Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2012

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, some of the reactions to the increase in fees are well known. They are exactly what any Government of any colour would say—that charges should reflect the level of service and be appropriate to it. The problem is that we hear far too often that customer service is relatively poor. It was described to me as a ““litany of minor problems””. If you accumulate a set of minor problems, in totality they become more than just minor. There is a reputational issue, too. I was given the comparison of two people coming to the UK and to Germany; the one who arrived at Frankfurt would be dealt with there and then, whereas the one coming to the UK would have had to send his passport to the embassy in his country in advance. Obviously, there are different arrangements depending on different individuals but, in general, it is a very telling point. Businesses will stop and ask themselves where they should choose to go on that basis. I have been told anecdotal evidence of companies beginning to move their functions away from the UK because of the long-term path of the immigration system. It is, of course, more than just a concern about fees; it is the direction of policy and the complexity of our rules that are in question. I mention complexity in this context because those who have to find their way around the system, being charged what are perceived as high fees—and I hear the point made about the cost—have higher expectations of service. It is quite telling that many businesses engage lawyers and maybe other professionals to advise on how to cope with the system. The Merits Committee, of which I am a member, commented in its report to the House of the limited analysis of the impact of the increases on business. The letter from the CBI published in the report was really quite measured and clear; it did not use extreme language in any way. It pointed out that in the view of the CBI, "““employers have yet to see the improvements that were promised on the eve of last year's increase, or that of 2010””," and that, "““where UKBA is seeking to charge firms commercial rates, and is seeking a return … firms have the right to expect a higher level of service””." I have a question that is obvious, to me, but it may be too soon to give an answer to it. What would be the effect on efficiency and level of service of splitting the border agency into two component parts? It was against this background that I rather blinked to see the proposal for a premium sponsor scheme. I put down a Motion directed to this but decided to withdraw it and simply raise the points during this debate. I have real concerns about this being the thin end of a wedge of our creating a first class and, to use a railway operator's language, a standard class which is really second or third class. The service is private, but it is a public service as well. I reflect that if there is an attitude that immigration is not of general social value, then that impacts on the whole policy. As I said, it is a public as well as a private service. I was also concerned there was no specific consultation on the premium sponsor scheme. I know that it was originally proposed in 2009 and there was a generally favourable response then, but there may well have been a different context in terms of how employers felt about the service at the time. It is fair to say that the reaction now seems to be rather reserved until we see what will be delivered and what value for business there will be in joining the scheme. Clearly, there has to be significantly more than is offered under the current arrangements and I think that we need some clarity. One thing that bothers me is that the customers of the new premium scheme will not sign up until they know what is on offer. The border agency will not commit itself until it knows what its likely income is and what it will be able to afford. There is a space to be watched there, but one that rings some alarm bells in my own mind. All this is against a background of more and more tightening for employers as well as individuals and I want to ask about the reasons behind two changes in the immigration laws that are about to come into effect. I warned the Minister that I would do so. The first is on graduate recruitment and the closing of the tier 1 post-study work category and the introduction of the graduate entrepreneur route. That is intended to apply, I understand, to a smaller pool of exceptional graduates. I recognise that that is another route for an employer wishing to sponsor a graduate, but that application cannot be submitted until after graduation as distinct from the current completion of studies. I would be interested to know whether this is about numbers or something more. New graduates who set out immediately on an entrepreneurial route are to be applauded, but I do not think there can be many of them. Secondly, the cooling-off period of 12 months strikes me as an unfortunate description because in consumer areas it is about changing one's mind and saying no. Somebody wanting to change employer who leaves the UK will not be able to apply to re-enter until 12 months after the previous tier 2 general permission has expired. This would mean that an individual sent to the UK on an assignment under the intra-company transfer tier, whose sponsor wishes to hire him permanently, cannot apply under tier 2 general until 12 months after the ICT permission has expired. I do not know how realistic that is. It seems on the face of it likely to prove an obstacle to employers and thus an obstacle to a particular area of economic success. It was not something that I believe was recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee, so why, in the difficult context that we are discussing, have the Government proposed it?