UK Borders Bill

moved Amendment No. 9: 9: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause— ““Costs Before the Secretary of State makes regulations under section 5, he shall consult those representing the interests of— (a) refugees and asylum seekers, (b) universities, and (c) the tourist industry, on the costs for biometric immigration documents, and shall take into account the results of such consultation.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the cost of BIDs and how it was to be charged to their users was discussed in Grand Committee. The Minister provided just a few pieces of the jigsaw. He said that persons making an application would be charged for the BID and that the amount would be included in the immigration application charge fee. That perhaps answers to some extent the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about people coming from Belarus. They would have to pay for the BID, and the charge would be included in the cost that is imposed on them for the visa. However, the answer tells him nothing about the amount that is likely to be incurred. The Minister stated in his letter of 11 July that the cost of providing BIDs to foreign nationals who apply to extend their leave in the UK up to April 2017 was estimated to be £200 million, to which I presume must be added the cost of providing BIDs to applicants entering the UK for the first time. I hope that the Minister will give us that figure this evening so that we can add it to the equation. I hope also that he will tell us the number of BIDs that will be provided for the £200 million, plus the amount that is to be charged for first applicants, so that we can at least calculate the average cost of a BID. The Minister said that people who visit for six months or less would be exempt, implying that a person who entered originally as a visitor for private medical treatment, for marriage or civil partnership would be charged if they then applied for an extension or for leave to remain as a civil partner or spouse. Asylum seekers will not be required to register, but when a recognised refugee is granted leave to remain, they will be given a free BID which will last for 10 years. The Minister did not say what the position would be for other asylum applicants who are granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain, or, more importantly perhaps, for the large number of persons who cannot be returned to their country of origin for one reason or another—for example, Zimbabweans. I look forward to receiving that information when he replies. As the Minister is aware, we are concerned particularly about the way in which the Government are using the power granted by Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 to recover an amount exceeding the administrative costs of processing an application or undertaking a process. We understand that their intention is to charge over the odds for BIDs by using that blank cheque that Parliament unwisely gave them. In our debates earlier this year, I drew particular attention to the case of spouses, who now have to pay £500 for a visa to enter the UK with the intention of marrying, £750 for ILR, and £400 for citizenship, making a total of £1,650 for the privilege of coming here and taking up residence as the spouse of a British citizen. Will they have to pay for a BID as well? The Minister thinks that students will be happy to pay for BIDs on top of the visa and student fees, because, as he said, "““our rates are very competitive internationally, which is one reason why we continue to be one of the favoured destinations for students across the world””.—[Official Report, 5/7/07; col. GC 171.]" He did say, however—and I am pleased about this—that the universities would be consulted on the charges for BIDs. He may find when he does that that we are not quite such a popular destination as we used to be, largely because it has become ever more expensive to live and study in this country. I respectfully suggest that the Government think twice before charging overseas students more than the cost of the BIDs. In the case of work permit holders, we benefit substantially economically from the labour of foreign workers, who generate revenue from the taxes that they pay, both direct and indirect, and there is no need to profiteer in addition by charging them over the odds for BIDs. I am conscious of the fact that my list of those who should be consulted about the fees is far too limited and that the Government consulted widely on the fees order in March. I hope that they will do the same before deciding on the charges for BIDs but that this time they will give the consultees some idea of the amounts they have in mind—because, without having the figures, it is not sensible to ask people to express opinions on general questions. I beg to move.