Motion to Approve
Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2010
5:45 pm

Photo of Lord West of Spithead

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office; Labour)

My Lords, the fees apply whether it is to a grandfather, some cousin who cannot support himself, a grandson who cannot support himself or to a grand-daughter. We charge it across the board, so I do not believe that they are discriminatory. If the noble Lord is asking whether there are more females than males, the answer is that there probably are, but we are not discriminating on that issue. It is probably fair to say that there are more women than men in that group. I do not know whether we know exactly what the split is; if we do, I shall get back to the noble Lord.

On fee waiver, if we allow a system to operate where a migrant can raise a claim without a fee, it would encourage migrants to remain unlawfully in the UK and submit speculative claims, which has an impact on the end-to-end costs of the system. I fear that that I have perhaps not answered every question that the noble Lord asked, but if there is anything significant that he feels that I have missed, I should be very happy to write to him.

Overall, our aim is to ensure that our proposals make an appropriate contribution to securing our borders-in terms of the gates, for example-and to funding the immigration system. As such, I commend both statutory instruments to the House.

Motion agreed.

Annotations

Jim Mortoza
Posted on 29 Jul 2010 11:37 pm (Report this annotation)

The problem with the fees for those who are the children of British women who have the right of abode as they were born before February 07 1961 is that they are not immigrants and they are tax payers as are their parents. They have very close blood and family ties with the UK and making them pay for transfer of certificates amounts to holding them hostage to paying to enjoy their statutory rights!

Sign in or join to post a public annotation.