Clause 20 - Fees
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
3:45 pm
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
We find ourselves concerned with a clause that has raised some worries in the education world. I know that the Minister has received representations from a number of bodies. The university of Cambridge vice-chancellor's office wrote to the Home Secretary at the beginning of this week, but there have also been representations from Universities UK and the Council for International Education. Summing up the problems that my amendments seek to address, the university of Cambridge got it about right. The vice-chancellor's office wrote:
''We believe that this Bill signals an intent to introduce charges for visa applications which will harm student recruitment, damage access efforts, and further burden students who are already making great financial contributions.''
A summary of the concerns might be put as follows. It is argued, first, that the fees provided for in clause 20 should not apply to international students or dependants; secondly, that the international student market is worth an estimated £5 billion a year to the UK economy; thirdly, that international students contribute through income tax and national insurance contributions for part-time and vacation work; and fourthly, that there have been some negative experiences from the introduction in 2003 of immigration application charges, which have failed to lead to an improved service. In short, to introduce over-charging for students would be short-sighted and would risk alienating the international student market.
As briefly as I can, with the material in front of me, I shall speak to my amendments. Amendment No. 76 would ensure that fees in excess of the actual cost of determining the application would not be charged to students and others mentioned in the amendment, or their dependants. It is mainly a probing amendment to discover how the Government intend the provisions to affect students and their dependants.
The Minister does not need reminding that fees for extensions to and variations of leave under the 1999 Act were introduced only last summer. They were said to be cost-recovery fees only, but they still amount to a staggering £155 for a postal application and £250 for a personal application. Students are one of the groups worst affected by the charges, despite the fact that education is a vital export. Students now face the prospect of having to pay an entry tax to the Exchequer for the privilege of entering the UK.
Whatever the Minister may say about students being eligible for free treatment under the NHS and free access to education for their children, many international students work while they are here and pay taxes and national insurance. I know that the Minister believes, and the Prime Minister certainly believes, that international students are very important to the UK. I recall the Prime Minister's initiative to recruit more international students. In publicly funded higher education alone, there are about 240,000 international students, which I believe is about 12 per cent. of all students in higher education. Other arguments could be advanced, but the Minister will know what they are.
The point of amendment No. 77 is to remind Ministers that students are the group most likely to have to make multiple applications in order to complete a programme of studies here because of the way in which the system operates. According to the latest published Home Office figures, students are the single largest category of applicants for extensions. In 2001, there were more than 83,000 student applications for extensions, out of a total of 189,000 for all purposes. International students are therefore not a marginal group, but a major element in the equation. Students may have to make more than one application on behalf of themselves and their dependants, either because they progress from one course to another—for example, from A levels or a foundation course to a degree, or from an undergraduate degree to a masters or a doctorate—or because at the time of their original application, they were not given sufficient leave for the planned duration of their studies. The Minister will understand the thrust of my amendment. I know that she has carefully read the points raised by the various bodies that I mentioned and I need say no more about this amendment.
Amendment No. 78 relates to consultation. On Second Reading the Home Secretary guaranteed that the Government would consult before laying an order before the House. When what is now section 5 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which provides for cost recovery charges, was in Committee, the then Minister of State, now Minister for Trade and Investment, recognised that
''We are looking for ways to encourage more students to come in . . . We shall consider proposals for students in due course when regulations are introduced. It would be appropriate to discuss the detail of specific categories of fees and the figures in a debate on those regulations.''—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 15 April 1999; c. 555–563.]
He continued in the same vein.
Contrary to what was said in 1999, and ignoring their own consultation protocol—there was no prior consultation or publicity—the Government introduced regulations just before the summer recess, which is the worst possible time for students. It is important to try to avoid repeating that mix-up by ensuring that proper notice is given of the timing of the introduction of new charges, and that no regulations or orders are made without advanced consultation in accordance with the guarantee given by the Secretary of State and with the Government's own consultation protocol. If that guarantee is worth anything, the Minister will not mind including it in the Bill.
New clause 2 relates to errors. When the 1999 Act was first considered in another place, an amendment to section 5 was considered that no fee should be charged if an application was made necessary by a mistake of the Secretary of State or his agents. Speaking in that debate, the noble Lord Falconer promised:
''We shall ensure that when fee regulations are made, appropriate provision is made to deal with errors which may occur.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 49.]
It later became clear that the Act had been drafted to preclude the making of such provision under the regulations. We would hope to put that right. We want the Home Office to consider being able to waive fees where applications are necessary only to correct mistakes. That is the purpose of new clause 2. I shall not go further into the matter, but the Minister of State will be aware that errors are made.
The main purpose of new clause 2 is to ensure that Ministers do not respond to the many criticisms of how charging has been introduced and managed, by hiding behind the argument that the legislation gives them no discretion in responding to blunders of the sort that we know are made.