§ John Barrett (Edinburgh, West)I welcome the opportunity to debate the impact that the new Home Office visa charges will have on non-European Union international students studying in the United Kingdom.
I want to thank Jim Thompson, the welfare officer, and Sarah Nicholson, vice-president for representation, of the Edinburgh University Students' Association, who first raised the issue with me and helped me to prepare for this debate. They have been campaigning hard on this issue, as have universities, colleges and students organisations throughout the UK. I hope that the debate will give the Minister an opportunity to respond to some of their concerns. I know that they will be listening closely to her words.
The debate stems from the press release issued by the Home Office on 11 July 2003, which announced that from 1 August all foreign nationals applying to extend their stay in the UK would have to pay a charge for the processing of their applications. The Home Office stated that applications by post would cost £155, and that the so-called premium same-day service for personal callers would cost £250. That cost would have to be paid each time an application was made. One of the largest groups of foreign nationals who are now subject to this charge are international students who are living and studying in the UK and who originate from outside the EU.
The British Council's figures show that there are some 187,000 such students in the UK, 16,000 of whom are north of the border. The charges will have a major impact on the thousands of international students in my home city of Edinburgh. Edinburgh universities have a long and proud tradition of attracting students from all over the world. Well over 3,500 non-EU international students attend Edinburgh university, Heriot-Watt university, Queen Margaret university college and Napier university, and hundreds more attend Stephenson college, Edinburgh college of art and Telford college, which is based in my constituency. Almost all those students, from a total of almost 4,000, will have to pay the Government's new charges to extend their visas.
Before I talk about the principle of the charges, I want to comment on the very disappointing way in which the charges were announced and introduced. Four years ago, during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—the Act that established the principle of visa charging—the then Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), gave specific and quite categorical assurances to those in further and higher education that international students would be given special consideration. More importantly, however, he promised that universities and colleges would be fully consulted before the introduction of any visa charges.
The Government not only completely reneged on the promise to give students special dispensation, but announced the charges without any consultation whatsoever with universities, colleges or student bodies. The way in which the Home Office announced these charges treated the further and higher education sectors with contempt. It has left many students and chancellors dismayed and confused as to why the assurances that they were given proved to be so hollow.
308WH I anticipate that it is probably too much to expect an apology from the Minister today. I hope, however, that she will at least recognise that the charges could have been introduced in a much better way. Unless the Home Office shows that serious lessons can be learned for the future, universities and colleges will have no reason to believe the Government when similar assurances are given again.
§ Sue Doughty (Guildford)This is a very important subject. Is my hon. Friend aware that I had to bring to the attention of the House the treatment of these students by the Home Office and the real problems that they experienced in obtaining visas, which were constantly being lost? That created a very bad impression of the British Government and the British way of life. Only this week, I received a letter from 138 Chinese students at the university of Surrey on this issue.
§ John Barrett:I am aware of some of the problems for which students are having to pick up the tab because of Home Office errors, and I shall come to that.
The announcement of the charges, without consultation, was made all the worse by the way in which they were introduced. The Home Office announcement on 11 July stated that the new system would start on 1 August. It gave relevant student organisations and student welfare officers a mere 21 days to prepare. As the principal and vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university, Professor Timothy O'Shea said:
With only three weeks' advance notice ahead of the implementation of these charges, universities have had no opportunity to highlight their impact nor to forewarn the students about them.He went on to say:The charges have been launched at a time of year, shortly before the start of the new academic year, guaranteed to hit the higher education sector hardest.Can the Minister tell me why the Home Office chose 11 July to announce the new charges? Was any consideration given to the impact that the timing would have on the further and higher education sectors?
§ Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problems for the further and higher education sectors. He might also be interested to know that it is a major problem for overseas students attending boarding schools. A market worth over £200 million to this country has been thrown into chaos by the changes.
§ John Barrett:I take note of that point.
What about the impact of the charges? International students represent the largest single group of applications for extensions in the UK. It cannot be argued that students represent the most well-off group in society, so the new visa charges will, without doubt, impact on them to a greater degree than they will on other non-EU visitors working to extend their stays. As the Minister will know, many international students do not have access to yanking facilities, as banks often refuse to issue them with debit cards or cheque books. That will force many of them to pay the visa charges by postal order, adding again to their costs.
309WH Even without postal order charges, the cost is already considerable. As I mentioned, the charge will be at least £150 per application, which bears no resemblance to the likely charge of £90 of which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire advised the Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill in 1999. As the Council for International Education pointed out, there has not been 72 per cent. inflation since then. Can the Minister tell us how the figure off 150 was reached and give an indication as to why the original estimate proved to be so far out? In addition, why do the charges compare so unfavourably with similar application fees, such as the £36 for an initial student visa?
I ask these questions because the answers are important and have not, so far, been forthcoming. Unlike those for many other foreign nationals, the new visa charges will not be one-off charges for the students who have to pay them. Despite central guidance, many students are not given permission to stay which covers their entire courses, and they need to extend their stay to complete their degree or even to attend graduation. Many short-term students are granted entry on conditions that preclude them from working as other international students can. Those students must then apply for a change in conditions. In all such cases, students will have to pay the Home Office's new charge.
The trouble does not stop there. Students in further education and, for example, on English language courses are often given permission to stay for only a year at a time. Others only get permission to extend for each of their short courses. Those students might have to pay the charge four or five times. What about research students, who are approaching the end of their studies? At present, they often have to make several applications for short extensions to cover final write-ups, re-submissions or further oral examinations. What about students who are on pre-sessional or foundation courses in preparation for degree courses? Such students will have to extend their stay after completing their first courses. How about the many students who are here thanks to scholarships and are on particularly limited budgets?
Finally, what consideration has the Minister given to students—I can assure her that there are many—who need to correct mistakes that have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) said, been made by entry clearance officers in their home countries or by an immigration officer on entry into this country? Should they be charged for the Government's incompetence? All those students will be hit hard by the new charges, and without question there is a risk that the charges will deter foreign students from studying in the UK. That is despite the Prime Minister's clearly stated and repeated aim of attracting more international students to the UK.
§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our country is at the leading edge in international education provision, and that the charges represent a tax on that education and on a thriving industry?
§ John Barrett:I certainly do agree. Other countries are well aware of the contribution that students can make to 310WH their way of life, to their education system and to their economies, and while we are adding tax many other countries are trying to get students to go and attend their educational establishments. It is a double-edged sword.
Edinburgh university has been particularly keen to respond to the Prime Minister's initiative. However, the new visa charges have severely hampered its efforts, and for what reward? The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), said in the original Home Office press release that
charging will help us to continue to improve the efficiency and speed with which we process these applications, leading to ever higher levels of customer service.Unfortunately, neither I nor those working in our colleges, universities and boarding schools are convinced that that will be the case.The chief executive of Universities UK has asked whether the immigration and nationality directorate will be able to provide a level of service that is appropriate to the level of charge. If the Government think that the Home Office proposal of a maximum of 13 weeks for processing an application is a high level of service, they ought to be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptions Act.
Where do we go from here? Naturally, I and many other hon. Members would like the Home Office to do an about-turn and remove the charges. That may be a little unrealistic, despite the fact that such a move would receive the overwhelming support of colleges and universities. Nevertheless, the Government could take some simple and relatively straightforward steps to help to mitigate the very negative impact of the Home Office's new policy.
What consideration can the Minister give to postponing the charges at least until the new year? Such a deferral, although short, would make an enormous difference to those organisations that are still trying to get to grips with the Government's recent and sudden announcement. Not only would it allow for greater consultation on the implications of the charges, but those students who are affected will have more time to become fully aware of the new rules and to begin budgeting for the charges.
The Minister should be aware that advice services at many educational institutions are coming under great pressure because of the charges, especially as it comes at their busiest time of the year. That is certainly the case in Edinburgh. A deferral of the charges would allow the consideration of new and different systems—perhaps differential fees for shorter or longer extensions—and for the publication of new guidance on the length of student visas for different courses.
Whether or not the charges are postponed, will the Minister assure me that new guidance will be issued to immigration officers at UK ports and to entry clearance officers abroad on granting consistent entry extensions in order to minimise the potential for mistakes and the need for repeat extension applications? If the Minister believes that the charges will result in an improved service, will she assure me that additional and better trained staff will be placed at ports, to avoid students having to make applications to the Home Office soon after their arrival?
311WH Will the Minister also make clear her intention to provide a means by which students can dispute permissions that are incorrect or that fail adequately to meet their circumstances without the payment of additional fees? Such a commitment would go a long way to allaying concerns that students may be picking up the bill for the mistakes of the Home Office.
A strong consensus has now emerged on the issue. The Council for International Students, Universities UK, the National Union of Students, the Council for International Education, and vice-chancellors, rectors, student unions and associations throughout the UK, have lined up to urge the Government to reverse their position on visa extension charges. I am delighted that hon. Members from six parties have already signed early-day motion 1729 in my name, which calls on the Home Office to consider the issue again. There is a consensus that the Government cannot and must not ignore.
I am keen to ensure that the Minister has as much time as possible to respond to my points. I hope that I have made clear the seriousness of the Home Office actions, and the depth of feeling on the issue. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer all my questions in the short time that she has to respond, but the debate has given me an opportunity to put the case of universities, colleges and students, and to put on record some important and, in some cases, detailed questions. I also ask that she and her officials respond in writing to any points that cannot be addressed today, so that the concern and dismay felt by those in further and higher education can finally be brought to an end.
Overseas students contribute to our education system and our economy. We should follow the example of other countries, which not only encourage them in their studies but facilitate their long-term involvement with the country. The current actions of the Government are short-sighted and must be reconsidered.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart):I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) is right to say that the subject has not been fully aired in public, and I am glad of the opportunity to respond to the points that he has made.
Historically, in administering people's applications to remain here as students, we have provided a service that has, at times, been flawed. The Government's view, as expressed in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, was that the service should properly be paid for by the people who benefit from it. The fees are set, in accordance with Treasury rules, to cover the full administrative cost entailed in considering each application, and no more.
The hon. Gentleman asks how the policy was developed and why it has been introduced now. Those are important subjects, and they connect with the issue of service raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who has left the Chamber. The Home Office recognises that, at the standard of service that was common in the past, it would be difficult to sustain a charging regime. Quite properly, we therefore ensured that the Department was able to provide a proper quality of service before fee proposals were introduced. 312WH As a consequence, substantial investment was made to get the service to a level of effectiveness and efficiency that would merit charging.
We have set stringent service standards. The aim is that 70 per cent. of postal applications will be dealt with within three weeks of receipt in the immigration and nationality directorate, with the remainder being dealt with within 13 weeks. Of course, we recognise that 13 weeks is not a high quality of service, but we aim to guarantee that as a maximum. I have assured myself that, within just 13 weeks of the announcement, only I per cent. of the applications made in the week following the announcement are still to be decided. We are meeting those standards, and I understand that we are exceeding the three-week target for 70 per cent. of applications.
Personal callers with correct documentation who do not require further inquiries will get a decision on the same day, and we are delivering that for 100 per cent. of personal callers. In comparison, a year ago, only 50 per cent. of postal applications were considered within three weeks, and only 87 per cent. of personal applications received a same-day service, so there has been substantial improvement in the service.
If we had not made the investment that we have put in because of the charging regime, the service improvements could not have been delivered. My aim is to deliver further improvements because I share the view that 13 weeks for the determination of a case is longer than one would want. It is not appropriate for a student, whether at school or university, to wait that long for a decision to be made. We can make improvements only through a charging regime, as there are already too many demands on public funds. Would that be a disincentive to students; would it cause them problems? It is important to recognise the size of the charge compared with the other costs of studying in the UK. It is substantially smaller than the cost of student fees and tuition fees, the cost of living here and so on.
When the subject was first debated—
§ Mr. Sheerman:Will the Minister give way?
§ Fiona Mactaggart:If I may, I shall first finish the sentence.
When the subject was first debated, it was quite easy for overseas students to work for up to 20 hours a week in addition to studying. That automatic permission to work was introduced in 1999, and it made it much easier for students to meet additional costs while they were here.
§ Mr. Sheerman:Surely the point is whether the charge is fair, and whether it will stop students coming here? International students provide 12 per cent. of the income of UK universities. As a governor of the London School of Economics, I know that many institutions will face bankruptcy if they lose a substantial share of that market. The cost is still high.
§ Fiona Mactaggart:Frankly, compared with the other costs of overseas study, £150 is not very high. I do not accept my hon. Friend's point that the cost will substantially deter students. If we compare fees in the United Kingdom to those in other countries that have 313WH had fees in place for some time, our regime—which has been in place for only a matter of weeks—sits between the charges made by Australia and those made by America, our major competitors as English language nations that offer places to overseas students.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)What consultation took place with the universities?
§ Fiona Mactaggart:I was coming to that point. It is regrettable that there was no extensive consultation on the matter. There are two reasons for that. First, getting everything into place to allow delivery to take place was more complex than the Department understood. We were in a position to do that only shortly before the announcement was made. That created real difficulties of timing and of creating opportunities for consultation.
Secondly, and most important, in the period of just under three weeks between the announcement and the introduction of the fees, the number of applications was two and a half times the usual number. It is quite possible that, had we undertaken extensive consultation before the charge was introduced, the service improvements that I described could not have been sustained. That would not have been acceptable.
We find ourselves in the regrettable situation of having introduced the fee without the quality of consultation that we might have hoped for. There was no possibility of consulting over the level of fee, as it is determined by Treasury rules, although we could have consulted properly on some of the details. I apologise to the universities for that. I can announce today that, in looking at what has happened so far and at what should happen in the future, we will engage with universities and student organisations.
I will be happy to hear representations from student organisations that have been burdened by the advanced consequences of the charge. We need to learn from the early weeks of the experiment to ensure that, if there were any unintended consequences or impacts, we can see whether steps can be taken to remedy the impact. I recognise that the lack of consultation caused complications for institutions and individuals. That is regrettable, and I can confirm that, although it is not possible to do what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West wants, which is to unpick the fees paid to date, it is possible to learn from the process, to listen to representations on how to proceed and to invite universities and student unions to comment. We are currently considering how that consultation should go forward.
§ John Barrett:Will the Minister say who was consulted?
§ Fiona Mactaggart:We used the negative resolution procedure, so the only consultation was within the Government. I understand that that is not a satisfactory procedure, and there were two reasons for that. The first was the need to be confident that we had in place the service improvements, which were necessary precursors to charging. The second reason was the potential consequences of the closing-down sale on our ability to 314WH sustain that quality of service, partly because of its timing. That is in the past, and we will now proceed with consultation of the quality for which we have aimed.
Treasury rules on full cost recovery are completely clear. However, the timing, and some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, such as the length of visas and the advice to immigration officers, can be consulted on.
§ Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)The different categories of overseas students were raised at the beginning of the debate. I was shocked to be told, in a letter from the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), that the Home Office accounting structure does not provide for differential fees. Will the Minister tell us when that problem will be put right, so that we can consider differential fees?
§ Fiona Mactaggart:No, I cannot; that is the honest answer. That is one reason why we are examining the terms of future consultation. We have managed significant service improvements, and that has been the priority, rather than the development of highly sophisticated charging regimes. If, in response to what has happened so far, there is an overwhelming demand for a complex system of different charges, we may consider that. However, my judgment is that the cost of introducing complex differentials is probably not worth the cost of that infrastructure.
§ Mr. Sheerman:My hon. Friend is generous in giving way again, and I appreciate the tone of her response. I do not want a complex system of fees, but what would she say about reconsidering the repeat fees? That goes to the heart of the question.
§ Fiona Mactaggart:I can confirm that, in phase 2 of the consultation, we will consider having differential fees. We have instituted systems to try to ensure that, to reduce repeat fees, the entry clearance officers or immigration officers grant leave for the full length of the course.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West pointed out, there are problems when people take an English course, and then a further course. Frankly it is not right or possible for the Home Office to give someone leave for longer than the length of their course. However, we have instituted measures to allow immigration officers to give concurrent leave to people who have completed their course so that they can return, for example, for their award ceremony. We must consider people in subjects such as science and engineering who might stay to get work experience at the end of their course.
We are trying to reduce some of the consequences of the measures, and I think that we will be able to minimise some of them; they are already being sorted out in practice. The first introduction has been a motor for the improvement of the quality of service. In my view, the lack of quality of administration of applications by overseas students was a bigger barrier to their being able to come to Britain to study than the level of fee. In the second layer of consultation, we need to ensure that we improve the way in which we deal with fees.