Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts.
The draft order will introduce a power to charge a fee for UK visa qualification equivalency and English language proficiency assessment services and sets the maximum fee that can be charged. Before I explain the services, I will provide the Committee with some background on the Home Office’s fee structure.
In order for the Home Office to charge for immigration and nationality functions, the Immigration Act 2014 requires that fees must be set in secondary legislation. The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, an amendment to which we are discussing, sets out the functions for which a fee can be charged and sets a maximum fee that can be charged. Fee levels are then set in separate secondary legislation, the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018, which is subject to parliamentary agreement through the negative procedure.
Fees for the services we seek to regulate are for assessments used on certain visa and nationality routes, which include family, skilled worker, settlement and student, where the requirements of that route require an applicant to demonstrate proficiency in the English language at a specified level, or that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK. An applicant can demonstrate in a number of ways their proficiency in the English language, oneof which is to use an academic qualification obtained in English awarded by an educational establishment outside the UK.
Where an applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK, or their proficiency in English language by using an academic qualification obtained outside the UK, those must be provided by Ecctis Ltd. Ecctis Ltd is our third-party supplier, which provides those services through a concession contract with the Home Office. It has been providing the services for more than a decade. This is not a new requirement being introduced for applicants on the work, study and nationality routes. The requirement for applicants to use those services has been specified in the immigration rules since 2008.
Where a visa or nationality applicant uses the services provided by Ecctis, they apply through its website and pay the appropriate fee. The outcome of the assessment can take in the region of 10 working days for the English language assessment, unless the applicant opts for an optional fast-track service, and about 30 working days for the qualification equivalency assessment. The use of the assessment is not limited to the Home Office and the visa application.
The maximum fee we are setting in the draft order for the qualification equivalency and the English language proficiency assessment is being set at £400. That will allow the Home Office to set fee levels later this year at their current levels, which are £140 for the English language assessment and £210 for the qualification equivalency assessment. By setting the maximums above that level, we have a reasonable degree of headroom to adjust fees if, for example, there is an increase in the cost of providing the services.
I will now turn to the question of why the Home Office is bringing forward legislation to regulate the fees now, when they are already being charged and where neither the nature of the service itself nor the requirements in the immigration rules have changed. In the course of preparing for a reprocurement of the existing service earlier this year, however, the Department identified that the fees should have already been regulated due to the requirement to use the service in respect of applications on certain routes. Having identified that fact, the Department sought to legislate at the earliest opportunity; legislation had originally been considered for the summer, but was postponed due to the general election. That is why we are working to ensure that the fees have an appropriate statutory footing in future.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew special attention to the explanatory memorandum that was published alongside this order. In its report published on 10 October, the Committee raised concerns that the explanatory memorandum did not provide a clear and open statement of why this instrument was brought forward. I fully appreciate the importance of transparency in the Department’s interactions with Parliament, including in the explanatory memorandums that it lays alongside legislation. I also recognise the Committee’s view that a fuller explanation of the context of the legislation and the associated issue was required in this case, including the status of and approach to fees charged prior to the appropriate regulations’ being brought into force.
As I set out in my response to the correspondence from the Committee on 15 October, in which I responded in some detail, some of which we are covering in my speech today, the treatment of those previously charged fees is also subject to a range of complex and ongoing considerations, which makes the position fundamentally uncertain at this stage. It includes exploration of the possibility of pursuing retrospective legislation that would put fees paid to date on a statutory footing.
Although I am not yet in a position to confirm the specific approach to be taken on this issue, the options under consideration have the potential to impact fundamentally the bearing of the previously charged fees. Given that uncertainty, I did not consider that it would be appropriate or helpful to go into further detail on this point in the explanatory memorandum, which is otherwise clear on the necessity of laying legislation to put the fees on a statutory footing and the rationale for the specific provisions being made.
I will, however, emphasise again that I take the Department’s responsibilities in respect of parliamentary transparency seriously, and assure hon. Members that we are taking forward those considerations in respect of previously charged fees as a priority. It is important to note that all fees paid were on receipt of services that were also received.
Finally, I would like to be clear that although the purpose of the order is to put the fees on a statutory footing, it is the first of two statutory instruments that need to be laid to ensure that future fees are charged for these services with the appropriate legislation in place. Our intention is, subject to the approval of this order by the House, to lay an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in December that will set fee levels.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I welcome the Minister to her place. She will be delighted to know that we do not see the measure as contentious and we will not seek to divide the Committee today. The Opposition accept her reasons for why we have to make the changes today. We also accept that there will need to be retrospective legislation. I welcome her transparency on that matter.
The Opposition always accept that immigration regulations must be pragmatic and we welcome the measures today. May I just ask the Minister what mechanisms will be put in place for the proper scrutiny of the statutory instruments, further regulations and retrospective legislation that she might introduce? Can she say what mechanisms this House will have to scrutinise those? Can she also outline—we accept that at this stage she might not know because of parliamentary timetabling —when we might expect the Government to introduce the retrospective legislation that might be needed to amend the issues that she has outlined this morning?
Ministers should of course be assured that we will always, as the Opposition, look carefully at further proposals that the Minister may bring to the House. I also question whether it is Government policy to reverse or change the exemptions introduced by the previous Government, which have ensured that 300,000 fewer would-be applicants will have come to this country through other routes. Do the new Government intend to make further changes within that scope?
Furthermore, I am concerned—even though it is not necessarily within the scope of this SI—that Ministers have publicly stated their intent to maintain an open-door policy for international students. Will the Minister outline the Government’s position on international students going forward?
The Opposition welcome these pragmatic measures, and we look forward to supporting them in this Session.
Seema Malhotra
It may be more helpful for me to write to the shadow Minister on a number of his questions. However, I thank him for his constructive response in that this issue pre-dated the general election, and, for clarity, it is important that we move forward in the way that has been proposed.
It is important to say that, as I have outlined, we are still considering the best approach to take in relation to legislation or other responses to the issue retrospectively. As a result, it is a bit more challenging to announce a timetable for legislation when there is still an important process to go through, but I am happy to keep the shadow Minister informed—in writing, if need be.
It is worth saying a couple of points in response to the shadow Minister. Over the lifespan of this order, immigration fees will be kept under review and will be updated within the parameters that we have set. In the event that fee levels are changed, they will need to be approved by the House, and will be accompanied by an economic assessment. It is helpful to remind Members that this order will not put fees for the services on a statutory footing; it is the first of two pieces of required secondary legislation, the second being the amendment to the 2018 regulations that we expect to lay in December, subject to Parliament’s approving this order. The regulations will set the fees for immigration and nationality-related services provided by Ecctis at the level that customers are currently charged.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Building Safety) Order 2024
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Martin McCluskey (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Building Safety) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order, which is the result of collaborative working between the two Governments and supports the Scottish Government’s request last year to devolve powers for the Scottish Parliament to establish a Scottish building safety levy. It also builds on work done by the previous Government before the election.
The order will be made under section 80B of the Scotland Act 1998, which provides for devolving additional tax-raising powers to the Scottish Parliament by way of statutory instrument. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through more than 250 orders since devolution began.
The Grenfell Tower fire was a heartbreaking tragedy that sent shock waves across the UK and overseas. As the Prime Minister said, it was entirely avoidable. It uncovered the fact that many homeowners across the UK lived in buildings with serious fire and building safety defects. Our thoughts today remain with the victims and their families.
The remediation challenge is significant. The Scottish Government estimate that around 49% of high-rise buildings above 18 metres and 10% of those between 11 metres and 18 metres require some level of remediation. That suggests that around 382 buildings above 18 metres and around 500 buildings between 11 metres and 18 metres require remediation; that is close to 900 buildings in total.
The UK and devolved Governments have stepped up and committed public funds to help to remediate life-critical building safety problems. Industry has also assumed its responsibilities and taken ownership of the remediation challenge, but buildings remain for which a responsible party cannot be identified. It would be unfair on the taxpayer for the costs of remediating those buildings to fall on the Government, but it would be unfair on the homeowners for the costs to fall on them.
The order will devolve power to the Scottish Parliament to enable it to legislate for a Scottish building safety levy to fund building safety expenditure in Scotland. The devolved power will be similar to the power of the Secretary of State under section 105 of the Building Act 1984, as amended by the Building Safety Act 2022, to introduce a building safety levy in England. This follows a request from the Scottish Government last year to devolve such a power. The UK Government will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government, and I am pleased that in this case the Governments have worked together to make sure that this issue can be addressed in Scotland.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am happy to confirm that the Conservatives support this order. As we heard from the Minister, this order originates in a recognition that both the UK and Scottish Governments face a common challenge in the fixing of historical building safety defects, such as defective cladding. Both Governments have rightly accepted that the housing sector should make a contribution towards the cost of these works.
The last Conservative Government introduced a building safety levy, which applied as a tax on any new residential development in England. The Scottish Government have now made a request for a transfer of powers to allow them to introduce their version of this tax in Scotland. Jointly, both the Scottish and UK Governments consulted on the proposal to devolve the power to create this tax in Scotland.
The order will devolve the power to the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a new Scottish levy on building control approval for properties providing accommodation. Revenues from the levy will be used to fund building safety expenditure in Scotland. I pay tribute to the excellent officials in the Scotland Office who have done all the hard work on this order, much of which was done prior to the general election.
Although I am happy to confirm our support for the order, a number of concerns have been expressed and I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with them. I appreciate that many may be more appropriately answered by the relevant Scottish Government Minister, but I seek reassurances that the new UK Government have discussed and considered these points with the Scottish Administration.
First, is the Minister content that a new levy introduced as a consequence of this order will not have a disproportionate impact on housebuilders that have not built any housing that requires remediation? Is there a risk of double taxation, as property developers already contribute to the residential property developer tax? That may be particularly the case if some developers have already committed to paying for the remediation of buildings that they are responsible for.
Secondly, there are concerns that the introduction of a Scottish building safety levy may increase the price of new properties in Scotland. Is that something that the Minister has considered and consulted on with the Scottish Government? Lastly, some consultation respondents highlighted concerns that the introduction of a Scottish building safety levy would create additional complexity and administrative burden for housebuilders if the rates of the Scottish levy differ from those in England. Will the UK Government keep this under review? What action will they take if variation results in the distorting of the market on either side of the border? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those points, but again I am happy to confirm that the Conservatives support this order.
Martin McCluskey
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his contribution, and I echo his comments both on the work of officials and on his own work before the election on progressing the order.
It is important to remember that this debate is purely on a constitutional order and the devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament to make a building levy; these decisions will be made by the Scottish Government. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s questions would be better answered by a representative of the Scottish Government. He will be aware that there was a joint UK Government-Scottish Government consultation that addressed many of these questions, and it gave us the assurance that there would not be the sort of impact to which he alluded.
On the risk of divergence, there are already proposals for a building levy and a consultation in England. The risk of divergence would be greater were there not to be a building levy in Scotland too. As with a number of these areas, I expect the Scottish Government to keep the effects of this tax under review, but that is a decision for them.
This instrument comes in the year of the 20th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament, which the last Labour Government delivered. It is in this spirit of devolution that this Government set out to reset relationships with the Scottish Government to deliver for the Scottish people. This instrument demonstrates the continued commitment of the UK Government to working with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2024
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Harris, especially as you are one of Swansea’s most famous daughters. As we are talking about lighthouses, however, I will mention Bonnie Tyler. She was also one of Swansea’s most famous daughters and she sang “Total Eclipse of the Heart”—that is the best reference I could come up with.
This order will help to facilitate the replacement of the general lighthouse authorities’ ageing and increasingly obsolete fleet of vessels by increasing the amount of borrowing that they can access under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The GLAs are amazing organisations, and if any hon. Members has the chance to visit Trinity House lighthouses, the Northern Lighthouse Board or the Irish lighthouse board, which we also oversee, I suggest that they do. They do an amazing thing with great Department officials and officials working in the field in the most extreme circumstances. It is a great bit of my ministerial responsibilities.
The GLAs provide aids to navigation, such as lighthouses and buoys; respond to new dangers to navigation safety, such as shipwrecks; and audit local aids to navigation provided by ports and harbours, and offshore structures such as wind farms, which will become increasingly important as we become a green energy superpower, as is one of our missions. The UK has some of the busiest and dangerous waters in the world, which is a potentially calamitous combination when one reflects on the importance of shipping to us as an island nation; 95% of all our import and export tonnage is transported by sea.
The GLAs have been doing that work for hundreds of years. They are vital experts and they need modern, efficient equipment to ensure that they can continue to complete their work. They work their ships and other assets extremely hard—the average economic service life of their vessels is 25 years—so replacement on those timescales is business as usual for the GLAs.
New ships are expensive, however, which brings me to the measure before the Committee. The GLAs are funded by light dues, a hypothecated tax paid by commercial and other shipping interests. They are not paid for by general taxation and make no call on the UK Exchequer for their day-to-day operational costs.
The 1995 Act recognises that from time to time the GLAs need additional borrowing to be able to afford large capital purchases, but it also sets a cumulative limit of £100 million on the amount that all three GLAs could borrow. That figure was first included in legislation in 1988 and has not been changed since. It does not recognise inflationary or any other pressures. In today’s terms, that figure would be worth £270 million. It also does not recognise the changes in international financial reporting that have resulted in other costs, such as the fixed-price costs of contracts, being treated as borrowing in accounting terms. The figure also includes all borrowing regardless of source, commercial or Government.
Although the GLAs have been able to keep comfortably within this limit until now, the need to purchase new vessels means that the current limit is now insufficient to meet forecast borrowing requirements. However, the 1995 Act places restrictions on how and when the power to increase the limit can be used. First, any raising of the limit requires advance approval from HM Treasury. My colleagues have recognised our case and provided that approval. Secondly, the limit can be increased only by an order—the statutory instrument under consideration today.
Thirdly, the limit can be raised only by a maximum of £33 million at a time. To say “at a time” is somewhat ambiguous in this context, but following advice from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, we have interpreted that to mean within a single order. Given those legal constraints, we need to raise the limit by a maximum of £33 million this year. Additional orders will be required to raise the limit further in future to ensure that the limit keeps step with the GLAs’ borrowing, and we will bring those orders forward for the approval of Parliament in due course.
I stress that increasing the borrowing limit does not represent a commitment to new funding. Every vessel replacement project will be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny under the Department for Transport, Cabinet Office and HM Treasury spending controls and approval. However, the order is a vital prerequisite to enable the GLAs to fund their new vessels through borrowing when they need them.
In summary, the work of the GLAs is vital to the UK and ships are critical to the delivery of the GLAs’ statutory duties. Their current fleet is reaching the end of its economic service life, so borrowing must be used to facilitate the purchase of replacements. We need to begin raising the limit now in line with their forecast borrowing requirements. I commend the order to the Committee.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, to discuss lighthouse borrowing rules. This Budget day does not seem to be a good day to be a borrowing rule. Nevertheless, in this Committee Room, the Opposition are more inclined to see eye to eye with the Government on the necessity of some rule changes.
I expect all Committee members agree that our general lighthouse authorities need to have up-to-date kit to keep mariners safe. I recognise that £100 million went a lot further in 1988 than it does today, and that vessels cost somewhat more now. It was good sense for the Government at the time to include a provision in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to increase the borrowing limit, and even better sense to cap the increase at £33 million, just in case a future Government happened to be rather profligate and keen to change the rules so that they might borrow more.
Focusing on the matter in hand, I would like to be assured that the GLAs will make good use of the increase. As an island nation, we always have and always will rely on shipping for trade, travel and connection—as I am only too aware, as a Kent MP with the world’s busiest shipping lane just offshore. Those who operate in UK waters deserve to do so safely, and I put on record my thanks to the general lighthouse authorities for all they do to ensure that. We will be supporting the order.
Mike Kane
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her support with the order, and with the difficult issue of MV Ruby off the Kent coast over the last few weeks and months. We have come to a sensible solution with cross-party co-operation to secure that vessel and its cargo.
To use an idiom, I have been absolutely blown away by the quality of our GLAs. I encourage hon. Members to engage with them—particularly hon. Members from coastal communities—to see the incredible quality, breadth and depth of the operation around lighthouses, buoys and aids to navigation. The hon. Member is exactly right that £100 million back then is worth £270 million today. This is a sensible measure that does not expose the Treasury or the Department, because these are effectively loans to be paid back.
As the hon. Member said, we are an island nation, but we are often ignorant of our reliance on the seafarers and vessels that do so much to support our economy, and the work of the GLAs. I hope you will indulge me, Mrs Harris, in taking a moment to offer my thanks to the staff of those organisations, who go above and beyond every day. I have witnessed at first hand what is necessary in the harshest and most challenging environments—and with climate change, the number of days that the operatives can work at sea is reducing.
The GLAs, together with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the marine accident investigation branch, are recognised around the world for their world-class standards and expertise. The order is an essential prerequisite to facilitate the purchase of new modern vessels and other vital equipment that the GLAs need to deliver their statutory duties and to enable them to continue, as they have done successfully for hundreds of years, to ensure the safety of all mariners in UK waters.
Question put and agreed to.