Tom
Brake: I would like to echo briefly some of the points
made by the hon. Member for Ashford. Clearly, I would also welcome
clarification regarding the reason for the speed with which we are
having to revisit the fees, because those changes look not only
incomprehensible, as the ILPA has suggested, but badly thought through.
As a habituĂ(c) of these occasions, I would also like to mention a
matter that we have raised in previous statutory instrument Committees.
We would like to hear the Government’s current position
regarding the recession’s impact on the amounts that will be
levied, which we discussed the last time we were here debating
fees.
I turn to a
matter set out in ILPA’s e-mail that the hon. Gentleman did not
mention. There is a need to know the actual cost of processing a
particular type of application because that will give us, for example,
a clear picture of the financial contribution that some applicants are
making towards the cost of the transitional effects of migration. That
will also enable us to assess carefully whether that contribution is
changing, because one would expect the cost of processing to reduce as
the system beds in, and thus expect people’s financial
contribution to increase over time. Knowledge of the actual average
cost would be significant. Perhaps the Minister will come forward with
some figures for us—not now, as the calculation is clearly quite
complex, but later, in
writing. 4.50
pm
Meg
Hillier: As ever, the hon. Member for Ashford made some
important points, and I want to deal with them in the order in which he
raised
them. First,
for the record, I stress that I have described nothing about
incompetence in relation to the Government’s approach, but I
welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for fees in principle and
for end-to-end cost recovery. We recognise that there are complications
with our immigration regulations. We have put forward lots of different
bits of legislation, regulations and rules over the years, which is why
we are attempting, through legislative plans for the future, to
simplify our immigration regulations and to make it a lot easier for
case workers to deal with these things. Indeed, we are trying to
simplify what is, in many cases, law that is working, but something on
which people have to look for advice from several different
sources. As
I suspected, the hon. Gentleman is surprised by the exemption and the
change to 90 per cent. He asked whether the number of applications had
increased from the countries concerned. No, they have not, but it is
important that we manage risk. We also gain around a third of a million
pounds a year through introducing fees. When we look at the overall
cost, we need to get that balance for the UK taxpayer. If we do not get
that from these countries, we need to get it from somewhere else. I am
sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we go to the UK
taxpayer for the money. I think that we get the balance right here, and
it fits in with our obligations under the treaty.
The other
points raised by the hon. Gentleman were about help. I mentioned
simplification, and we intend to publish the consolidated regulations
that I mentioned when we make amendments in the future, some of which
will be made in April next year. Separately, we are also looking to
simplify the legislation that we use to set fees and charges, and at
how to consolidate the current fees order and the fees regulations into
one statutory instrument, which will make things easier. However, we
all know that government is not as clear cut as we would like.
Different Governments over time change immigration law and rules, and
it grows like Topsy. We have now got to the point at which we need to
simplify, but not to change. We have already made some major changes
through the points-based system and electronic borders—counting
people in and out of the country. A lot of changes were steered through
by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill
(Mr. Byrne), and that is now being done by his successor,
the Minister for Borders and Immigration. It is important to recognise
those achievements, while also recognising that historical legislation
needs to be tidied up so that things are
improved. The
hon. Members for Ashford and for Carshalton and Wallington both raised
the effect of the economic downturn. It is important that we regularly
review fee income from migrant applications. We include a wide range of
factors, including border economic conditions and policy changes
impacting on application numbers. We now have the Migration Advisory
Committee, which also affects our approach to the number of people in
any category that we shall allow in. For example, we have suspended
tier 3 of the points-based system—non-skilled migrants from
outside Europe—on its advice, which will affect the number of
people coming at any one time. We use our reviews, including the advice
from that committee, to help to determine our priorities for the
overall allocation of resources. However, estimating the specific
impact of the current situation is very complex, and it depends not
just on the scale of any downturn in the UK, but on the performance of
competitor economies. I would not wish to speculate without proper
facts and analysis on what this might mean at some point in the future
for fees. As a Government, we always need to be responsible and to keep
an eye on the situation, and in doing that, we get a lot of advice and
support from independent
bodies. The
hon. Member for Ashford suggested, quite rightly, that fees are set by
tier. Yes, we do that. The system is clear and transparent; frankly, it
is much clearer and simpler than the previous system, which was by
country. We have a special relationship, in a sense, with the European
social committee countries, because the reduction is in line with our
obligation under article 18(2) of the European social charter—we
need to bear our legal obligations in mind. I stress that there are no
plans to vary fees by country. It is important that we base our fees on
the value to the individual, as well as on international
competitiveness. The
hon. Gentleman mentioned a cap. If the cap fits, wear it, I say, but it
does not fit this Government. The hon. Gentleman’s cap is
arbitrary, but our fees are not—they are well worked through and
well thought out. With regard to details on cost and the end-to-end
process, we need to recognise what is included, and that is the wide
range of enforcement issues that hon. Gentlemen
have raised. To pull out an average would distort the issues. We need to
be careful before we simplify things to such a
level. Tom
Brake: I must intervene at this point. The Government are
saying that some categories will be making a contribution towards the
transitional costs of migration. The Minister seems to be saying that
there is no way of calculating the actual cost of processing their
applications. Therefore, how can the Government ascertain the financial
contribution towards those transitional costs of
migration?
Meg
Hillier: That is an unfair characterisation of what I was
saying. Let me be clearer. As I have stressed, we work on the principle
that those who gain the most value will pay the most for that value.
Therefore, there is a transactional issue between individuals applying
to enter the country and what they pay for those benefits. We then have
to balance that with the situation in the international marketplace. We
have to try to cover the costs of enforcement across the piece.
Enforcement includes airline liaison officers who are posted abroad.
They have stopped more than 200,000 people from boarding aeroplanes
with the wrong documents. We need to include all those costs. If we are
to enable people to enter this country and benefit from what the UK has
to offer in the job market and, in some cases, from access in part to
the national health service, which is a very big benefit and well worth
paying for, we need to ensure that we get balance across the
piece. I
have already pledged to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
that I will consider what we can provide, but I am very wary of
providing an average that is plucked out of the air just by doing
maths, because the situation is not as simple as that. To boil it down
to such a level of simplicity underrates the complexity of the
immigration system. We need to be fair and transparent, and people need
to know what the fees are at the point at which they
apply.
Tom
Brake: I thank the Minister for giving way again; she is
being very generous. By enumerating a long list of benefits, she has
highlighted the need for work to be done so that we can have a degree
of confidence that a transitional contribution is being
made.
Meg
Hillier: I should finally stress that Treasury rules do
not allow us to overcharge. We are allowed more than £100
million a year above some of the costs, but we have paid for many
things, such as fingerprint checks before people arrive for visas and
identity cards for foreign nationals. That particular matter is wrapped
up for those who will be getting them at the end of this month with
their visa fee, which is a useful added benefit. We ensure that the
burden does not fall entirely on the UK taxpayer. I have pledged to
provide further information to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to guard
against us thinking that we can boil it down to the simple maths of
dividing the total by the total number of applicants and think that
that represents the actual cost. Other aspects of the immigration
system have to be paid for. I stress that the fees that we get do not
always cover the total cost, but we are allowed to recover slightly
more than the cost to the UK Government.
Question
put and agreed
to. Committee
rose at one minute to Five
o’clock.
|
