First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Fees Order 2011

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Lords Chamber

“Justice” is not a word that comes into the Explanatory Memorandum or the impact analysis; the objective is to save money, irrespective of whether the outcomes conform with the merit of the applications.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for explaining the order in his opening remarks so clearly and succinctly. I also thank the other speakers in the debate. It could be argued that between them they pretty well demolished the entire point of the order. Of course, when we were in government, we too thought of this—but we did not implement it. It now falls to the Minister to justify why we should take the steps that he intends us to take.

Clearly, this is an important and controversial order. Many points that I wanted to make have been very well made already by the three Back-Bench speakers. It is an important moment not least because—as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, and as paragraph 4.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states—this is the first instance of fees being imposed in an action by the state against an individual.

Secondly, perhaps a little less importantly—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—it would also be on top of the fee already paid for making the application that is being appealed against. This point was very well made by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association in its briefing to noble Lords.

The first application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, used this example—costs £900 per person. If it is made at the UKBA, the cost will be £1,250 per person. The fee is not for the appeal but for the original application. It costs £70 to apply for a visitor's visa from abroad. An application for a student visa costs £220, and there are other costs as well. The fee is not refunded if the application is refused. I suppose that some unmeritorious appeals might not be heard as a consequence of the order but I wonder, particularly after the analysis of the impact assessment made by noble Lords, how much the Government really expect to save from the order before us.

I pay tribute to the Government because they have conceded on more points following the consultation. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. They have made genuine concessions, particularly in the exemptions under Article 5 of the order in the areas of under-18s, children in need, asylum support, people in detention, appeals and decisions to remove. That is a more generous list than before the consultation began. However, the House would like to ask—noble Lords already have, in so many words—whether the exemptions are wide enough. In particular, Article 5(2) states:

“No fee is payable where, at the time the fee would otherwise become payable, the appellant is, under the 1999 Act”,

in receipt of legal aid. How can this provision be squared with the proposed withdrawal of legal aid for many areas? To put it mildly, there is an irony in its appearance in the order that we are being asked to pass tonight when the legal aid Bill is well on its way to this House.

Article 5(3) in a number of cases will become an irrelevance. Asylum cases will generally stay in scope, but much immigration law will be removed from scope if the Government get their way. I hope the noble Lord will not object if I repeat a question that was asked by my honourable friend Mr Andrew Slaughter MP, who spoke from the opposition Front Bench when the order was debated in another place on 14 September last. He asked why, if legal aid becomes no longer a criteria simply because it does not exist, an exemption should not be made for those on low incomes or specified benefits who would have been eligible for legal aid if it had still existed.

The Minister drew back the curtain a little on this when he said that the Government would come forward to make allowance for legal aid going out of scope. However, I would like him in his reply to tell us a little more about what the Government plan. Surely the criteria should remain the same whether legal aid exists or not. The Minister in another place did not answer that question in his summing up. I hope that the noble Lord will tonight.

Nor did the Minister in another place answer when he was asked to clarify figures from 2009-10 for success rates when public funding was available in these cases, and for when it was not. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, told us about the difference between oral and paper hearings. These questions are about when legal aid was available. I ask whether the following figures are correct. As far as concerns migration, there was a 52 per cent success rate on appeal without legal aid but a 60 per cent success rate with legal aid. On asylum cases, there was a 25 per cent success rate on appeal without legal aid and a 37 per cent success rate with legal aid. For entry clearance cases, there was a 36 per cent success rate without legal aid and a 65 per cent success rate with legal aid. Lastly, for family visits, there was a 44 per cent success rate without representation under legal aid and 53 per cent success with legal aid. The Minister in another place was not able to confirm whether the figures were correct. It may be that the Minister tonight cannot answer the question, either. If he cannot, I would be very grateful if he would write a letter with the answers to the questions, which will appear in Hansard, and send a copy both to me and to other noble Lords who spoke in the debate. Those figures seem to imply, and in fact go further than that to prove, that representation is of enormous benefit to appellants. This is hardly a surprising conclusion but it is of course a very important one in the arguments about legal aid that we will no doubt enjoy in a few weeks.