The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Sir
Nicholas
Winterton
Armstrong,
Hilary
(North-West Durham)
(Lab)
Bercow,
John
(Buckingham)
(Con)
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Browne,
Mr. Jeremy
(Taunton)
(LD)
Campbell,
Mr. Alan
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Dobbin,
Jim
(Heywood and Middleton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Dunne,
Mr. Philip
(Ludlow)
(Con)
Farron,
Tim
(Westmorland and Lonsdale)
(LD)
George,
Mr. Bruce
(Walsall, South)
(Lab)
Green,
Damian
(Ashford)
(Con)
Gwynne,
Andrew
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
Hepburn,
Mr. Stephen
(Jarrow)
(Lab)
Hillier,
Meg
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department)
Laxton,
Mr. Bob
(Derby, North)
(Lab)
Mullin,
Mr. Chris
(Sunderland, South)
(Lab)
Reed,
Mr. Jamie
(Copeland)
(Lab)
Vaizey,
Mr. Edward
(Wantage)
(Con)
Glen McKee, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 10
December
2007
[Sir
Nicholas Winterton
in the
Chair]
Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2007
4.30
pm
The
Chairman:
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title
of the instrument we are debating, I apologise to
members of the Committee for the rather cool temperature we are
experiencing. We seek to govern the country, but we cannot even run our
place of work at the Palace of Westminster. I hope that it is not part
of the policy on climate change; I shall not be terribly keen on that
policy if it is carried to this particular
extreme.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Meg
Hillier):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees)
(Amendment) Order
2007.
As ever, Sir
Nicholas, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. If only
your powers could run to warming up the climate, it would be even
better and more pleasurable for us
all.
The order is the
first part of a two-stage process to set fees for the
new points based system that the Government are introducing and which
has been led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and
Immigration. It will be implemented from February next year, starting
with the first tier. It sets out the new applications, processes and
services involved in setting fees. Subsequent regulations that will be
laid in early 2008 will set the fee levels. The order does not deal
with fees in any way, but simply sets the structures. It consolidates
into one process the Governments fee-setting powers for
immigration and nationality applications that are currently run under
two processes. There will be an opportunity for Parliament to consider
all the proposals in the round when the regulations specifying fee
levels are brought forward next
year.
At the end of
November, the statement of intent on the points based system was
published by my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders
and Immigration, and only last week my right hon. Friend the Home
Secretary published a statement of intent for the points based system
tier 1. The order is an important first step in the implementation of
the new system that will be introduced next year to manage the
migration of those coming to the United Kingdom to work, train and
study and who thus will be useful to the UK. It sets out the new
applications, processes and services for which we intend a fee to be
paid under the system, such as licences for sponsors and certificates
of sponsorship issued by
sponsors.
The
order will simplify and consolidate the Governments powers to
set fees in the future for immigration and nationality applications,
which currently cover a range of different fees. Fees for applications
made overseas are set through an Order in Council made under powers
in the Consular Fees Act 1980, while fees for applications made in the
UK are set in regulations laid before Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Prime
Minister announced recently the merger of UKVisas with the Border and
Immigration Agency, which will take place in 2008, so
next year is a big year for immigration reform in the UK. There will be
the same fee-setting process, which will offer Parliament the true
ability to look at all the proposals in the round. The order is fairly
simple, but I am sure that many issues will be raised in our debate. I
am looking forward to that discussion and to answering any questions
that hon. Members wish to
ask.
The
Chairman:
I remind hon. Members that the debate will last
for one and half hours.
[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member
for Wantage will note what I have said about the length of the
debatedespite his
interruption.
4.34
pm
Damian
Green (Ashford) (Con): I always hesitate to correct a
Chairman, and I hesitate particularly when you are Chairman, Sir
Nicholas, but my understanding is that the debate lasts for a maximum
of one and a half hours. I make that observation in the interests of
avoiding an outbreak of hypothermia among hon. Members on both sides of
the House.
I am
grateful for the Ministers explanation of the
Committees purpose. I should be entirely happy to risk
contracting hypothermia in order properly to scrutinise meaningful
legislation. However, as she has almost admitted, the measure is
slightly peculiar, in that at best it is half of what would make
interesting and worthwhile subject matter for debate. The half it omits
is that concerning fees. The key element of the overall proposal is how
much people will have to pay, and that is precisely what we are not
discussing.
I am not
sure whether it is in order to say so, but my gentle suggestion is that
it might have been better had the two halves of the proposalthe
one that we are examining now and the one that we shall consider early
next yearbeen brought together so as to allow debate on a
matter of crucial importance to private and public sector bodies, and
indeed to many arts institutions. I understand that my hon. Friend the
Member for Wantage might wish to address that latter topic, should he
catch your eye, Sir
Nicholas.
As the
Minister knows from previous debates on the points based system, and in
particular the new visa charging regime, the Opposition support the
principle of reasonable charges for people who want to enter the
country. It is fair that those who want to come and benefit from living
in the UK should be asked to pay for their paperwork to be processed
and to make a contribution to enforcement of the firm and fair
immigration system to which I am sure all hon. Members
aspirealthough sadly the Government have failed to deliver it
to us.
I have a
series of questions for the Minister. We know that the fee will be set
on a date early next year. Will she tell us when? More important, will
she outline the important details we shall need to discuss? For
example, will universities or large commercial institutions such as
banks, which might expect to
sponsor many thousands of immigrants a year under the terms of the
order, be dealt with in the same way as a small business such as a
restaurant, which might wish to recruit only one workerperhaps
for a number of years? Is the fee mechanism designed
to operate on a per person or a per institution basis? What mechanism
will exist to ensure a robust process that is still fair to all? In
particular, will the Minister address the issue of the public sector?
As all members of the Committee know, the national health service is
one of the main users of immigrant labour. What financial arrangements
will the NHS and individual health trusts have to make under the terms
of the
order?
Fulfilment of
the purpose of the order will, on current rates of immigration, require
a large bureaucracy, so will the Minister indicate what extra staff and
resources will be needed to deal with the fees and licence
applications? Is she confident that the Border and Immigration Agency
can deal with them all without unnecessary delays that would damage our
international reputation and our ability to compete for the best
workers in the global
marketplace?
Current
Government policy is that immigration fees should be a mechanism for
the Home Office to recover costs. Will the Minister
therefore indicate the expected broad level of recovery for the coming
years? How much money is expected to be recouped for the taxpayer? If
that money is to be spent on enforcement, what are the contingency
arrangements should something happen to the world economy or the
British economy, and there are fewer fees to collect than the Home
Office expects? It is difficult to do more than ask questions because
the order is entirely lacking in any important details.
In conclusion, although
Ministers like to talk tough on immigration, sadly that has not been
matched by any effective action. The question hanging
over the statutory instrument is what it will mean in practice. Until
Ministers address the details, it is impossible to assess whether the
measure will prove to be yet another disappointment in the
Governments trail across the landscape of their immigration
policy.
4.40
pm
Mr.
Bob Laxton (Derby, North) (Lab): As you can
see, Sir Nicholas, a couple of Back Benchers are
sweatingmy hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow has started to
strip off a little. When it comes to heat or cold, these things are all
in the mind. Think warm, and you will be warm, Sir Nicholas, think cold
and you will freeze.
The
Chairman:
Order. Does the hon. Gentleman doubt the
integrity of the Chairman? A ruling from the Chair is final and cannot
be questioned. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will
continue with his speech, but perhaps he would withdraw his belief that
the Chairman was wrong in his assessment of the temperature of the
room.
Mr.
Laxton:
Far be it for me to doubt your integrity, Sir
Nicholas, or to deny your assessment that this is a cold room. I am
simply pointing out that two individualsmy hon. Friend the
Member for Jarrow and meare sweating in the Committee Room.
These things are all in the mind.
I would like to raise one point
with the Minister. Paragraph 7.4 of the guidance notes
states:
Migrants
coming to work in the UK under the highly skilled Tier of the
Points-Based System (Tier One), or who are visiting the UK, will not
need a sponsor.
I can
understand that in so far as it comes under the points based
systemtier 1, highly skilled migrantsbut the
implication is that it will also include people who are visiting the UK
and want a visa for six months. There is currently an arrangement
whereby such people have to provide details to show they will not call
upon the health service and that the person they are visiting has
sufficient money available to ensure that if anything goes wrong they
will provide financial back-up. Under the new regulations, will that
provision no longer be
required?
4.44
pm
Tim
Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas, and while not wishing
to demur from your final ruling that it is cold in the room, perhaps
the hon. Member for Copeland would agree that compared to Cumbria, it
is positively tropical. Members of the Committee will be delighted to
hear that I intend to be brief and that I have no plans to force a
Division. However, I have some concerns and would appreciate
clarification. As has been noted, it is difficult to do anything other
than ask questions when we are presented with only half a
job.
I would be
grateful for more information about the level of fees that will be
charged in each of the categories specified in the order. It is
peculiar to be asked to agree on a fee without being told what the fees
might be and what the options are. I would also appreciate some
reassurance that forward projections of future fee levels will be
reasonable. Members may be aware that a table of fees for applications
for leave to remain was approved through a statutory instrument on 26
March this year. In that table of fees there were increases of up to 55
per cent. in some cases. We opposed that statutory instrument, and I
would like to be confident that such unreasonable increases will not
occur in relation to the applications and processes in front of us
today.
I am
interested in the Ministers predictions about the cost levels
in the next statutory instrument, and would find it helpful if she
could tell us how the revenue that is raised and generated by the fees
is intended to be used. I would be concerned if the instrument was
merely a revenue-raising exercise. I expect the fees to cover genuine
costs, so I would appreciate an account of the associated costs and the
overall revenue from charging fees.
I would also appreciate
information about the overall costs associated with operating the
charging system. Perversely, there will be some costs associated with
introducing a fee system. I am sure that they will be absorbed into the
overall fee, but it would be good to know what they are. Linked to
that, we would be interested to hear the Ministers account of
why these particular processes and applications have been chosen to
carry a fee when others, as yet, have not.
We have not heard the
Governments projections of the number of peoplemigrants
and sponsorswho are likely to be affected by the introduction
of fees.
That information would be helpful. Has the Minister assessed the likely
impact of the introduction of fees on British employers? Obviously,
fees at a certain level will have an impact of one kind, while those at
a different level will have an impact of another. That information
would also be much
appreciated.
We accept
the principle of charging fees for applications from migrants and their
sponsors, but we want to ensure that such fees are reasonable and
relatively stable over time, and that the revenue raised by fees is
invested in covering costs associated with the application
process.
4.47
pm
Mr.
Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): Thank you, Sir Nicholas,
for giving me the chance to speak on this important statutory
instrument, and I am grateful for the opportunity to sit on this
Committee and raise a number of issues. For the avoidance of doubt, let
me first say that I can barely feel my toes or my hands. It is
certainly chilly in this room, and I can say that with confidence
having been to the Arctic with the future leader of the Liberal
Democrats. I know, therefore, what genuine cold feels
like.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Ashford alluded to the point that I was going to
raise[Interruption.]
The
Chairman:
Order. The hon. Member for Sunderland,
South is an experienced parliamentarian and a past Minister and he
would not wish to interrupt the debate on this statutory instrument. If
he wishes to carry on a conversation, would he do so very
quietly?
Mr.
Vaizey:
Thank you for your assistance, Sir Nicholas. I
should have pointed out that I have some 70 minutes in which to banter
on my theme. As Led Zeppelin are not on stage until 9 oclock
tonight, I may well be able to use the full time available to
me
[Interruption.] Yes, some of us have strings that we
can pull.
I was at
university with the Minister and know her very well. We have notched up
some 18 years of friendship, and I know her to be a cultured and
civilised personshe certainly was at university, although
several years of politics may have knocked that out of
her.
Hilary
Armstrong (North-West Durham) (Lab): Is the hon. Gentleman
touting for a pair at the moment? I am not offering, but
asking.
Mr.
Vaizey:
Given my record with my own Whips Office, I think
that even if the most gentle of pairs presented themselves to me, my
Whips would not accept them.
To get back to the subject, my
hon. Friend alluded to the topic that I was going to
raise, which is the implications that this order may have for many of
our great cultural institutions. We have focused, albeit relatively
briefly, on the implications of fee levels for those people coming into
this country in order to seek work. We have alluded to a range of
different institutionsfrom those in the
international banking sector to small local restaurantsand the
impact that the level of fees could have on them. As mentioned, the
impact on, for example Goldman Sachs, could be very different from that
on a local restaurant in, for example my constituency of
Wantage.
The impact
that the order could have on the cultural and artistic sector is
significant. The National Campaign for the Arts, which is chaired by
the very fragrant Joan Bakewell, has been in existence for some 15
years and has recently made these changes to the visa rules one of its
major campaign themes. It has lobbied the Minister and the Government
assiduously on the issue to make a simple point based on simple
mathematics: an orchestra visiting this countryI was lucky
enough to recently see the Lithuanian national philharmonic orchestra,
which played at the Hexagon at Reading a couple of weeks
agobrings between 30 to 80 people with it. I can tell you, Sir
Nicholasalthough you do not need to be told this as you will
know instinctivelythat the 10 dates that the Lithuanian
national philharmonic orchestra played in its 13-day sojourn in our
beautiful country were sold out. Clearly, there is a huge appetite in
this country to see cultural players from different continents and
backgrounds who have different artistic interpretations come to this
country to perform. The new visa rules that the Minister is intent on
introducing will mean that the cost of bringing in such an orchestra
will rocket from £4,000 to £5,000, to £80,000 to
£90,000 in immigration
fees.
The gradual
squeeze of the cultural sector by the Government to fill the Olympics
black hole that they have created as a result of their appalling
inability to add up or even remember[Interruption]. I
will happily give way to the right hon. Member for North-West Durham in
a moment. The appalling black hole created by the Governments
inability even to remember that they were going to charge value added
tax for some of the Olympics means that money is extremely tight. The
National Campaign for the Arts and other organisations have pointed out
that many other enlightened countries have put together a package of
measures for cultural cross-fertilisation and have created a cultural
visa, for which individual arts organisations can apply to bring over a
specific cultural organisation, such as an orchestra, to play at an
event.
I have alluded
to the issues as clearly as I can. I cannot illuminate the Committee on
the immigration issues affecting tonights Led Zeppelin concert,
but that is perhaps an example of where they could probably pay the
immigration fees themselves. I am talking about orchestras, visiting
art exhibitions, and other elements of the subsidised arts that could
suffer significantly from the Ministers proposals. I ask my
former university colleague, the Minister, to mention that problem when
she
responds.
The
Chairman:
In the absence of any other Back-Bench speaker I
call the
Minister.
4.54
pm
Meg
Hillier:
The hon. Member for Ashford and
other hon. Members have asked a number of interesting questions, one of
which was why we are introducing the measure in two parts. The simple
answer is that we are
following parliamentary procedure. We must work within the legislative
framework that we have and first we must have the power to set the
fees. In early 2008 we will make the regulations using any additional
legislative powers necessary to set the fees. At that point, there will
be an appropriate opportunity for full parliamentary scrutiny on that
and on the proposals we are discussing.
The hon. Gentleman also asked
other questions, particularly about the different types and size of
employer and how we will ensure that the system is fair. He also talked
about the bureaucracy involved for the Border and Immigration Agency.
On financial arrangements, in respect of the national health service,
for example, we will be charging NHS trusts seeking to bring in
migrants under the points based system a licence fee. In addition, we
will charge a fee for a certificate of sponsorship for each migrant
being sponsored. We consulted the NHS and, indeedI will go on
to address the particular points made about the arts and culture
sectorwe consulted all sectors on this matter. I will mention
now some of the points made in relation to some of the people we have
consulted and how we handled the
consultation.
We began
a targeted stakeholder consultation from 23 October to 9 November 2006.
The consultation document was sent to more than 493 people and
stakeholder groups. We received 132 written responses from 92
educational establishments, 17 employers and 23 arts and entertainment
organisations. We received 31 responses after the official closing
date, but of course we took those on board as well. We held a number of
consultation events that were attended by 171 representatives from the
education, employment and arts and entertainment sectors. That gives a
flavour of the consultation and shows that we have been talking to
people about this matter for some time. Although we are considering the
order today, which is moving on the point based system, the fact of its
existence is not and should not be a surprise to anyone seeking to
sponsor someone or to any migrant who was previously thinking about
entering and needed to follow that
process.
The hon.
Gentleman asked how we would cope with the people who apply. I remind
him and other hon. Members that we currently have fee systems and we
manage with those. We are reducing 80 different routes into the country
to five with the points based system, so in many ways we are
simplifying things. More than 200 staff will be working on the
sponsorship system, which will deliver benefits from prevention of
abuse in the immigration system by ensuring that those entering the
country are here legally and
properly.
We are
focusing our resource, as I mentioned in my opening comments, on
ensuring that the right people can bring in migrants so that they can
comply within the law and ensuring that we are bringing into the
country the people that we need to do work. We take advice from the
Migration Advisory Committee, which will advise us on which groups to
bring in.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked how we would deal with costs if the numbers of
people were to take a downturn. We are listening closely to the
Migration Advisory Committee on whom we should be allowing into the
country and on skills gaps, which will determine how we do our forward
planning and adjust in respect of any estimates on the numbers
available. A
good deal of the Home Offices work, including passports and
immigration fees, for example, depends to a degree on demand. We are
well used to managing that demand and keeping a good track of any odd
dips or increases in demand and recognising seasonal upturns and
downturns. We feel confident that, with our experience, we will cover
the points and concerns that the hon. Gentleman
mentioned.
The hon.
Gentleman also mentioned the level of costs recovered. We have an
agreement with the Treasury to recover £100 million a year above
normal administrative costs for four years. We are managing costs to
deliver a robust system without unfair impact, either on fee payers or
taxpayers. Of course, should we not recover money through this system,
the burden would fall on taxpayers. It is right that general taxation
does not take the burden of the
fees.
The hon. Member
for Westmorland and Lonsdalea lovely part of the
worldasked what would the fees be and whether I would make any
estimates. I am reluctant to go into fees guestimates at this point,
because we are not debating the actual fees structure, but I reassure
the hon. Gentleman that we aim to keep migrant feesthat is, for
those entering the countryat broadly the same level as their
comparator existing fees. The aim is that people moving from the
current system to the new points-based system should not see too great
a change. However, we need to recover the costs of the points-based
system, so there will be variations. We are able to use the fees
structure to consider whether what we are doing already is fair and
whether we can make the system better. Within the limits set by the
Treasury, we will use a number of factors, such as value of
entitlements to the migrant, while maintaining the UK as an attractive
destination for work, study, to visit and for cultural
visits.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Derby, North raised an important point about
those tier migrants and visitors who do not have a sponsor. We will
shortly be publishing a public consultation on that point, which I am
sure will interest my hon. Friend. The consultation will examine
visitor routes in general, because that is something that the points
based system does not cover, and it will include provisions relating to
family visitors. I hope that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will
contribute to that; I am sure that we all face such issues in our
constituencies. However, visitors will always need to satisfy the entry
clearance officer of their intentions and compliance with immigration
laws at the point of entry, which I am sure that we all agree
with.
I have addressed
a number of the points raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and
Lonsdale about fee increases. We want people who are going through the
system to contribute to the end-to-end costs of the processit
is not right that those costs should fall on the system. We already
have a fee system, so it is not as though people who are not paying
anything will suddenly have to pay a lot of money; people already have
to pay for the process. There will, of course, be an opportunity to
comment on those fee proposals in detail when they come forward in
2008.
That brings me
to the points raised by the hon. Member for Wantage about the cultural
and artistic sector. We have had a great deal of discussion with the
sector, as I mentioned. While the Lithuanian state
symphony orchestra is no doubt excellent, as a member of the EU it does
not have to worry about immigration fees. Our appetite is now whetted
for the skilful playing of the Lithuanian state symphony orchestra, as
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would never want to sell us a dud. It
sounds fantastic and I shall make a point of mentioning to my
Lithuanian counterpart when I am next in Europe that his national
symphony orchestra is receiving such rave reviews in this
place.
Tier 5 in the
points based system will cover fees for performance artists. It will be
rolling out in about the third quarter of 2008, on current estimates.
While we will be looking at fees next year, we will be having further
discussions with the sector. We are aware of its concerns and our aim
is to develop a set of fees that are fair and sustainable. Many people
in this country benefit from cultural exchange, with people arriving
here and performing across a range of cultural and arts sectors.
Equally, we would like reciprocal arrangements for our artists who
travel. Representing a constituency that is as multicultural and
diverse in arts as mine, this
is an issue that is close to my heart. I know that my hon. Friend the
Minister for Borders and Immigration feels the same way. We will
continue to hold down prices as far as possible, to ensure that those
routes, which are of great interest and importance, continue to benefit
the UK.
We have had
an interesting debate in the short time that we have had. Given the
temperature in the room, all that remains for me to do now is to
commend the draft order to the Committee. I thank the hon. Members
present for their
patience.
The
Chairman:
One thing I have learned from this debate is
that the hon. Members for Derby, North and for Jarrow must be very
warm-blooded. In fact, I might go further and say hot-blooded, but I am
not sure that that is not a compliment.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment)
Order
2007.
Committee
rose at four minutes past Five
oclock.