Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2008

We have previously discussed unsolicited mail and unsolicited questions. I am sure that all questions are truly solicited, but they go far beyond my brief or my knowledge. I will attempt to answer the many detailed questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I will send written responses to my noble friend. A phased implementation plan for tier 4 will be published tomorrow. It has been developed with Universities UK and the sector. It has already been agreed that universities with registered charitable status will be charged £400. We will respond in writing on the broader university framework. As I have said, I can confirm that CESC states will receive the 10 per cent reduction. We have not ratified the revised Social Charter, and if that is not immediately on the horizon, it should be. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked about costs. I will let him have that information in due course. The fees are set within a fairly strict financial limit set by the Treasury. Within that overall limit, we set fees bearing in mind the value of the successful applicant or migrant while maintaining that the UK is an attractive destination for work and study, or to visit. As he rightly said, there is a considerable advantage to the United Kingdom’s Exchequer from the £2.6 billion of fees paid by overseas students per year; it is not something we take lightly. The overall cost for tier 1 and tier 2 is £100 million. As to any costs over that, as the noble Lord said, the subsidy rates are intended to allow the subsidy of small sponsors at the expense of larger sponsors. Whether they are monthly, annual or bi-annual, we appear to have new regulations at frequent intervals. That is in part because of the introduction of the new phased five-tier system. When the introduction of fees takes place for the tax year starting in April 2009, it is intended to consolidate the charges for this year. There have been inevitable changes to the regulations this year due to the phased roll-out of the points-based system. Criticism about the ability of employers and others to see and understand the information is taken. In its response, the department will seek to provide assurances that it will deal with this point expeditiously. On the two points made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I am not qualified to judge the tangent one must reach before escaping the regulations. Although perhaps it is not a question I should answer, as I have been given notice, it seems sensible to seek a detailed response for my noble friend in due course.