Mr.
Woolas: The points that have been made on the danger of
unintended consequences are important and serious. I have always
believed that there should be a clause in every Bill and a schedule in
every statutory instrument that says, “There shall not be
unintended consequences”, but that is why we have these
Committees, so I will try to give some reassurance to right hon. and
hon. Members.
I will start
by addressing the big, principal questions before going into the
details. On the overall policy, I congratulate the hon. Member for
Ashford on pointing out the difference between £100 million and
30 per cent. The £100 million is the amount that we are allowed
under law to raise above the costs of providing services. That is the
total. We could charge a lot more, but for reasons that my right hon.
Friend the Member for Oxford, East and others gave, and for other
reasons of which hon. Members are aware, we do not. Current policy is
to recover around 30 per cent. of the cost—I may have given the
impression that we had changed the policy in my opening
remarks.
The hon.
Member for Ashford asked, essentially, for the estimate of the
elasticity of demand. It is not our policy or our intention to use the
level of fees as a deterrent against applications for services either
in the narrow areas that we are looking at today or more generally.
Doing that would be the tail wagging the dog.
Emily
Thornberry (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab): I have a
large number of immigration cases coming into my surgery and a number
of constituents are finding it very difficult to gain British
citizenship. One woman who would be entitled to claim British
citizenship and is currently on benefits cannot afford to pay the
amount. She wants to be able to work and that is definitely a barrier
to her. Another constituent has British citizenship but her husband
does not. They have three children. Two of the children are twins who
are about to turn 18. They have applied for British citizenship. They
are not entitled to it automatically. It has been refused and they will
need to apply again later. It will be very difficult for that family to
establish British citizenship, which the whole family wants. They want
to stay here and they want to play their part in Islington.
As I am on my
feet, perhaps I can raise another issue. Another constituent came to
see me to ask me to write a letter interpreting the letter that had
come establishing his status. It was written in such gobbledegook that
potential employers did not believe that he was entitled to work. I had
to write a letter in English so that he could then get a job. If people
have to pay for this, I certainly hope that it is in clear
English.
Mr.
Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes some
important points. The elasticity of demand is different in different
services and areas that we provide. Just to give some reassurance, in
the second-half debate, we will probably go into that. In some areas we
are trying to make processes administratively simpler. For example, she
may recall that people were encouraged to get a five-year visa if they
were regular visitors to our country, rather than five one-year visas.
That provided a net cost reduction for the migrant, and a significant
administrative benefit to the immigration and nationality
directorate.
We try to
look at each fee in and of itself, as well as comparing fees with those
in other countries to ensure that they are—I do not like to use
the word competitive in this context, but I have yet to find a better
word.
Mr.
Burns:
Cost-effective?
Mr.
Woolas: Cost-effective. What is the level of the fee for
the United States, Germany or France? The comparison is
there. The
point about gobbledegook is important. My experience is the same. My
constituents sometimes come and ask for a letter to explain
officialdom. That can be difficult. We need to be eagle-eyed about
that. On the point about the cost of citizenship, if the situation is
as I understand it, then lack of citizenship is not a barrier to work.
It depends on the previous status. If it is indefinite leave to remain,
then that would be covered. While there may be exceptions and
unintended consequences, it is not the policy to use the fee level to
control levels of migration or the use of services. As I said, that
would be the tail wagging the
dog. On
the elasticity to which the hon. Member for Ashford rightly pointed, an
excessive fee increase might simply serve to encourage illegal
migration. If the fee for a letter of authenticity was too expensive,
it could encourage fraudulent letters. I am sure that hon. Members have
had experiences where people have tried to pull the wool over their
eyes. That is an important
point. I
come now to the important point made by the hon. Member for West
Chelmsford. There are examples, which we have debated in the House, of
unscrupulous lawyers or advisers charging money, adding a margin on top
of the fee and getting the MP to do the work for them. My right hon.
Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) refuses
to help constituents who have been to an immigration adviser. He
filters them in that
way.
Mr.
Burns: He has a large
majority.
Mr.
Woolas: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman—like me,
he has a smaller majority—that we are working with the Office of
the Immigration Services Commissioner, which was established not long
ago to regulate these areas. We are reviewing that service to make it
more professional and efficient in monitoring advisory services, so
that we have a big stick to wield in that area. That subject will come
forward in the not too distant future.
I can already
see the headlines that there would be if we charged MPs for status
letters. In the past, some public representatives at council level have
tried to
charge for fees. Such exploitation has rightly been the subject of media
exposure. It is important that proper processes are in
place. Mr.
Burns: I wanted an assurance that MPs will not be charged
for responses to letters that they send to Ministers asking for the
immigration status of people on indefinite
leave.
Mr.
Woolas: I did not answer the question directly because I
wanted to tease the hon. Gentleman. I cannot speak for my successors,
but there is no intention to charge a fee. If we tried to claim for
that under the incidental expenses provision, we would rightly be
hammered in the
press.
Mr.
Smith: That takes us back to my original question. If an
MP can get a confirmation of status from the Minister or the agency,
will that not induce people to come to us to get them? They will take
that letter to the employer, rather than pay several hundred
pounds.
Mr.
Woolas: Such a letter would not carry the legal status of
the issued
certificate. To
respond to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, our estimate
is about 3,500 status letters a year. I cannot give details of what
proportion of those are requested because we have the documents, but I
will take that point up. It is an important point that I confess I had
not thought of. If I understand him correctly, he is arguing that it is
not fair that a statement letter must be requested if it is needed
because documents are being held by the UKBA or a tribunal. I will
provide an answer on that before we debate the fee
levels. I
apologise because I think I have opened up a hornets’
nest.
Mr.
Burns: May I question the Minister’s figures? If I
heard him correctly, he said that he anticipates about 3,500 letters a
year seeking status. If statistics are to be believed, about 1.8 per
cent. of the population of my constituency is non-white. Last year I
wrote to the Minister or the UKBA at least 40 times on behalf of
constituents asking for their status, particularly on the issue of
indefinite leave to remain. Given that 641 MPs have taken their seats
and that more than 50 per cent. of the population of some
constituencies is non-white—for example, in Leicester—I
cannot believe that the number of requests is so
low.
Mr.
Woolas: That is an important point. The hon.
Gentleman’s experience will chime with that of other Members.
Those are the figures that we have. We get requests for about that
number and have built that into our budgets. The figures are for the
2009-10 financial year; this is where a specific letter is asked for on
status. In the vast majority of cases, the status is implicit in other
documents, such as the decisions issued by tribunals. That is the
figure that I have; perhaps there is something in the water in West
Chelmsford.
Tom
Brake: The Minister has helpfully confirmed that Members
of Parliament will not receive a bill for £200 or £300 if
we approach his Department. However,
if a constituent comes via us will they receive a bill for £200?
In that case, as Members of Parliament we will all be the bearers of
bad
news.
Mr.
Woolas: In many areas, Members of Parliament write to
Ministers asking for clarification on behalf of constituents. Under no
circumstances do the Government charge Members of Parliament for that
service; that would not be
right.
Tom
Brake: They will all come to us
then.
Mr.
Woolas: In other areas where fees are charged, that has
not proved to be an incentive to go to an MP, but unscrupulous people
in the advisory service may do that. There was a consensus in the House
to introduce the regulations on the Office of the Immigration Services
Commissioner, and they have been
successful. To
be comprehensive, I will clarify what the figure of 3,500 is. It is our
best guess of the number of immigration status letters. It does not
include requests for updates on the status of individual applications.
This is probably outside the remit of the debate but if you will allow
me, Dr. McCrea, I will explain that the Under-Secretary of State for
the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and
Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), will introduce proposals to the House for the
management of such requests. The Committee may wish to know that there
has been a pilot project involving five Members from across the House,
some of whom—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington,
South and Finsbury—have significant case loads and some of whom
have much smaller case loads. We have learned from that cross-party
study and will introduce proposals, including on new technology. Thank
you, Dr. McCrea, for allowing me to give that
information.
Damian
Green: I want to take the Minister back to something he
said a few minutes ago, before he got into the numbers. He said that a
letter sent to an MP would have no legal status. That seems to be the
crucial point, because what will happen is that somebody will
innocently turn up at one of our surgeries, saying that they want to
check their status, and we will write to the UK Border Agency and get a
letter back. We will then solemnly send that on with a House of Commons
letter and they will present it to their employer and say,
“Look, I am allowed to work in this country”. The
employer will then say, “That does not mean anything”. I
suggest very gently to the Minister that that will not be a
satisfactory state of affairs and that he will find himself extremely
unpopular with many of his colleagues, as well as with people around
the
country.
Mr.
Woolas: That is the case already; it is not pertinent to
the issue of fees. Thousands of letters are issued by Members of
Parliament and in practice they most often do the
job— [Interruption.] Will Committee
members calm down and be reassured? Letters issued by MPs can already
be used for an employer. Such letters are often used with our officials
at airports, to confirm who the person in question is. Last night, a
constituent who was interviewed at Heathrow was carrying a letter from
her
Member of Parliament. My simple point is that in practice, those letters
are extremely helpful. This is dependent, of course, on the integrity
of the hon. Members, and that is not questioned by the Home Office;
indeed, such letters are extremely helpful to it. Nevertheless, they do
not carry the legal status of the letters issued by the Home Office in
response.
Mr.
Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): I am
puzzled. Surely a letter from a Minister of the Crown that gives the
status of such a person has some value. Does the Minister seriously
suggest that such a letter would not be upheld in a court? It is a
letter from a Minister of the Crown.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question, as
did the hon. Member for Ashford. I am tempted to stop digging and
clarify the status of such a letter. My view is that it would carry
status in a court and could be given as evidence, but it is not the
certificate itself. If I issue a letter as an MP saying that my
constituent has a driving licence that I have seen, that would be
accepted by most authorities. However, it is not the actual driving
licence. The unintended consequences of status letters mean that the
charge would be levied at the point of application. We do not waive
those applicants’ fees simply because constituents have raised
the question via their MP. [Interruption.] The
hon. Member for Ashford wants to push me further on this point. I will
take another intervention.
Damian
Green: The Minister has slipped into referring to a letter
from an MP. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I are
talking about the letter that comes back from the Minister or UKBA. It
has been asserted at least once that such a letter would have no status
if it was later presented to an employer or anyone else. That seems
extraordinary.
Mr.
Woolas: I concede the point and I will seek clarification
on it. I was trying—clearly inadequately—to say that that
letter would not be akin to a certificate or issued letter. I am not a
lawyer, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has a point and I will
get clarification on the status of those letters.
I will try to
answer some of the other points that have been raised. The hon. Member
for Carshalton and Wallington asked whether there could be higher fees
for larger employers. As he knows, larger employers already pay more to
sponsor migrants under the points-based system. There is a
£1,000 licence fee, as opposed to £300 for smaller
companies and charities. I am straying into discussing the level of the
fee, but the hon. Gentleman asked about the point in principle of
whether we could have differential fees; we could.
I think that
I have covered the points about elasticity. My right hon. Friend the
Member for Oxford, East asked about the general cost of fees. He has
vast experience in that area. We make an assessment of our fees against
those of other countries. It is not based only on an assessment of
elasticity within the country, but a comparison is made. On 23 March, I
intend to provide more information about our assessment. I reassure the
Committee that the proposals were subject to consultation with the
various interest groups, and there was support for the
measure. I believe that I have answered the point about citizenship
asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and
Finsbury. The hon.
Member for Ashford asked whether the intention was for the fee to be a
deterrent, with fewer people coming. I have answered that point. The
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked what proportion of
applicants asked about the document, and I have given an undertaking to
check that.
When I saw
the list of members, I knew that having a former Chief Secretary on the
Committee would produce some probing questions that I might not be able
to answer. Of course, there was one and that was about the freedom of
information request. There is a fee in relation to a freedom of
information request, too. Someone may be able to get the information
that they are seeking through an FOI application, which would be
cheaper than the fee in respect of an application for a letter. Again,
that is a question about the level of the fee and I thank my right hon.
Friend for a first-half question to be answered in the second half.
There are other areas where that might apply. It is important to
remember that the Data Protection Act 1998 applies to overseas as well
as to domestic situations. I thank him for that
question.
| 
