Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2012

My Lords, I have been asked quite a number of questions and will endeavour to answer as many as I can. I apologise in advance for those that I miss and will in due course write to noble Lords to pick up anything that I fail to deal with. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made the allegation that we were simply selling British citizenship. I do not accept that, but I think that it is right that, when setting fees above the cost, it is perfectly permissible to look at the value to the applicant of a successful application while maintaining the United Kingdom as an attractive destination to work, study or visit. That is why we set the fee for a short-term visit below cost, while a tier 1 or settlement fee is set above cost to reflect the value of a successful application. That is certainly not going down the line, as the noble Lord was suggesting, of selling British citizenship. The noble Lord then asked about the effect of the fee increases on the number of those coming in. We believe that our fees continue to represent good value for money; indeed, the visa fee is only a small proportion of the overall cost that any individual would pay if they decided to come to the United Kingdom. There is no evidence to suggest that the fee proposals will undermine ongoing plans to promote the United Kingdom as an attractive destination. We do not think that they will have the effect that the noble Lord seemed to imply. The noble Lord also asked what additional income would be available to UKBA. I can give him an assurance that something in the order of £40 million will be raised. I also make it clear to my noble friend Lady Hamwee and my noble kinsman Lord Avebury, who spoke about service standards within the UK Border Agency, that the agency is exceeding most of its service standards. However, it is important that it generates income to be able to continue to improve standards as is appropriate and to invest in making the United Kingdom border secure and effective while providing the right service for individuals as they come in. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, then moved on to the question of the Armed Forces, which I briefly touched on in my opening remarks. We have reviewed the entry clearance visa fees that apply to dependants of serving Armed Forces personnel who come to the UK to join their serving family member. The entry clearance fee for these dependants is being held at 2011-12 levels. This is in recognition of the service to the country of members of the United Kingdom Armed Forces and in support of the Government's commitment and duty of care to members of the Armed Forces under the new Armed Forces covenant. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, touched on the question of the impact on business and the various criticisms made by the CBI. The noble Lord asked me to comment on the Budget, and I will just say that that is slightly beyond my level at the moment. I can assure him that I read the article by Willie Walsh, which gained some justifiable criticism not just for the Home Office but for all parts of the Government, particularly in relation to his comments about airports. However, I do not think that the noble Lord would want me to go down that route. In terms of what we do within the UKBA, the fees that we charge and the service that we provide, we believe that our fees compare favourably with key competitors in other countries and offer very good value when considering the benefits and entitlements of a successful application. A recent analysis undertaken by the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship supports the Oxford Economics assessment that visa application demand is quite inelastic with respect to moderate changes in visa charges. The Australian analysis shows that the cost of a visa is very low relative to the total monetary value of the business and the high desirability of the product. Historical analysis shows little, if any, correlation between changes in visa prices and volume growth in visa applications. Therefore we do not accept that there will be the effect on business that has been claimed, and we reject the criticisms by the CBI. The United Kingdom Border Agency issues successful sponsor applicants with a licence that allows an employer or, for that matter, an educational service to bring migrants to work or study over a period of four years—and that is not an annual fee. So to refer to this as ““a bitter blow”” to working migrants and their sponsors does seem to be rather over the top. If I may, I will move on to some of the concerns about consultation put forward by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She asked what consultation we had undertaken before introducing these changes, particularly in relation to what she called the first-class and standard-class service. We consulted informally with a number of licence sponsors, representative bodies and other government departments about the proposal for a sponsor premium service, and that enabled us to confirm that a number of high users of the system would be willing to pay for an enhanced service from the UK Border Agency. We have gained, we believe, a clear understanding of which benefits would be welcomed in addition to the standard sponsored package. I do not accept the suggestion that the new premium service is just a way of making additional income. We have listened to the potential customers of UKBA and they have told us that they would be willing to pay for it. We think that is a matter that we should accept.