The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Mr Roger
Gale
†
Afriyie,
Adam (Windsor)
(Con)
Clwyd,
Ann (Cynon Valley)
(Lab)
†
Cruddas,
Jon (Dagenham and Rainham)
(Lab)
Dobson,
Frank (Holborn and St Pancras)
(Lab)
Dorries,
Nadine (Mid Bedfordshire)
(Con)
†
Green,
Damian (Minister for
Immigration)
†
Huppert,
Dr Julian (Cambridge)
(LD)
†
McFadden,
Mr Pat (Wolverhampton South East)
(Lab)
†
Mahmood,
Shabana (Birmingham, Ladywood)
(Lab)
†
Morris,
James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis)
(Con)
Paisley,
Ian (North Antrim)
(DUP)
†
Perry,
Claire (Devizes)
(Con)
†
Pritchard,
Mark (The Wrekin)
(Con)
†
Rutley,
David (Macclesfield)
(Con)
†
Tami,
Mark (Alyn and Deeside)
(Lab)
†
Ward,
Mr David (Bradford East)
(LD)
Winnick,
Mr David (Walsall North)
(Lab)
†
Wright,
Jeremy (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Simon Patrick,
Committee Clerk
† attended
the Committee
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 28
March
2011
[Mr
Roger Gale
in the
Chair]
Draft
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations
2011
4.34
pm
The
Chair:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I apologise.
Business on the Floor of the House and a question to the Prime Minister
delayed me in the
Chamber.
The
Minister for Immigration (Damian Green):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality
(Fees) Regulations
2011.
It
is good to see you, Mr Gale. I will talk long enough for you to regain
your breath, which I hope will be
helpful.
As
hon. Members who have been following the issue closely will recall, I
came to the House on 8 February and subsequently obtained approval to
charge for visa, immigration and nationality services under the
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011. I said at the time that
it would be a debate of two halves. This is the second half, in which
we debate the specific fee
levels.
We
are debating the fees against a difficult financial backdrop for the UK
Border Agency, the public finances and the UK economy as a whole. The
UKBA has committed to reducing its costs to the taxpayer by up to 23%
during the next four
years.
Alongside
the funding provided by UK taxpayers, the UK Border Agency has firmly
established the principle, initiated by the previous Government, that
those who benefit directly from our immigration system should
contribute an appropriate share towards the costs of running it. The
proposals that we are debating today further support that principle and
will help ensure that the UKBA can continue to deliver controlled
migration and a secure border within the funding envelope set out in
the spending
review.
The
fees paid by those making visa, nationality and immigration
applications are set out in regulations made under section 51 of the
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and in accordance with the
powers granted in section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment
of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, as amended by section 20 of the UK
Borders Act
2007.
Under
section 42 of the 2004 Act, the Secretary of State can set a fee for an
application at a level that exceeds the administrative cost of
determining the application. The way in which our legal powers are
defined means that we must also specify fees in separate regulations
under the powers in section 51 of the 2006 Act. Those regulations are
to set the fees for applications, processes and services that are
provided at or below the administrative cost of determining the
application. Those regulations were laid in Parliament on 16 March
2011.
They are subject to the negative procedure and are not debated in the
House. I recognise that having fees in two sets of regulations makes
things complicated and I will be happy to take points on any of the
fees proposals here
today.
In
setting the fee levels, the UK Border Agency takes into account a broad
range of factors. We are mindful of the need to ensure that the UK
remains an attractive destination for the brightest and the best to
come to in order to work, study and perform, and we continually review
our fees to ensure that they remain competitive for the entitlements
that they
offer.
The
proposals that we are debating today have been developed in partnership
with colleagues across Whitehall Departments and within strict
financial limits agreed with the Treasury. They continue to reflect the
principles supported in the public consultation on fees that the UKBA
ran between September and December 2009, and have been assessed for
their economic and equality and diversity
impacts.
In
general, we are proposing to limit the majority of increases to less
than 10%. We have recognised the difficult economic climate within
which many UK businesses are operating and propose increasing
sponsorship application fees by 3%, while maintaining our concessions
for small businesses and charities that want to sponsor migrants. The
increases in those fees will be the first since the points-based system
was introduced in
2008.
The
fees that have been increased by more than 10% include those
for dependants applying to extend their leave in the UK at the same
time as the main applicant. Those were previously set at between one
quarter and one third of the main applicant’s fees. We propose
increasing that ratio to half the main applicant fee. That continues
our policy better to align our fees in and out of the UK, where all
dependants already pay the full fee, and better reflects the fact that
each individual within any given application bears a processing cost to
us, as well as sometimes an independent set of
entitlements.
We
are also increasing by more than 10% the fees for applications made
overseas under the tier 1 post-study work route. Those will increase by
more than 30%. That will better align this fee to that which is payable
under this route when the application is made, as it is in the vast
majority of cases, in the
UK.
The
fees for visa applications under tiers 4 and 5 of the points-based
system will also increase by more than 10%. But the fees for those
routes continue to be charged at below the level of the administrative
costs of processing the
applications.
In
addition, the fee for the student visitor visa that enables a student
visitor to attend an English language course for up to 11 months has
been set at cost recovery level—£140. We think that it is
right that that fee better reflects the increased entitlements
associated with that route. Student visitors entering for less than six
months will continue to pay the price of a short-term visit visa, which
is £76 under our current
proposals.
New
fees being introduced include fees for amending a previously issued
nationality certificate, other than when that amendment is being made
to correct an error by the UKBA; providing to certain stateless persons
the ability to acquire the status of British protected person;
registration as a British citizen for children of foreign national
soldiers serving in the UK armed forces, which
will align our fees legislation to reflect rule changes that have
simplified such registrations; and tier 2 intra-company transfers
coming to the UK for less than 12 months, where applicants pay a lower
fee than those coming for more than 12
months.
I
am committed to sending a message overseas that the UK remains open for
business, and these proposals support that message through fees that
remain priced at competitive levels. We welcome the brightest and the
best, whom we all know contribute significantly to the UK economically,
culturally and socially. However, providing an effective immigration
system that controls the number of people coming to the UK costs money.
Our proposals will mean that migrants meet a greater proportion of the
costs of providing the services, reducing the contribution required
from general UK taxation.
4.40
pm
Shabana
Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab):
It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gale. I thank the Minister
for his comments. The Labour party agrees with a justification for fees
that relies on balancing the burden of administration between the
migrant and the taxpayer, both of whom receive benefits through the
immigration
system.
The
UKBA will have a cut in its budget of some 20% and a loss of 5,200
jobs. The Minister says that the increase in fees is required to make
up the shortfall after efficiency savings to be made by the UKBA over
the spending review period have been taken into account. The first
paragraph of the impact assessment states that there is an estimated
income shortfall of £80 million to £90 million in the
financial year 2011-12, and to address that, we have the regulations
before us today. On page 14, the section on the impact on
the UKBA
states:
“UKBA’s
annual income is estimated to rise by £65.4 million as a result
of fee changes, and its administrative cost is estimated to reduce by
£0.2 million.”
Will the Minister
clarify whether there will still be a shortfall in the UKBA’s
budget, or whether the gap is accounted for by other charges and income
to the UKBA? If so, will he clarify what those
are?
I
note that under the regulations, the proportion of the UKBA’s
running costs to be met by fees income will rise from 30% to 36%. Will
the Minister tell the Committee whether we can expect to see that
proportion rise even more significantly over the life of this
Parliament? Do the Government have a threshold on the ratio of fees
income to the agency’s running costs that they would like to
reach? Also the Government wish to reduce net migration to the tens of
thousands by 2015. Has the Minister taken into account the levels of
migration on an annual basis and the level of fees to be charged if
they are to meet that
target?
It
is important that the fees structure does not inhibit the UK’s
ability to attract migrants and visitors who make a valuable
contribution to our economy and the country. Whether that level of fees
ensures that that is the case will be a judgment much in the minds of
the Committee today. Will the Minister say more about the risks that
have been considered to the UK’s competitiveness with other
countries and markets? We compete for talent and investment on the
world stage, and the level of fees and the Government’s overall
approach to migration have an impact on the willingness of talented
people, of
the sort that we want to see come and work here, to consider the UK as a
destination. Will he assure the Committee that we will not be in a
position where, as a result of these fees, the UK’s ability to
compete is diminished? How do the UK’s proposed fees compare
with those of our main competitor countries?
I also note
that the regulations on dependants will mean that rather than
dependants paying 25% of the main applicant’s fee if both are
submitted at the same time, they will pay 50%. I understand that that
is part of a phased process to bring it into line with the provisions
for visa posts overseas, where dependants pay the same as the main
applicant. Is there a timetable for when that will be
achieved?
There have
been several changes to the fees regime recently. Fees regulations were
considered by the House last November and February. Taken as a whole,
the changes are significant and wide-ranging. I know that the acting
chief executive of the UKBA has indicated that ways of introducing
greater stability to the fees regime in future are being considered.
Will the Minister expand on that and explain what is being considered
and what the timetable for any such changes might be? In particular,
will he consult widely before any new structure for setting the level
of fees is brought
in?
The
regulations relate to fees where the cost of the application is higher
than the administrative cost to the agency, in order to allow for
cross-subsidisation of other visas. Such regulations are subject to an
affirmative resolution procedure, but other fees regulations are
subject to a negative resolution procedure. Does the Minister have any
plans to simplify the legislative framework to ensure that the House
can consider all changes to fees at the same time, in the same way or,
indeed, in both
respects?
May
I also refer the Minister to the explanatory memorandum, particularly
paragraph 7.22, where there is some detail on the provisions to British
protected person status? Will he say a bit more about how many people
are affected and what level of change we might see there? At paragraph
7.3, there is some detail about a new case-working service, but it is a
little bit thin. Will the Minister explain when and how that will be
brought in and what the related costs of that case-working service will
be to the
UKBA?
Paragraph
7.34 mentions the mobile case-working service, which is a pilot service
providing a bespoke service for, I assume, premier league football
clubs and City firms which paid around £15,000 for assistance
with application processes and so on. That has now decreased to
£6,000. Will the Minister explain why there has been such a
decrease in that cost, what the experience of that pilot was and what
the plans are for that in the
future?
Finally,
will the review of fees take place in line with the review of the level
of the immigration cap itself and the new limits on student numbers? To
ensure that there is greater stability and clarity in the regime, we
need to ensure that these reviews take place alongside each other. Of
course, they have to take account of the number of student and other
visas and the impact that they have on fees income as a result. Will
the Minister explain more about how those reviews will take place,
given that we have a cap on the levels of
migration?
4.47
pm
Adam
Afriyie (Windsor) (Con):
I do not intend to detain the
Committee for long, but I would like to give the Minister a bit of
thinking time. There is a very big difference between an economic
migrant coming here to seek economic benefits and a migrant who is
coming here fleeing terror and persecution. Will the Minister say a few
words about whether asylum applications and final charges for those who
have achieved permanent settlement here are affected by the statutory
instrument? Generally, what is the Government’s attitude? Is it
right that somebody who is genuinely fleeing persecution, torture and
perhaps murder and death should be treated in the same way as those who
are coming here for economic
benefits?
4.48
pm
Damian
Green:
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood
for her range of questions, which are pertinent and highly considered.
Important issues have been raised that deserve such a level of
scrutiny.
The hon. Lady
asked a question arising from the impact assessment about the
shortfall. There are wider policy changes that, coupled with the
spending review settlement, leave a shortfall of around £80
million. As she has identified, that is the case even after the
assumptions made about these fees increases. She went on to ask how
that would impact on UKBA performance. As she correctly said, over the
course of the spending review—I emphasise that it is not in the
next year, but in the next four years—we are planning to reduce
full-time posts by about 5,200. We aim to maintain service
standards—both in terms of time and quality—as we reduce
costs by improving productivity. We are achieving that through
investment in technology, moving to electronic rather than paper
applications and case files, improving work flow management and having
more efficient security checking arrangements. Those proposals will
ensure that while we are reducing costs, we are increasing income
levels as we shift the contribution for the migration system from the
UK taxpayer to the migrants who significantly benefit from
it.
The
hon. Lady also asked about the threshold of the contribution level.
Clearly, increases to fees must be done carefully to ensure that they
do not drive down demand. I should emphasise, as a general point, that
we do not use fees as a route towards controlling the numbers of
migrants; we use them simply to ensure that we can fund the system as
efficiently as possible, with those who benefit from it most—the
migrants—making a significant contribution. Within that general
framework, there is no set threshold at which we
aim.
The
hon. Lady asked whether the fees might jeopardise the UK’s
international competitiveness. I reassure her that we regularly monitor
the international competitiveness of the fees, and we factor those
comparisons into our fees development work. If she would like specific
examples, our visitor visa fee is £76, the USA visa is
£90 and the Schengen visa is £51—that is for one
visit lasting up to three months, whereas in most circumstances our
visit visa is for multiple entry over a period of up to six months. To
take one of the more recently topical examples, our student visa fee is
£255, America’s is £450 and Australia—our
other significant competitor in the English-language
market—charges £343. I hope that I have
reassured the hon. Lady that that does not affect our international
competitiveness. In fact, as our visa system does as a whole, our visa
fee system supports the Government’s growth
agenda.
On
the increase in the ratio of fees for dependents in the UK compared
with the cost to the main applicant, that increase is fair. It reflects
the fact that each individual within a given application bears a
processing cost. However, we will obviously monitor the impact to help
manage the transition to the alignment of dependents’ fees with
those paid by the main
applicant.
Mr
Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab):
To go back
to what the Minister said about student visas, has he had any
representations from Universities UK or other organisations
representing higher educational institutions? I do not expect him to
have them right in front of him, but if he has, what was their tenor in
relation to what he said about Australia, the United States and other
countries that compete for international
students?
Damian
Green:
I am happy to report to the right hon. Gentleman
that we had more than 30,000 responses to the consultation, many of
them from universities. The universities were worried before they saw
our final proposals, but on the day we announced them—when we
were able to explain what we were doing—there were supportive
statements from Universities UK and the Russell group. It is fair to
say that universities were worried about the proposals, but on the day
of their announcement universities welcomed them. Colleagues and I are
continuing with our programme of meeting vice-chancellors to explain
those
proposals.
I
should also point out that, although there is much debate about the
student visa fee, it is a minuscule proportion of the amount of money
that a foreign student will spend to study at a British university. The
price of a tier 4 visa represents less than 1% of the total cost of
coming to study in the UK for three years; the tuition fees and the
cost of living are obviously much more important. In the student field,
the idea that the visa fee is a significant dampener on demand does not
stand up to the most cursory
analysis.
The
hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked about British protected
person status, which means a person connected to a former British
protectorate or protected state, such as Uganda, who did not acquire
the citizenship of the territory concerned when British protection
ceased. The intention is that that status will eventually disappear,
and clearly it will run out as time goes on. The hon. Lady asked about
specific numbers—there have been two applications in the past 10
years. As she will see, that is not a desperately significant part of
the
proposals.
The
fee proposals continue the principles established in previous
consultations, the most recent of which was published last year. An
overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that the UKBA should
continue to set fees flexibly by taking into account wider policy
objectives, such as attracting specific groups of migrants who are
beneficial to the UK.
The super
premium case-working service offers mobile biometric enrolment in
case-working at a location in the UK determined by the customer. It was
a new service,
and we set an initial fee of £15,000 per application in the
pilot. Although there is some enthusiasm for it, it is fair to say that
£15,000 may have been asking a bit much of customers, which is
why we have reduced the fee to £6,000. We think that that will
set a better balance. An absolutely top-of-the-range premium service
will be provided at a fee that will not deter people, and there have
been six appointments made so far.
The hon. Lady
also asked about fee waivers and the general justification for
charging. If we allow a system to operate where a migrant can raise a
claim without a fee, it may encourage migrants to remain unlawfully in
the UK and submit speculative claims, which would have an impact on the
total costs of the system. The costs have to be met by someone, and
therefore, we would need to raise fees from other applicants who have
followed the rules, or require a greater contribution from the UK
taxpayer.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Windsor asked about maintaining the distinction
between asylum applications and general immigration applications. He is
right that we treat them in a different way. I add,
however, that once we have accepted someone as a refugee in this country
and hopefully, integrated them fully and allowed them to get on with
their life, from then on, they have the same rights and
responsibilities as a British citizen by birth, or through any other
method of entry. That is the point where we make the distinction; it is
clearly not at the point where they need help and are applying for
asylum.
I hope I have
answered the questions asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham,
Ladywood. The regulations are clearly in line with our objective to
recover more of the costs of immigration services from users of the
system, rather than relying on the UK taxpayer. Our continuing aim is
to ensure that the fees make an appropriate contribution to the total
costs of the immigration system and to balance that with the interests
of UK taxpayers.
Question
put and agreed to.
4.57
pm
Committee
rose.