. Finally,
I thank my officials, who have worked extremely hard, often very late
at night, over the past six months in order to put the Bill before the
Committee. The Bill has been dispatched after a good deal of careful
consideration. I thank the entire Committee, particularly the
co-Chairmen.
Damian
Green:
I echo the Minister’s words of thanks,
particularly to you, Mr. Illsley, and to your co-Chairman.
It has been a life-enhancing experience to be on a Committee chaired by
the two of you. Similarly, I particularly thank the Clerk of the
Committee for her hard work and guidance during the discussions and the
tabling of amendments and so on, and of course the Hansard
reporters and the police. The Minister talked about constitutional
innovations, but I think that thanking Whips in public is possibly a
constitutional innovation that I, as a Conservative, will have to go
away and think about before committing myself to. It might be
dangerous.
5.15
pm
I extend my
thanks and the thanks of those on the Opposition Benches to the
Ministers for such clear exposition as they have been able to give on
some of the amendments and clauses. As we all know, this has been not
only a well run Committee, as the Minister said, but a good-natured
one. I hope that, in its way, it has done some good work in moving the
Bill forward and scrutinising it so that we can return to it,
refreshed, at its later stages and seek to improve it even
more.
John
Hemming:
I echo those thanks, and I think that people will
thank me for my brevity if I sit down. I also thank the hon. Member for
Reigate for quoting last night’s
Hansard.
The
Chairman:
Before I put the Question, I thank hon. Members
for their kind comments about myself and my fellow Chairman. I echo the
Minister’s thanks to the police, the Hansard writers and
the attendants. I
add my thanks to the Scrutiny Unit and the witnesses who gave evidence
in front of the Committee. I congratulate Members for the good-humoured
way in which they have conducted themselves throughout the passage of
the Bill, particularly as we have been following something of an
experimental procedure
over the past few weeks. Last, but by all means most, thanks to the
Clerk for her hard work during the Committee
stage.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Bill, as
amended, to be
reported.
Committee
rose at sixteen minutes past Five
o’clock.
| 
