Mr.
Woolas: You’d do it
anyway.
Damian
Green: I am tempted, and, if the Minister heckles me, I
will be tempted even more. I shall resist the temptation, but he knows
very well that big new IT systems are wont to fail, and that many have
failed in the early period. He clearly needs to ensure—and
reassure the House—that the Government get this one right from
day
one. As
I said when we discussed the principle behind the increase, my fear is
that the Minister is choosing the wrong way—a rather clumsy
way—to slam the brakes on immigration numbers. We on this side
have no objective in principle to charges or, indeed, to the
over-recovery of costs, because we agree that those who benefit most
from the immigration system—those who come to this
country—should make a contribution over and above the actual
recovery cost. However, we are equally clear that we do not want the UK
to be seen as a country that turns turn away the brightest and the best
from around the world, either by design or by
accident. There
is a slight fear hanging over this whole process that that is how the
changes might be interpreted in some parts of the world. I suspect that
the Minister is as anxious as I am not to send that message, and I hope
that he can give us some reassurance about the
situation. 4.52
pm
Simon
Hughes: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr.
Sheridan. I
always have some concerns about this kind of visa increase, first,
because I have many constituents who are applicants to come into the
UK, and I take up a high number of cases with the Home Office. Indeed,
I believe that I have the largest number in the regular assessment that
the Home Office makes. Secondly, there are many university students in
North Southwark and Bermondsey at whole universities such as the London
South Bank university, and at parts of universities such as Kings
College, London and the London School of Economics. These matters are
of real concern to people on my patch. I therefore just want to follow
up the intervention that I made on the Minister, and on the points made
by the hon. Member for Ashford by picking up briefly on the key issues
in the
debate. I
was not present for part one of this great dramatic performance, but if
everyone who ever received a letter via me from a Minister, one of his
colleagues, or someone in the Home Office, confirming their
status—confirmed also by me or someone in my office who asked
for confirmation of their status—was suddenly told when they
presented it that it was not a valid document, it would mean that we
have a much more complicated administrative system than we had all
bargained for, and a much more expensive one. I hope that is not the
case. I hope that a formal letter from the Home Office,
as long as it is a valid letter, would be accepted as a valid letter,
and that it could be kept and used on that basis. That seems a sensible
and non-bureaucratic way of
proceeding. Secondly,
there is obviously an issue as to quite what consultation was carried
out with the universities’ representatives on the matters in
their briefing. I reinforce their strong point about signals and
messages, as well as the practical implications. Colleagues from the
two other main parties and I had some exchanges with Ministers in the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office last year about the adverse
changes in funding for Commonwealth students coming to the UK for
postgraduate study. It is a matter of concern across the parties that
the FCO ended a certain programme. That sent out a bad message,
particularly as we have been exhorting other countries, such as Canada,
to be
helpful. Universities
UK gave us some significant figures and stated
that “each non-EU student
brings a net cash benefit of about £17,900 per year to the
UK...each non-EU student brings a fiscal benefit of about
£600 per year to the UK...each non-EU student makes a
contribution to GDP of about £5,500 per year to the
UK”. That
is a significant contribution, and we have done hugely well from having
students from all over the world—the Minister knows that point
absolutely because he was the president of the National Union of
Students in his day. Students come from the EU, the Commonwealth, other
English-speaking countries and elsewhere, make their contribution and
go back, often as great ambassadors and links for the UK, whether in
science, engineering and technology or in the arts and culture.
Therefore, we must listen when university organisations tell us to
beware the
dangers. Because
the Minister said it, I know I am right in thinking that the increases
are above administrative costs and are intended to put some money in
the kitty to run the system, but my understanding is that some of it is
intended to cross-subsidise one set of applications that is still
charged below cost—the applications for a sponsor’s
licence by a hospital, university or business.
[Interruption.] I hear informal confirmation that
that is the case and am grateful for it. There is thus a bit of
cross-subsidy, and it would be helpful to know much will be spent on
that to make up for the undercharging for that category of
applications. Am I also right in thinking that is the only category
that will now be charged below cost? If I am wrong, can we hear what
the other categories
are? Perhaps the most
important and sensitive point in a constituency such as yours,
Mr. Sheridan, and mine and others, is that we are in danger
of overcharging poor students from poor countries who are coming to the
UK to fill our shortfall vacancies and gaps, and I would like the
Minister to tell me whether I am right about that. The reality is that
some of that money will subsidise, or at least reduce, the cost for
people who end up being highly paid, so someone could come in as a
student because there is a vacancy under the new system and under that
market. I heard today that that is the case with dental nurses, so we
are saying yes to dental nurses, who are relatively low paid and not at
the top of the income scale. Is there not a danger that we will be
getting them to pay above the odds to come to do a job for which we
need trained people, and people doing highly-paid jobs will be
supported by a hospital
sponsoring somebody to be a doctor or a consultant,
for example? There is a concern about poverty and equity that needs to
be answered. How much do
the Government expect to raise each year from each tier? There are four
tiers of applicant—1,2,4 and 5—and someone must know how
much each is expected to raise. I understand that the money is going
into the migrant fund but I am sceptical on three counts about that. I
can see the argument for a fund that will specifically help in that
area, but if it will be going towards paying for public services in
areas where there are many migrants, contributions will be made only by
people in those categories and not by other immigrants who might put
pressure on services, such as those from within the EU. For
example, I understand that health services in rural Lincolnshire, where
a large number of EU nationals have migrated to the agricultural
industry, are not being asked to pay because they could not do
so.
The people we
are discussing, however, would be asked to pay. Those using the
services and putting the pressure on are not being asked to pay, yet
some of the people who are not putting the pressure on are being asked
to pay. Many of the people who will come under the Government’s
new visa system will be young and healthy and will not use the public
services very much at all. They are being charged a premium against the
theoretical case that they might use our schools, public transport,
education or health services, yet they might not actually be
substantial users at all, certainly while they are young and in their
general working
life. The
Minister told us that there were robust debates about the whole
regime—I remember them at one remove last year and the year
before—and that various research was undertaken. What is the
evidence, or where can we find the evidence, to show that we will not
suffer competitively? I spent Friday evening with the principal of
King’s College London, as King’s was hosting BBC Radio
4’s “Any Questions” to mark the 100th anniversary
of its student union. There was a robust debate on the first question,
about student fees, and it continued in the green room afterwards. Rick
Trainor, the principal of King’s, was on the radio last week
putting the balloon up and saying, “We want more fees,
please,” but, knowing how sensitive the issue is, the Minister
with responsibility for London, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and
West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), and the Mayor of London robustly avoided
describing exactly what the policy might be after the next
election. There is a
real sense that we shall be in a competitive market. Fees in this
country are not cheap, and adding extra stuff could act as a
disincentive, so if our aim is to get the best people into the best
universities to get the best reputations, is there not a risk that we
will lose them to the States or Canada, or to institutions in
Australia, New Zealand South Africa, or places such as India for
technology or the European Union for other subjects?
Do the
Government honestly have any view about whether the bureaucracy that
will flow from the measure, particularly the extra £50 top-up,
will be worth the candle? Sometimes, new systems and structures seem to
be more complicated than they are worth.
The
universities raised the point on which I shall finish. If there is to
be a new system, are we satisfied that at the points of application and
entry, the clearance officers at our missions, consulates, embassies
and high
commissions will with sufficient simplicity be able to describe the
benefit of the new system, so that it does not look like a
discouragement, with the British Council having to work doubly
hard—sometimes in places where its offices do not exist any
more, which is a snag—to persuade people to go the UK? There are
real concerns, and given the advice that I have received and the view I
hold, whether I support or oppose the Minister’s proposal
depends on his answer, because the case has not yet been made with
sufficient clarity. The
Chairman: Does Mr. Reid want to speak? I
call the
Minister.
5.2
pm
Mr.
Woolas: I do not know whether you did that, Mr.
Sheridan, for the benefit of my heart or that of my right hon. Friend
the Member for Airdrie and Shotts. There are some very senior Members
behind and, indeed, in front of me.
It is
incumbent on me to answer the questions that have been asked, and I am
grateful to hon. Members for asking them. First, I can provide the
reassurance that the hon. Member for Ashford requires on the issue of
the letter to MPs. We are talking about the issue of a certificate, not
the normal letter of correspondence with an MP. In total, there will be
about 3,000 pieces of paper: certificates that people ask for first, to
prove, sometimes to an overseas Government, that they are not a citizen
of the United Kingdom, so, typically, they will do so at an embassy in
London, normally, in relation to property ownership matters; and,
secondly, to provide for various instances to show that they are a
citizen. In the normal course of events, the letter from the MP will
not be covered by the
measure. There
was a very real problem, but the hon. Gentleman unfairly described it
as chaos. It was not chaos; it was an example of scrutiny at its best.
However, all hon. Members were concerned about it, and we will make
clear that point in the letter itself, which will advise the
constituent that a certificate is the legal document. I hope that that
satisfies the hon. Gentleman. I should just throw in the
point—again, to provide reassurance—that, under the code
of practice for the sponsorship certificate of an employer, a
certificate is one of the documents that are covered, whereas a letter
from a Minister or Member is
not. On
the point that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North
Southwark and Bermondsey made, I am happy to provide the research.
Indeed, it is important to share the research, because there is much
misunderstanding about the whys and wherefores—I shall return to
the specifics in a
moment. On
visa fees, the hon. Members for Ashford and for North Southwark and
Bermondsey quoted Universities UK, which has said that there is a
serious danger of sending out the wrong signal. I do not accept that,
and will explain why. First, when we considered student fees, we were
fully mindful of the danger. We considered several factors, one of the
main ones being exchange rate changes and the countries of origin of
students, to ensure that the recent changes are not
detrimental—in fact, the changes are beneficial to
students.
Secondly,
the tuition fee is the more important financial contribution. My right
hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill was
involved in the debate on the introduction of full-cost overseas
student fees, which were opposed by all Labour Members and many
Conservative Members, whose Government introduced them. The fear then
was that students would put off, but in fact the opposite happened, for
various reasons, including the credibility and status of universities
in the United
Kingdom. Thirdly,
we made international comparisons and looked at the visa fees for
Canada and the United States, and even after our increases, the
position here is better. Fourthly, a general point is that the visa fee
is a small proportion of the total cost, and it is not a key
determinant in an application. Other changes have been made to help
universities attract overseas students, because they recognise their
value. For example, students on a course of more than three
years—the visa covers only three years and some students, such
as those studying dentistry, take a longer course—are no longer
required to reapply for a visa, because their visa covers the length of
the course. We can do that, because we have sponsorship mechanisms in
place to provide some assurance that the student is a student and has
not absconded. That has also been introduced with the private sector
universities, and it provides benefits for them as well as for
us.
Simon
Hughes: The Minister has said that the Government’s
comparisons show that we are in a better position than others. Was he
talking about the fee costs of a course, the visa costs of an
application or the cumulative effect of both? Is there a table that a
student who is considering studying in the EU or the Commonwealth can
see that shows the combined cost of coming to the UK compared with that
of studying in Australia or
elsewhere?
Mr.
Woolas: I was referring to the visa fee. For the record,
Universities UK considered increasing student tuition fees, but there
is a danger of sending out a signal to the rest of the world that we do
not want such students. I was talking about the visa fee, and the
decision on that is taken in isolation from the overall tuition fee,
although I recognise that universities will want to take that into
account. The Government cannot yet provide a full table with tuition
fees, although I see the value of the hon. Gentleman’s
suggestion of putting the visa and tuition fees together, because they
are different for different courses. I hope that that
satisfies
him. The
hon. Member for Ashford also made a point about IT. Last week, the Home
Affairs Committee probed me and officials in some detail, and I can
provide the reassurances that he seeks. We have brought in the new
rules under tier 4 as from 31 March in advance of the freshers period
and the major intake of students. The IT is up and running
successfully. We have been working very closely with Universities UK
and the private and voluntary sectors, and we now have sponsorship
arrangements in place, so the colleges and universities are
registered. We
have provided that period to ensure that we can work the system with
them. Indeed, we have received acknowledgements, which I gave to my
right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the
Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, from universities. Newcastle
university, with which we have been testing,
has provided us with commendations on the
introduction of the IT. I am determined to avoid the situation that the
hon. Member for Ashford talked about, namely one in which the IT does
not work. We think that
there are many benefits. We believe that those institutions that are
not genuine colleges and that do not provide genuine courses will be
exposed by the new system to the benefit of the United Kingdom as a
whole. As hon. Members will know, abuse of student visa overstay is one
of the more significant abuse entries into the country, if I can use
that phrase.
I have tried
to answer all the questions. The hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey raised the point of the general principle, which is also
about subsidy. Let me explain where the measure fits in. He asked a
very pertinent question which, indeed, I asked myself in preparation
for the debate. We estimate the total cost of administering the service
for which fees are provided by UKBA in 2009-10 to be £566
million. In addition to that, our policy is that we can
raise £100 million, plus the £35 million for the
migration impact fund. There is some cross-subsidy in that some of the
fees that we charge are below the cost of charging that fee. That
includes the student fees, because we recognise the benefit that the
students bring to UK plc, which he
described. For
other things, such as those referred to in paragraph 7.8 of
the explanatory notes, the fee is set at or above cost. A highly
skilled migrant worker under tier 1 will be charged more than cost,
which will subsidise the administration of those who are charged less
than cost, including, for example,
students. Our
policy is in line with the hon. Gentleman’s point of principle.
If he will allow me, I will provide him with the tier-by-tier figures
by letter. I am afraid that I do not have them before me, because in
the second half of the debate, we have been debating only the
above-cost fees. Rightly, Parliament said that we had to come back for
an affirmative resolution on them.
Mr.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con): Did I hear correctly the
figure of more than £500 million to run the scheme? Will the
Minister tell us how it can be such an enormous
sum?
|
