I am grateful again, as ever, to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their amendments. I give them the general assurance that we are committed to ensuring that those seeking immigration advice and services can access a regulated and competent advice sector, and the clauses in the Bill as drafted will strengthen the availability of good-quality regulated immigration advice and therefore bolster access to justice. Therefore, we hope that the amendments will not be pressed either today or at a later stage, but I just want to explain why.

As she has just completed her comments, let me begin with Amendment 128 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is intended to probe whether access to justice will be impeded if fees are higher than the cost of the services provided under those fees. The amendment tabled would remove the ability of the Secretary of State—that is, my Right Honourable Friend the Home Secretary—and the commissioner to charge fees for a function that may exceed the cost of exercising that function, as well as removing the safeguards related to that ability. The noble Baroness may be aware that under the Treasury’s guidance, Managing Public Money, the basic principle is that fees and charges should be set at a level to recover costs. The fees charged to advisers for applications for registration or continued registration with the commissioner are not currently at full cost recovery levels. Quite frankly, in the current economic climate, that position is no longer sustainable.

Changes to the charging power will reduce the burden on the taxpayer. As drafted, new subsections (3) and (4) will allow for an average of the cost of providing services across organisations to be charged, rather than attempting to make a calculation of the number of hours spent on providing services to one organisation versus another, which would not be feasible. This approach is in accordance with Treasury rules on managing public money. Different fee levels for different types of users should reflect differences in average costs for providing the services to those groups, and ensuring that fees are proportionate to organisation size will, I believe, help bolster access to justice. We may have some reflection on that, but that is the initial point I put to the noble Baroness on her amendment.

There are a number of amendments from His Majesty’s Opposition. I will deal first with Amendment 125 which, with consequential amendments, aims to alter the type of secondary instrument used to charge fees in respect of certain commissioner functions from an order to regulations. This would make regulations specifying the fees chargeable by the commissioner subject to the affirmative procedure under Section 166 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The measure in this Bill replaces the current power to charge fees by order set out in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. As the new charging power in the Bill is to be inserted into the 1999 Act, the use of an order as a relevant statutory instrument ensures drafting consistency between this Bill and current legislation. The negative procedure is considered appropriate to afford an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, and of course I remind all noble Lords that the negative procedure can be prayed against and there can be a debate accordingly.

Amendment 121, in the name of the noble Lords opposite, intends to probe the planned changes to the definition of “relevant matters” on which the immigration advice for which the commissioner has regular oversight would be made. The amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the definition of “relevant matters” by secondary legislation. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that secondary legislation gives the Secretary of State flexibility to act quickly. The agreement that we would have for a clear definition of “relevant matters” is essential to support effective regulation and enforcement of the immigration advice sector.

Again, I give noble Lords the example that amending relevant matters will allow us to clarify what is not a relevant matter—for example, providing technical assistance in a Ukraine permission extension application —meaning that more support is available for vulnerable advice seekers without fear that it could lead to prosecution or fines. Regulations will be subject to an affirmative procedure, and again Parliament can determine and debate that in due course.

Amendment 122 seeks to probe why commissioners would need to give a person who is not a relevant person a penalty notice. A relevant person in this case means a person registered with the commissioner under Sections 84(2)(a) and 85(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and therefore under regulatory oversight. The amendment as tabled would remove the commissioner’s ability to impose a penalty notice on a person who is not a relevant person. This would prevent the commissioner imposing a penalty on rogue, unregulated advisers—persons who were at the time of the act or omission to which the penalty notice relates a relevant person but who are no longer relevant and registered with the commissioner at the point of receipt of such notice. This amendment would allow previously registered persons to avoid penalties by de-registering, thereby avoiding being penalised for wrongdoing. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will not move his amendment.

Amendment 123 seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the amount charged in a variable penalty notice. The maximum amount of a variable penalty notice is currently set in the Bill at £15,000. The power to amend this by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, again giving Parliament the driving seat on this, gives the ability to respond to the effectiveness of the fixed penalty as well as inflation, and to tackle abuse with adequate parliamentary scrutiny. The £15,000 figure could be changed, but it is subject to affirmative parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 124 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the impact on First-tier Tribunal backlogs of the introduction of appeals against monetary penalties within three months of the sections coming into effect. There is already established procedure for government departments to assess the impacts of the judicial system through the justice impact test, which has been completed for this policy proposal. I intend to update that prior to the introduction of any secondary legislation and keep it under review.

In summary, a fairer charging structure, clarity over the list of regulated matters that immigration advisers may provide advice on and an enhanced ability to penalise those who do not co-operate are all positive things. To that end, the clauses should remain as drafted in their entirety. Noble Lords can examine this again in the cold light of day tomorrow, but I hope that, with those reassurances, they will not press their amendments this evening.