Immigration Bill
Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2013.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish to do so. Can we please ensure that all electronic devices—I will check my own as well—are switched off or on silent mode during all Committee sittings, not just the hearings this morning? When we move on to the further proceedings in Committee—the deliberations on the Bill itself—I and my fellow Chair, Katy Clark, do not intend to call starred amendments, which have not been tabled with adequate notice. The notice period is three working days, so amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday.
Not everyone is familiar with the procedure for Public Bill Committees, so perhaps I should explain what will happen today and thereafter. First, the Committee will be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, on which debate is limited to half an hour, although I hope that it will not take that long. We then proceed to a motion. Then there is an amendment to the programme motion, which has been tabled at the request not of the Minister, the Government or, indeed, the Opposition, but of one set of witnesses. That should be a formality. We then proceed to the motion to report the written evidence and then a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral sessions. I hope that we can take that formally, which means without debate. Assuming that the second of those motions has been agreed to, the Committee will move into private session. Once the Committee has deliberated—I apologise to members of the public; this is the way we have to proceed, so I will have to ask you in due course to leave the room—the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral session will begin as swiftly as possible. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, the Committee will hear oral evidence this morning.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Copies of the memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Examination of Witnesses
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Once again, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We shall now hear evidence from Professor J. Meirion Thomas, of the Royal Marsden, and Jacqueline Bishop, from the Sussex University Trust and co-chair of the Overseas Visitors Advisory Group of the NHS. Thank you all for joining us. It is a pleasure to have you with us, and thank you for your time.
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I should remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick strictly to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. I hope that I do not have to interrupt in mid-sentence and, as I have already indicated privately to the Committee, I would like to think that we can afford our guests the opportunity of a final word before I have to call a halt. We will certainly do our best.
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Professor Thomas and Ms Bishop, welcome and thank you for coming to give evidence to us today. I want to begin by trying to elicit some facts about the people we are actually treating who are not normally resident in this country. Do you have any indication of how many of those people are foreign nationals and how many of them are expatriate Brits coming back from abroad to make use of the NHS?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
So it would be fair to sum up by saying that we are dealing with two different problems, which we are unable at the moment to distinguish between: foreign nationals who come over for treatment or who come over and find that they need treatment, some of whom would be subject to the provisions in the Bill; and British expats who have lived outside the country for many years and have not paid taxes here, who would not be subject to the provisions in the Bill because they have an NHS number.
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
That contradicts what you just told us about people who come back, get an address here and, because they have an NHS number, are able to access all the treatments, and we have no way of identifying them.
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
What evidence can you provide us about the numbers of people who come here deliberately to use the national health service, as opposed to those who come here and find themselves ill, but who have not made proper provision? Do we have any method of tracking those people?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Miss Bishop, can you tell us why the NHS is so bad at identifying such people and ensuring that they pay for their treatment? What would be needed to get better at tracking and identifying people?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
That is an interesting point.
In your experience, what kinds of treatment are people coming here for deliberately—Professor Thomas has mentioned some—as opposed to treatments for people who do not have the right insurance and find themselves having an accident?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Although perhaps in an area that does not have many visitors—
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
My final question is, if the current system tends to deter hospitals from identifying patients who ought to be charged, what do you suggest should be done instead? How can you identify these people as they walk through the door, and what do you need to follow up and collect the charges?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
That sounds like an appropriate point to bring in the Minister.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
I am grateful, Sir Roger. Helen Jones raised two issues that we are tackling. One of them. charges for people here as temporary migrants—people coming here as students or workers—is tackled in the Bill with a surcharge. The second issue that she correctly identified is overseas visitors who are already supposed to pay for their care, but the NHS is not brilliant at collecting the money. I think you both agreed on that.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
On incentives, Ms Bishop, I understand that the Secretary of State plans to bring in measures to change incentives for hospitals. At present, if you identify a foreign national, you will immediately lose money if you cannot collect all of that income. Do you think that a change of incentive structure would change the way that hospitals deal with patients?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
Can I ask both of you: do you both agree with the Bill’s proposals to amend the ordinary residence test, so that you get free NHS care only if you are a permanent resident of the United Kingdom? Do you agree that other people should either be charged—we can argue about what sort of tariff they should be charged—or, if they are here as a migrant, having come here as a student, for example, they should have to make a contribution to their NHS care?
Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)
I would like to rewind a little bit and ask you to explain to us in simple terms how this is supposed to work at the moment. Let us say we have someone who is not entitled to NHS treatment, and we can identify them as such. How are they charged, and why are we in a situation where we think we recover only 20% of the eligible money?
Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)
How do we try to recover money if we can identify people as not being eligible for NHS treatment but they have had NHS treatment?
Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)
From what you are saying, it does not happen very often.
Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)
I am trying to summarise what you are saying, which is that it does not happen very often and when it does, there is not much means of enforcing it.
Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)
Forgive me, when I said that it does not happen very often, I meant giving the person the invoice, not the treatment.
Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)
If they do not pay and they leave the hospital, what happens then?
Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)
Do you think that the weakness in that system is why we think we get only 20% of charges?
Pat McFadden (Labour, Wolverhampton South East)
Can you explain that?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Order. I am sorry but I must try to be fair to both sides. I will endeavour to come back to you if I can, Mr McFadden.
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
Welcome to you both, Professor Thomas and Ms Bishop. From your evidence, and also from Freedom of Information Act requests that I sent to every health trust last year, it seems that what system there is to recover costs from overseas foreign nationals being treated on the NHS is haphazard at best and non-existent in most circumstances. From what you are saying, the NHS is clearly not geared up in any way, shape or form to recover such costs. Professor Thomas, you mentioned systems that exist elsewhere in Europe and in countries such as Australia and Canada, giving the example of your driving licence. Are there any provisions in such countries that are not in the Bill that you would like to see added?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
I appreciate that you cannot speak for the whole of the NHS; you are representing your positions at the Royal Marsden and Brighton and Sussex University hospitals. Can you give an idea from your experience of the percentage of foreign or overseas patients you are treating through your various different institutions? Are we talking 5%, 10%?
William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)
Clearly we want to make policy on the basis of evidence, so can we turn to some of the evidence in last year’s review conducted by the Department of Health? The review found that the very low recovery rates, which both of you have alluded to, are down to only 30% to 45% of the chargeable income being identified and 60% of the charges that are levied not being recovered. Can you comment on whether anything in clauses 33 and 34 would change that?
William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)
The review last year also found that while you can improve certain practices, the visitor charging system might be at best generating a small net gain, but possibly no gain whatever. Do you see anything in the Bill that changes that position? Are you concerned that we are yet to see the Government’s impact assessment of the costs of enforcement or any reliable estimates of additional revenue that might be obtained through clauses 33 and 34?
William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)
But in terms of recovering those moneys that might otherwise be lost, is it your experience on the ground that the Bill would help you avoid that loss to the NHS?
Priti Patel (Conservative, Witham)
May I ask you both—we have touched on health tourism and debt recovery—about our hospital trusts and CCGs, where there is clearly an issue? From your experience, can you share with us some insights into what hospital trusts and, in particular, CCGs could do to address some of the challenges on, dare I say it, charging and debt recovery, and what practical steps they can take when they know that people are coming in and, frankly, abusing these services?
Priti Patel (Conservative, Witham)
On that point, who should be doing the identification? Should it be at GP level? Is that the first port of call?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you for the plug. I am afraid this is going to have to be the last question.
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)
We have had some interesting conversations about how you might reclaim money. Can I be clear about what the process ought to look like in theory—I know practice is different—for a prospective patient? What should they be asked, when and by whom? I realise it does not often happen, but in theory, when somebody shows up, are they supposed to answer questions about their residency status, and at what stage? How is it supposed to work?
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)
So in theory—
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
I am sorry. I am going to have to give the last word to Professor Thomas, then I must bring the session to a close.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Ms Bishop, Professor Thomas, thank you both very much indeed. The Committee is indebted to you. If you wish to make any further submissions in writing to the Committee, including a copy of The Spectator article, Professor Thomas, the Committee would be pleased to hear from you.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
We now take evidence from the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. Good morning, Gentleman, Ladies, would you like to identify yourselves?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Welcome, and thank you for coming to give evidence today. The Bill makes changes to the definition of people who are not ordinarily resident in the UK. Will that in practice help you to identify people who should not be accessing the NHS for free?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
I apologise for interrupting. Minister, do you want to come in on this point?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
No, thank you.
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
That point is what I want to explore with you. The figures that we have seen for people using the NHS who should not be eligible for free treatment seem rather vague. Also, as I raised with the earlier witnesses, they do not seem to distinguish between foreign nationals coming here and British expats. Proving that someone is not ordinarily resident if they have an NHS number, as we heard earlier, is quite difficult. Do you have any suggestions that might help us to deal with that problem?
Clare Gerada: Thank you for that distinction between those who are ordinarily resident or entitled to NHS care and those who are gaming and, as we heard in the previous evidence, defrauding the NHS. We sometimes get muddled. The third group are those who become acutely unwell while they are here. We may need to deal with them separately. Dealing with the first group first, which is those who are entitled to NHS care within the current guidance, it is very complicated. As you said, it is not just whether you are “ordinarily resident”, but whether you have lived in the UK or intend to live in the UK; or whether you are a student, or have failed asylum seeker status or pending asylum seeker status, so it is very complicated. When a patient attends our practice, I cannot distinguish between who is and who is not entitled within that group, because it is so complex. We would welcome clarity around that.
On the second group, we do come across those who are gaming it. I would be a fool and naive to say that, over the 25 years that I have worked in south London, there is no fraud or gaming. We used to have a problem with so-called suitcase addresses, where you might have 60 to 70 people registered at the same address. With paper records, it was quite difficult to find those, because they would be dotted around in different carousels, but with computer records it is a lot easier. We started to identify them and the then health authority would start to investigate.
If somebody walks into the surgery and has chronic diseases, yet has no previous medical record and is a new registration in my practice, that alerts suspicions. I would personally ask that patient, “Can you just tell me a little bit about yourself?” and then I would ask whether they were intending to stay in the UK for the requisite amount of time. If they are, I have to treat them. I cannot ask them whether they can prove to me that they are going to stay for the next six months. It is impossible, and I am certainly not going to ask them to bring their passport and to see their visa. It becomes very complicated.
So we can pick things up, as you heard in the previous evidence, around the NHS number. If you have a new NHS number and no previous record and you are not a baby, where have you been for the past 30, 40 or 50 years? It is not that it is impossible to pick up; it is just that it becomes very complicated at the point of the GP practice to be doing that sort of scrutiny for every single patient walking through.
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
I am trying to get through some of the fog that surrounds all this. The one thing we have discovered is a problem with getting accurate data.
However, I want to ask you to comment on another provision of the Bill. The Bill provides for imposing a charge on people coming into the United Kingdom: persons who apply for immigration permission. In your experience, would that deter people coming here as health tourists? I do not mean people who have an accident while they are here, but people coming here deliberately to get treatment. If so, how high would it have to be to provide that deterrence?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Thank you; that was a very interesting answer. I shall ask you my final question. We have heard lots of evidence about the difficulty of following patients up—first, of finding patients who are not entitled to free NHS treatment and then of collecting the funds. Have you any recommendations—you might not have, but I shall ask you—about how that could be done better if the charge in this Bill is not to be a deterrent?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
That is interesting. Do either of you have evidence from your experience about the balance between expats coming back here for treatment and foreign nationals coming here?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
May I make just one point that is meant to be helpful in terms of clarification? The health surcharge, which is in the Bill, is not a charge for visitors to the United Kingdom. It is only for people coming here on a visa. So, to pick your example, if you were the woman who was pregnant with triplets, to get access to our healthcare by paying a surcharge you would either have to establish that you had come here on the basis of getting a job with a sponsored employer and were employed in the United Kingdom; or you would have to get a tier 4 visa as a student, be accepted at a British university and pay the rather quite significant fees for studying as an overseas student. So it is not intended for this to be a charge for anybody in the world who fancies rocking up in the UK for five minutes to pay £200 and have access to the health service. They will be overseas visitors, eligible to be charged in the usual way. Just to put people’s minds at rest: it is not a free entry to the UK.
Of course, both of those groups—migrant workers and students—currently have complete access to the NHS once they get here, for zero cost. So what we are proposing is to make them pay a modest contribution to health care, for which we do not currently charge them.
The point I wanted to establish was twofold, because I am a little confused. This morning, particularly you, Dr Gerada, have accepted that not everybody should get free NHS treatment and that we should distinguish between those eligible and those who are not. I do not think that this seems to be in line with some of the public comments that I have seen you quoted as saying, such as that the NHS should be available for all the people. May I be clear from all three of you? Do you agree that the NHS is primarily a national health service and that we should have rules in place for determining who is and who is not eligible? We should not be making it possible just to treat people from anywhere in the world.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
I have one follow-up question to that. First, picking up Professor Stephenson’s point, I think the research that was done by the Department of Health recently demonstrated that it was quite a significant sum of money—at least £2 billion of health treatment provided to visitors and migrants by the NHS—of which a significant bit is not recovered. I want to probe a bit. I agree with you that for urgent necessary treatment that is where you should provide the treatment and then worry about it afterwards. I agree with you. Picking up on your point about not turning away, Dr Gerada, if someone turns up at a GP’s surgery—not someone who needs urgent serious treatment—and they are not entitled to NHS care, should you not be turning them away and saying, “No. You are not entitled to free NHS care and I am not providing it to you.”? Should you not be turning them away? Is that not the right thing to do for the taxpayer?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
So you are quite clear. If the law was changed—I absolutely accept the point that we have to ensure that the rules are easy and straightforward to operate for front-line staff. I also accept that it may not be doctors and health professionals who are making those judgments. We had evidence, when I know a couple of you were here, that it will be the overseas visitor manager or, in the GP practice, it may be the practice manager who does the checks.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
I was listening to your evidence carefully and I thought you said earlier that you did not think it would be very difficult for GPs to assess whether patients were entitled.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
Will you be happy for someone else to do that and present you with a decision on whether you should treat the patient?
William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)
May I put to the panel what the Department of Health’s review last year concluded? It said that
“the NHS is not currently set up structurally, operationally or culturally to identifying a small subset of patients and charging them for their NHS treatment. Only a fundamentally different system and supporting processes would enable significant new revenue to be realised.”
Does the panel see any evidence of any such new system in the Bill’s provisions? Would not one of the possible implications be that new burdens and costs will be imposed on NHS practices and hospitals, without any extra assistance from the Government to help deal with those?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Professor Nathanson, you are nodding.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
One more question from Mr Bain.
William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)
What assessment have you made of the implications for public health if the system in clauses 33 and 34 were to be adopted?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
We heard earlier that countries such as France, Spain, Germany, Canada and Australia manage to recover the costs of treating overseas visitors and foreign nationals and are able to screen their treatments. Indeed, when I was abroad this summer, I had to access primary health care; I paid the bill and recovered the costs on my health insurance. Why can we not do that in this country?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
Turning to public health, are the provisions in the Bill sufficient to ensure that treatments for conditions like tuberculosis are properly covered?
Anne Milton (Conservative, Guildford)
On a point of clarification, as a former public health Minister, I should say that there is no intention to change access to emergency and urgent treatment, or treatment for infectious diseases. In fact, I am proud that we widened access to HIV treatment, which was the right thing to do; it was previously excluded.
Professor Stephenson’s point about the east African child raises some tricky issues for the doctors seeing the child and their mother. Who do you think should pay for that scan? What do you think should happen?
Anne Milton (Conservative, Guildford)
I know, but you are here because you have wide experience, and you have raised an undoubtedly tricky situation, so I would be grateful for your view. How do you think it should be paid for?
Anne Milton (Conservative, Guildford)
Just for clarification, you are happy to abide by any system; what you are saying, understandably, is that you as a medical professional do not want to get drawn into that dialogue or transaction, which is fair enough. I can understand that.
Anne Milton (Conservative, Guildford)
I think that is what Dr Gerada is also saying. I challenge your assertion that general practitioner practices cannot manage this, because GP practices bill Government. They have charging systems built in. They are private businesses, there is a contract between them and the state, and they are for ever charging the state.
Anne Milton (Conservative, Guildford)
I would have thought it was not beyond the wit of man to build in appropriate—[ Interruption. ]
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Order. Let us have questions and answers, not a conversation. Finish the question, Ms Milton, and then we will take the answer.
Anne Milton (Conservative, Guildford)
Are you saying that you could not build into GP practices, which are run as businesses, the ability to charge people if it was appropriate to do so?
Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)
First, I apologise to the Committee for my delayed arrival. I know that some of you were here when our previous witnesses gave evidence. Professor Thomas said that it was really not his job to decide who is and is not entitled; they should not be presented to him unless they are entitled.
He showed his driving licence and advocated some similar system of entitlement card. What did you think of that as an idea, given that Dr Gerada in particular said that she does not think that you could work out entitlements at GP surgery level?
Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)
I did not understand Professor Thomas to be saying that. What I understood him to be saying was that we should decide entitlement by some other system, so that when you present to me, I know that you are entitled.
Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)
I understand the general consensus of what you are all saying—if there is such a thing, even though there was some dispute about whether the Department’s £2 billion figure was genuine or an optimum or even optimistic assessment—to be that, although the current system is not perfect and does not work in all circumstances, trying to do much about it would be disproportionately costly. Therefore, what we have in the name of the greater public good is a necessary, almost irreducible overhead that we just have to live with because the ultimate public benefit is so much greater. Have I understood it correctly?
Jim Dowd (Labour, Lewisham West and Penge)
What do you suggest I say, then, to my constituent who has to take their turn for treatment, for which they have paid as a participating citizen, behind people who have not paid? Do I simply say, “That is a structural anomaly in the system. The ultimate benefit is that there is a good health service for everybody, and we should not take it down to the micro level; we should look at the macro benefits across society”? Do you think that they would feel any better if I told them that?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Do members of the Committee have any further questions for these witnesses?
Priti Patel (Conservative, Witham)
I have one final and straightforward question, which follows on from the witnesses’ remarks to Mr Dowd. Do you have any practical solutions to address health tourism and fraud in the current NHS system, in light of your recent comments?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
I will take that as an opportunity to let you each have a final word, and then we will draw this session to a close. Professor Nathanson first.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Professor Nathanson, Dr Gerada and Professor Stephenson, the Committee is indebted to you. Thank you very much indeed for your time.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
The Committee will now take oral evidence from Migration Watch UK. Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for joining us. Could you identify yourselves, please?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Good morning, Sir Andrew and Mr Pollard. I am grateful for your written evidence, which I looked at this morning. You indicate in it that you estimate that the number of illegal immigrants was some 1.1 million in 2010, and you estimate that it is 1 million now. Can you give the Committee the basis on which you have made that estimate?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Whatever the level of guesswork, how many of those 1 million people do you estimate to be currently known to the Home Office, whether that is their address, their telephone number, their texts, their contacts or forms being placed? Do you have an estimate of that? Should you have an estimate of how many of these people’s whereabouts or addresses are known to the Home Office?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
On the basis of whatever figure you have, how far will the Bill’s proposals impact on and potentially reduce the final figure, whether that is a guesstimate or otherwise?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I agree with some of your comments in terms of effective enforcement. In a sense, those were the initial opening comments that I wished to make in relation to your estimates—whether they are right or wrong—versus the numbers who are known. Even the enforcement measures in the Bill are implicitly only workable on people who are known to the Home Office. I am interested in trying to get to a figure on that. We will revisit this during the course of our discussions in Committee.
You mentioned the Bill. I want to touch briefly on a number of points in it. On part 2, you said in your memorandum:
“We welcome the reduction in the number of grounds for appeal”,
and that you agree that most appeals are
“used simply to frustrate the removal process in cases that have no prospect of success”.
Have you any view on the current quality of decision making in relation to those people who, under the Bill, would potentially be removed?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
If I said that approximately 50% of appeals are currently upheld by the first-tier tribunal, which is being abolished, would that worry you?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I am talking about the current provisions in the Bill. On family migration and other issues, roughly 50% of appeals are upheld and they are now going to be abolished. Does that worry you?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
So you are saying that 50% of people are currently given the right of appeal, have that appeal upheld and therefore are legally allowed to stay in the United Kingdom, and it does not worry you that those people will not now have that right of appeal?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
There is now.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
They are currently upheld.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Order. May we have a question and an answer, rather than a dialogue, if that is possible?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
You said in paragraph 4 of your written evidence—and I agree with you:
“Not only are they themselves often mistreated but they frequently undercut the wages of British workers”.
Do you think that there is scope in the Bill to look at a range of potential labour market issues which might also address that issue? For example, greater enforcement of the minimum wage or a register of migrant workers being recruited by recruitment agencies.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
This is the final question from me. We are going to hear this afternoon from landlords about the landlord provision, the basic principle of which I do not fundamentally disagree with. I am, however, interested in its workability and its potential impact on British citizens who want to rent. Do you have any concerns about the workability of the landlord proposals? Do you have any concerns about identity checks for British citizens who will have to prove their nationality as part of a rental procedure?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Do you have any understanding of the number of calls to the Home Office relating to enforcement, advice or assistance on employment issues? Do you have a view on whether the Home Office has the capacity to offer the same to the thousands of landlords in the UK?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Order. Just before we proceed, I have been calling Sir Andrew because Mr Hanson has been directing his remarks to Sir Andrew, which seems reasonable, but, Mr Pollard, if you want to interject or intervene at any time, please do indicate.
Priti Patel (Conservative, Witham)
I welcome the witnesses to the Committee. This question is for both to answer. Paragraph 13 of the written evidence you provided touches on the migrant health levy, and you will have heard the other evidence presented to the Committee this morning. What is your view on how far the Bill is going to address such problems, some of which we have discussed this morning? In the light of some of the comments this morning from NHS professionals, what else do you think we could do in practical terms?
Priti Patel (Conservative, Witham)
Going back specifically in the light of your comments, Sir Andrew, there is an issue of public perception and how we address the gulf between that and reality. An earlier panel of witnesses was asked how we explain things to our constituents who cannot access NHS services. The same also applies to areas such as housing. Where do you feel the responsibility should lie? Should it be with central Government legislation—that is, in the Bill—or should it be down to the guidance given by central Government to NHS professionals such as the clinical commissioning groups, which would cover primary care, and to local authorities, which would cover housing?
Priti Patel (Conservative, Witham)
In terms of the approach, would you apply a similar analogy to access to public housing via local authorities?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
Given your extensive research in this area, how much of a draw is our virtually unchecked national health service for people coming to this country, particularly illegally but also more generally?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Are there any further questions from Members?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
First, thank you, Sir Andrew, for your welcome for the overall approach to the measures in the Bill. Partly for the benefit of the Committee, I wanted to check your response on the health issues.
I am mindful, Sir Roger, that you told us to talk about what is in the Bill. It is clear that there is a range of health issues—both for visitors who currently have entitlement to the NHS and maybe should not, and for those who do not have entitlement but in respect of whom we are not good at collecting money back. I want to reassure you that the proposals in the Bill are about changing the ordinary residence test to one of permanent residence for non-EEA migrants, and about the health surcharge.
I want also to reassure you that the Department of Health, separately but working with us, will bring forward proposals following on from its consultation to deal with some of the issues associated with visitor charging, both from a policy perspective and addressing some of the points about the practicalities that were made in earlier evidence from Professor Thomas and Miss Bishop. I think that all the NHS witnesses, without exception, said that such measures were complicated and difficult to enforce at the front line. I do not know if you want to respond to those points, which were really more for the benefit of the Committee, so that we keep the debate on track.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
This places me in a little difficulty, because I have imposed upon members of the Committee a restriction to discussing only matters contained in the Bill, not matters omitted from it. However, you have raised the point and it would be discourteous not to allow you to do so. On the basis that we try to remain in order, Jackie Doyle-Price.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Conservative, Thurrock)
I want to probe you on paragraph 16 of your evidence relating to marriages and civil partnerships. You specifically refer to enabling registrars to feel confident about raising suspicions. Have you had any feedback from priests or vicars about that? Certainly, given the constraints with which they have to deal in the way that the Church manages marriage, I know that many of them have felt intimidated about raising suspicions. Do you think that what we have in the Bill gives them sufficient protection?
Jackie Doyle-Price (Conservative, Thurrock)
One of the issues on which I have had representations—it is very difficult to enshrine in law—is the whole idea of marriage by deception. Once the right to remain has been issued, the party who has deceived disappears. Have you any thoughts about how that can be tackled?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
If there are no further questions from Members, that brings us to the end of our business for this morning. Sir Andrew and Mr Pollard, thank you very much indeed for joining us. The Committee will take further evidence at 2 o’clock this afternoon.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
We will now take oral evidence from the National Landlords Association, the Residential Landlords Association and the UK Association of Letting Agents. For the record, will the witnesses please identify themselves?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you for joining us.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Reading your submissions, I get the impression that you object to the clauses in the Bill in principle. I may not share that approach, but I am interested in whether you simply object in principle or whether amendments to the Bill might make its objective and principle more palatable to you and your members. You may answer in whichever order you wish.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
What could the Committee, or more specifically the Minister, do to help you work towards the principle? Would it be by making changes to some of the demands on you so it is more workable? Are there concrete things you can suggest to the Committee that we should look at? Broadly speaking, there is still a shared objective with the Government on the principle; it is done for employers and potentially for landlords. What tweaks could be made to make it more palatable?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
What assessment have any of you made of the support that you would require under the terms of the Bill to deliver that for the Home Office, which is what it is effectively asking you to do? What additional training, support, mechanisms and information would you require to deliver what is in the Bill at the moment?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Have any of you been party to discussions on the guidance that the Home Office, I understand, intends to issue prior to consideration of the Bill in Committee next week?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Just to be clear, you have not formally been consulted on the guidance. You have not seen the guidance and you are not party to the drawing up or preparation of the guidance.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I have one final question. The Bill obviously focuses on the impact of landlord activity in relation to the immigrant community. What assessment have you made, if any, of the potential impact it might have on indigenous individuals from the UK who wish to rent from your members? Do you think it will have an impact on the ability of any sector of the community to rent from you? Will it add additional burdens and costs? What is your assessment?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
I am alluding to the impact it might have on people who are UK citizens who wish to rent accommodation. A UK citizen can look and sound as if they might be from another part of the world, and they might not have a passport or appropriate documents. I am inquiring, in this great assessment, whether you have considered what the impact might be on the indigenous population as well as those who are coming here for work.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Not just that; I am inquiring about cost and paperwork in general for individuals who are British because they would have to prove they were British. I might not have a passport.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Just so that I am clear, I would genuinely like to know how much additional work or paperwork or activity you will have to undertake as landlords to ensure that you meet the requirements, if the legislation is passed as it is. What is your assessment of the increase in the general work load for you?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
What percentage of landlords go through a managed company setting—that is, how many landlords use agents, on average? Is it 90%? Is it 75%?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
Would it be correct to say that letting agents have become used to having to take on different requirements in legislation? For example, most recently they had to take on the deposit insurance scheme system that was introduced a few years ago.
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
Would it be correct to say that letting agents are used to periodically having to redo credit checks and fulfil other requirements to update regularly?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
So would it be fair to say that for the more than half of landlords who let their properties through agencies, it is common practice that regulations and guidelines change—the law changes—and that in the past such changes have been successfully managed by letting agents?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
Can you envisage a situation in which the proposals in the Bill might be helpful to the letting agent industry, in that more landlords would be more likely to let through a managed setting, as somebody else would be dealing professionally with the complexity of running their lettings?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
What proportion of the housing stock is let privately at the moment, nationally, do you think?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
What do you think that figure will be by 2020?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
How many private landlords are there?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
So approximately 600,000 do not go through letting agents.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Does that tally, Ms Kenny?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
What is the average size of a private landlord’s portfolio?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
It is essentially a cottage industry, is it not?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
In Durham, where my constituency is, we have a big problem with private landlords. There are some good landlords and some rogue landlords, but the vast majority are amateur landlords who do not realise, at the end of the day, what they are getting into. I am concerned that well-intentioned people will not be able to cope with the plethora of bureaucracy that the Bill will bring in. Would you agree with that?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
So this is a cottage industry of 1.2 million landlords. You have said, Mr Jones, that there will be only 10 people at the Home Office to run this.
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
So we have 10 members of staff at the Home Office to look after 1.2 million landlords.
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
Are letting agents regulated?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
So you have 600,000 private landlords who do not go through letting agents and 600,000 who do go through letting agents, who are not regulated.
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
Approximately, because it was 50:50. Do you think the Government are biting off more than they can chew with this proposal? It might seem good in principle, but how can you regulate it? Will it eventually lead us to a national register of private landlords? The other thing is selective licensing schemes, which I have two of in my constituency. How will this affect them? Will it be easier to administer in selective licensing areas?
I have two other points. Will the administrative burden push up rents? Also there is no central database for private landlords—I think you said there was one for banks. This is a bureaucratic nightmare that cannot be implemented.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Caroline Kenny, do you want to add anything to that?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
First, as a small statement, I take issue with the “cottage industry” description. Taking the residential landlords’ evidence, you have 20,000 landlords, who manage 250,000 properties—that is an average of 10 each—with a portfolio worth an estimated £40,000 million. That is quite a large cottage industry. Even if the median number of properties that a landlord owns is, say, four or five, even in parts of the country where property prices are not as high as they are in London, for example, that is still a portfolio worth several hundred thousand pounds. Perhaps we can accept that landlords are making a reasonable income from their properties. Calling it a cottage industry is not sensible.
Picking up on the questions, you said in your evidence, Ms Uphill, that you thought that the majority of landlords would be able to incorporate initial immigration checks into their existing referencing procedures with relatively little difficulty. You and the other witnesses are more concerned about the follow-up check, so that is what I want to focus on. Ms Kenny gave examples of how some of her members deal with people with limited leave, which is that they only give lets and leases for the period of someone’s leave. We are proposing that you can let property to someone and you then do a check either after a year or when the leave expires, whichever is longer. We designed it like that because we did not want to create a burdensome process where we insisted and mandated that you can only let property to someone for the period of their leave. I want to explore how we deal with that follow-up period.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
Can I be clear about what the Bill requires? The Bill does not require the landlord, once they have carried out the periodic check and discovered that the tenant no longer has leave to be in the country, to do anything except notify the Home Office. It is then our job to take enforcement action against the tenant. We do not require the landlord to evict the tenant—we did think about that, and we decided not to do it for the reasons you set out—nor does the contract become unlawful. All we require is that the landlord notifies the Home Office, and then, quite properly, our immigration enforcement officers will use our legal powers to take action against the tenant. We do not require the landlord to do anything other than notify the Home Office.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
I am a little confused about your general point about the difference with employers. Landlords have an ongoing relationship with their tenants; the tenant pays the rental income, and the landlord is responsible for the safety of the property and other things. I do not understand why it is so complicated, after a period, to make a check. Ms Kenny in her evidence said that a number of her members check people’s immigration status and let according to that status. Some 63% of Mr Jones’s members already carry out immigration checks without apparent difficulty—that is what you said in your evidence, Mr Jones. I fail to understand why it is so complicated.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
Let me pick up on that. I agree with you that the landlord-tenant relationship is very important. So for the very reasons that you set out, why would a landlord not want to ensure that the person to whom they were letting—and who they presumably wanted to be able to pay their rent—had, for example, the right to work in the United Kingdom and access to financial products, and was not an illegal immigrant? Because by definition, an illegal immigrant is here in breach of immigration rules and the law. Why would a landlord want to rent a property to someone who was a law-breaker, had no right to be in the country, was not able to work legally and would therefore have difficulty paying the rent?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
I put the same question to the other two witnesses.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
So does the law.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
For the benefit of the Committee, when we come to debate these matters, we will have that prospective code of conduct available for Members to study so that we can deal with it in due course.
Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)
Ms Kenny, you told us that checks are already being done by the legitimate agencies that you represent, which is roughly a third of landlords.
Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)
What percentage of landlords do they cover?
Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)
Okay; that would be helpful. But if those checks are being done already, do you see any need for legislation to recreate what legitimate letting agents are doing on behalf of landlords anyway?
Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)
Forgive me for my omission, Sir Roger: I should have drawn Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am a landlord.
With poor landlords, Mr Jones, you talked about the criminal element that you want to see removed, which would have a big impact for many of my constituents. Will anything in the Bill make any difference to those operators?
Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)
May I move on to sub-letting, which many of you may have something to say about? Under the proposals, landlords will have to check every adult living in the household. Experience of my constituency, where there is a high turnover of population and the reality of life is that people change jobs and move out of the area, tells me that there is lots of throughput in properties. Would you say that your members, or landlords in general, would always know who is living in their properties? I know that insurance issues mean that landlords like to know that, but will you talk us through the practical application of this proposal?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Please make this the last question, as I have three Members still waiting to ask questions.
Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)
Okay; I will wrap it up. A lot of my constituents move around and sofa-surf because of the challenges in finding homes. Perhaps you could pick up on that.
Crisis has raised an interesting issue with me about people who go through an agency to be put into the private rented sector, because they cannot get a council tenancy and go into permanent housing, perhaps through the homeless route. At the moment they are not exempted from these checks. I do not know whether you have any experience that you can talk about from your members of private landlords taking people through those sorts of schemes. Do you have any comments on that element of the Bill?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
I have 13 minutes left and Mr Baker, Mr Bain and Mr Kirby all wish to ask questions, so can I urge brevity upon you, please?
Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)
You said that 1.2 million landlords was the estimate. Is that the UK or just England?
Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)
Okay. Secondly, Caroline Kenny, on the checks already made, I am not clear whether the checks you already carry out are comprehensive enough that there will be no extra burden involved, or whether you suggest that they are not comprehensive and there will be an extra burden. Could you just be clear on that point?
Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)
That is helpful. You mentioned you were concerned about potential reprisals. Surely a landlord who was housing a tenant who they believed was an illegal immigrant, or in this country improperly in some shape or form would, as you mentioned yourself, contact the authorities anyway. So in that sense, nothing changes.
Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)
But you would agree that if a landlord is housing somebody who they believe should not be here, they would have a moral duty apart from anything else.
Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)
Lastly, you mentioned earlier this afternoon that you thought this could have an impact on ethnic minorities. You were concerned that there may be a reluctance among landlords to take on people who may present an administrative problem for them. Presumably, there are other people who are potentially problems in that sense, if you are correct, who are not ethnic minorities but people from other countries where visas are required. They need not be ethnic minorities, need they?
Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)
You are identifying a group of people who may present a potential administrative problem for landlords, but why would they just be ethnic minorities? Why would they not be people from other countries who may also have visa problems?
Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)
So it is not simply ethnic minority; it is non-EEA.
William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)
Can we return to the costs of the provisions in the Bill? It would be very helpful to the Committee if we had absolute clarity about the panel’s view on where the burden of those costs will fall. First, is it your view that any additional costs from the Bill will go into higher charges or rent faced by tenants? In respect of private tenancies through letting agencies, Ms Kenny will be aware that many private tenants are enormously frustrated at the scale of letting fees already. Can you clarify whether letting agencies will be charging higher fees as a result of the Bill?
William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)
Would this be just for new tenants, or might it affect people who renew a tenancy in future?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Your last question, Mr Bain.
William Bain (Labour, Glasgow North East)
The Bill applies throughout the United Kingdom, but obviously in Scotland the issue of letting agency fees is devolved, and indeed letting agency fees have been abolished in Scotland. What discussions have you had with your colleagues north of the border about the implications of the Bill, and what talks are you having with the Scottish Government to determine what the possible outcome might be if the Bill were passed?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you. One final question. Simon Kirby.
Simon Kirby (Conservative, Brighton, Kemptown)
As a responsible landlord myself, I would not want to see a property of mine let to someone who is here illegally, who is unable to work and who is unable to pay their bills. Does each of you agree with my straightforward position?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
That effectively brings us to the end of the time allocated for this session. So, Ms Uphill, Mr Jones and Ms Kenny, may I thank you very much indeed on behalf of the Committee for the benefit of your wisdom and experience? We are most grateful to you. Thank you.
Examination of Witness
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
We now take evidence from Crisis and, for the benefit of the record, will you identify yourself?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you very much indeed for joining us and for the time that you will devote to this very important session.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Thanks for coming in this afternoon to help us with our deliberations. Under schedule 3 to the Bill, a number of tenancies are excluded from the provisions that we have discussed with landlords today, such as, for example, social housing, hostels, mobile homes, student halls of residence, or even properties with long leases. Why do you think landlords have been picked on in this case?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Have you any assessment of the number of people you believe are currently renting who would qualify as not having status to remain in the country?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Do you have an indication from your assessment of the potential impact of the legislation on British citizens?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
From Crisis’s perspective, do you think that the clauses in the Bill should be deleted completely, or are there positive amendments that could be introduced to help ameliorate some of the poor effects that you believe the Bill has?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
There is the opportunity, given that we are in the pre-Bill scrutiny and that this will come up next Thursday, to lay them on the table and have a discussion.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
You mentioned women fleeing domestic violence. Just for clarification, do you believe at the moment that women’s refuges would be exempt from or covered by the legislation?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
Thank you, Ms Sacks-Jones. I am very grateful for the work that your organisation has done. I know that DCLG officials met you as part of the consultation. Just to be clear, as Mr Hanson raised this matter, we are not picking on landlords. Local authorities already have to check the immigration status of tenants and are not eligible to let social housing to people without leave to be in the United Kingdom. This is a matter of extending that to private landlords as well.
I would like to probe the issue of documents a little more. As you know, following the meetings we had with you and with other organisations, we looked at broadening the range of documents. We have said, for example, that we will include receipt of benefits letters, as you said, because the Department for Work and Pensions will have conducted checks on people’s right to be here. Can you give us more detail about whether you think that there is more that we ought to do in that area?
Can you also say more about exemptions of types of housing? That will probably be it then for my questions to you. We have already said there will be exemptions for housing provided to tenants where a local authority has checked a tenant’s status—so where they nominate people to properties—and for homeless hostels. You have set out one or two examples of other types you think should be exempted, but a little more detail would be helpful for the Committee.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
That is very helpful, thank you.
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Can I ask you to consider once again the problem of people fleeing domestic violence? Is it not the case that often women who cannot get a place in a refuge, particularly women without children, will not only seek to rent in the private sector, but may well stay with friends or sub-let and so on? At the moment, do you consider the provisions in the Bill would make that more difficult, because they often do not have their documents with them? If receipt of benefit was made a suitable condition without the passport, in your view would that assist victims of domestic violence in particular?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
My second question concerns those who are here illegally, but maybe are in a violent relationship and are fleeing from it. I am thinking in particular of women who were brought here by their husbands, but may then find themselves the subject of domestic violence. What provision would you suggest for them, given that in these circumstances there does not appear to be anywhere for them to go without the immigration checks?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Is there anything you can suggest that might improve the Bill on that?
Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)
I am concerned about the British citizens, a number of whom you will be dealing with, who do not have any form of identification. You have highlighted them. On an approximation of figures it is difficult to be absolutely sure, but probably about 13% of British nationals living in the UK do not have a British passport. I guess that among those will be some of the people that you are dealing with. You have mentioned already some of the documents that you think would be helpful. It is already a very long list, but is there anything else that you think would be helpful for people to prove their identity? It is quite confusing and difficult as it is, but what would you suggest?
Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)
I think the issue of domestic violence has already been covered, but I am interested in night shelters. There is a very good night shelter in Hackney run by a consortium of local churches and staffed by volunteers. You have mentioned churches, among other groups, but I am not sure that Hackney night shelter, for all the good work it does, would have people qualified to check ID, or that it would be practical for it to do that.
Meg Hillier (Labour, Hackney South and Shoreditch)
Can I perhaps draw you on the practicalities of that? If someone turns up at the shelter one night without documentation for whatever reason—they may be illegal, but they are more likely simply to be homeless for all the reasons you have mentioned—no one is going to come and find that out on the night. It is a lot of burden for very little potential “gain”.
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Thank you. If there are no further questions, may I thank you, Ms Sacks-Jones, for giving us the Crisis view and for the benefit of your own clear personal experience? We are very grateful to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
We shall now hear oral evidence from Universities UK. For the benefit of the record, could I ask you both to identify yourselves, please?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Universities UK has expressed some anxieties about the Bill and suggested that it might deter some students from applying to UK universities. If that is correct, what provisions do you think would deter them and what changes would you like to see?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
Ms Attwooll, do you want to add to that at all?
Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)
I am sure you will be questioned on those issues.
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Why do you think that a health surcharge would deter students when they are mostly paying quite high fees to start with? How high do you think the charge would have to be to deter them?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
I accept that it is competitive, but do most students not have to have health insurance if they are going to university in many other countries? They do not access free health services without some insurance, do they?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
But not a difference from other countries where they may go to university.
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Have you any figures on how many people might be deterred from coming here?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
I understand that it is not a requirement in America, but on the other hand they do not treat people for free if they happen to need health care when they are there, do they? Frankly, if someone is going to fall ill in the United States, they had better have some money behind them to pay the fees, so I am not quite sure I follow that argument.
Can I take you on to the housing provisions? In your experience, do most students need housing to be fixed up before they come to the UK, or do they do it when they get here?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
And staff, of course, obviously. Do you think there is a possibility that students might fall into the hands of rogue landlords if the provisions are implemented? What would Universities UK suggest might prevent that?
Helen Jones (Labour, Warrington North)
Thank you.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
Professor Riordan, I have a couple of questions on the health surcharge. The Universities UK consultation response said that the surcharge would increase the financial burden upon international staff and students given that the UK is one of the most expensive study destinations in the world. Clearly international students pay very high fees, which are of course set by universities, not by the Government. The surcharge is around 1% of the cost of studying. Are there any competitor countries outside the European Union that give students comprehensive free health care?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
In your response to Helen Jones, you said that as we do not charge currently, the charge that will be put in, although carefully calibrated to be competitive, will alter the relative balance. Do universities pitch free comprehensive health care in their marketing materials? Put me right if this is not correct, but I do not think they do, which means that the fact that we are imposing a charge of £150—which the evidence we received this morning suggested was modest—combined with increased openness about that giving you access to comprehensive health care, will probably improve our competitive position. I do not think we make use of the fact that people get access to an excellent health care system at the moment, unless you want to put me straight on that.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
On that point, we have been clear—no doubt we will reiterate this in the Committee—that we want it to be competitive. We want to attract students, but we think it is reasonable that they make a contribution.
May I pick up on your point about landlords and accommodation? First, we said that where students will be accommodated in university accommodation, the fact that the university has done the check on their right to be in the UK means that they will be exempted. We also made it clear that it will be possible to let from overseas ,as long as you check the student’s documents when they arrive in the UK. Do you think that is adequate, or could we do more?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
On that point, may I ask either or both of you what the evidence is that overseas students and staff have difficulty in renting accommodation at the moment, over and above the fact that they may be trying to rent properties in markets in which there is lots of demand? They may have problems in renting, but are their problems greater, because of their status, than those of any other tenants trying to rent in a busy rental market?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
So it is already the case for first-year overseas students that universities tend to put them into university accommodation, where the provisions would not kick in—that would be only once they were in the United Kingdom and looking for accommodation.
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
Finally, if 28% are in private rented accommodation, does that mean that 72% are in university-provided accommodation, or does other provision also account for the difference?
Mark Harper (Conservative, Forest of Dean)
That is very helpful. Thank you.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Given that the provisions of schedule 3, as I read them, exempt halls of residence predominantly for the accommodation of students from the provision of landlord accommodation, does that in your view include all university accommodation? When I was at university, I did not live in a hall of residence; I lived in a student house, which may be defined differently. It would also be welcome if your statistics about the number of students currently taking up rented accommodation on first arrival or subsequently could be submitted formally to the Committee. At the moment, under the Bill there would be a discrepancy between the way that students are treated either in a hall—or, potentially, in other university accommodation—or in the private sector.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Could you give us an idea of the total value of overseas student placements to the United Kingdom economy?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Fees, the money they spend, goodwill—what is your assessment of the value generally?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Over the next 10 to 15 years, do you anticipate a growth in that sector on current projections?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
So you talking about a fourfold to fivefold growth in the number of overseas students?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
You have indicated so far that you believe that the measures in the Bill, particularly on health, could slow that growth or would cause some difficulties in competition terms.
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Do you have any assessment internally within the universities of the extent of the problem of individuals who come here as students but potentially overstay or are here illegally in the first place? What checks do you undertake? What is your assessment of the level of the problem that the Government are trying to address?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Balancing that 2% potential non-compliance against the potential for growth in the student economy, where do you think the Government and the Committee have to get the balance right? What would be your assessment of the changes, if any, that we should make to get the balance more in kilter?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
Is it therefore reasonable for me to suggest that some examination of the definition of “student” in relation to “landlord” would be welcomed by you in helping to ensure that students are not put off by excessive checks?
David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)
What else could the Government do to reduce the 2% to 0%?
Henry Smith (Conservative, Crawley)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you said a few moments ago that the number of overseas students coming to UK universities is levelling off. Surely that cannot be as a result of provisions that are not yet law.