Justice Committee says it was unwise for the Government to have brought proposed full cost recovery fees for immigration tribunal
Parliament's Justice Committee said in a report today that access to justice has been damaged by courts and tribunals fees changes.
Image credit: UK GovernmentThe report is available in HTML here and in PDF here.
As we reported on EIN in April, the Ministry of Justice has announced plans for a large increase in tribunal fees for immigration and asylum cases, with the aim of recovering the full cost of the court's operation.
The Justice Committee Chair, Conservative MP and former barrister Bob Neill, said such fees need particular care and strong justification.
"Where there is conflict between the objectives of achieving full cost recovery and preserving access to justice, the latter must prevail," Neill said.
The Committee stated in its report: "The evidence which we received in our inquiry on the likely impact of the proposed doubling of fees in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber caused us considerable concern. That concern has been magnified by the more recent publication of the Government's proposals to set fees at a cost-recovery level, involving a six-fold increase in the fees currently charged. Neither do we believe that significant cost-recovery is ever likely to be realistic given the circumstances of most people who come through the immigration and asylum system. If these proposals are proceeded with, there is a danger that they will deny vulnerable people the means to challenge the lawfulness of decisions taken by the state about their immigration and asylum status. Given the experience with employment tribunal fees, we think it is unwise for the Government to have brought forward proposals for fees set at a level to achieve full-cost recovery in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber before having published its review of the implementation of employment tribunal fees."
As the Committee notes, the introduction of issue fees and hearing fees for claimants in employment tribunals led to a drop of almost 70% in the number of cases brought.
The report raises serious concerns about the quality of the Ministry of Justice's research, sharing the view expressed by the senior judiciary and some others who gave evidence that it does not provide a sufficient basis to justify the proposals. A Committee press release noted that Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, described it as "lamentable", while the Chair of the Bar Council described the research undertaken in relation to the domestic effects of fees as "insignificant" and the President of the Law Society said it was "poor."