UKBA Consultation on fees and charging, immigration and visas

[ThaiVisaExpress]

The government has announced a "consultation" on fees for their services. This means that they are certainly intending to change their fee structures, and almost certainly upwards rather than downwards. You have the opportunity to give your opinion, and we would urge you to do so. This is the official release on the consultation, and I have attached the consultation document and response form :

The government has announced a consultation looking at charging principles which begins on 12 November and will last for 3 weeks.

The purpose of this consultation is to look at options for ensuring those who benefit directly from the immigration system and enhanced border control contribute appropriately to its costs in the future. We are keen to hear from our partners and welcome views and opinions on the topics in this consultation. Topics covered within the consultation are as follows:

• simplifying our fee structure;
• fee levels;
• legislation;
• premium and optional services;
• Border Force;
• commercial partnerships;
• refunds and administration fees; and
• wider impacts

Responses will help us decide how to use charging powers to set appropriate immigration fees in the future and shape thinking on the need for different products and services.

For further details on this consultation, including the written ministerial statement and consultation document, see the GOV.UK website.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fees-and-charging-immigration-and-visas-consultation

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256443/Fees_and_charging_immigration_and_visas.pdf

Fees_consultation_response_form.doc

[bifftastic]

I have just read through the consultation document. It appears to be aimed at organisations rather than individuals.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Agreed, but don't you think that , as an individual using their services, you are entitled to your views ? I only skimmed through, but I don't see anything that says that individuals can't share their views, especially as individuals will be affected by any price changes.

[7by7]

I hate the way they talk as if we were customers; i.e. we had a choice and if we didn't like their service we could go elsewhere for a UK visa.

If only.

[Jay Sata]

I hate the way they talk as if we were customers; i.e. we had a choice and if we didn't like their service we could go elsewhere for a UK visa.

If only.

There is a choice. You can pay for the standard service and wait your turn or opt for the premium service. In the case of someone travelling to the main office in Croydon from somewhere a few hours drive away the Premium service at £100 offers the chance to jump the horrendous queues and get your business done quickly. The cost can often work out cheaper than staying in a hotel overnight.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/aboutus/contact/applyinginperson/happenontheday/

They are also planning fast track premium lanes for businessmen at UK airports.

There are plans for an £1,800 service by the UK Border Agency, which would allow those paying the fee to be given a priority service. This would involve a limousine for up to six passengers picking them up from the aircraft to a VIP suite where their passports are checked and luggage delivered to them.

Some may argue the schemes are not fair but that is like saying first and business class air travel is unfair. I value my access to airport lounges but others see them as unnecessary.

Many people don't realise that pilots and passengers of light aircraft are fast tracked through most airports in a separate general aviation process that also involves checking aircraft documentation. In the USA I've even had my aircraft valet parked at places such as For Lauderdale Exec airport. London's Northolt and Biggin airports are UK examples.

Departing head of the UK Border Agency, Brian Moore, told MPs at a Commons Home Affairs Committee meeting that passengers who were considered ‘high-value’ by the airlines or ’valuable to the British economy’ would be given priority treatment at immigration control.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

Point missed; completely. However you apply, you have to deal with UKV&I (formally UKBA)

BTW, the only way to make an in person LTR application at a PEO is to use the premium service; which means making an appointment. Applicants cannot just turn up and join a queue.

If you don't want, or need, to use the premium service and pay the extra fee it involves, then you either apply directly by post or via your local Settlement Checking Service.

If applying at a PEO, whether one travels there and back on the day or stays overnight in a hotel depends mainly on how far one has to travel, I'd have thought.

[Jay Sata]

I was mostly referring to what the UKBA call their Registered Traveller scheme. There is scope to generate increased income by expanding it.

Border Force is currently providing a premium service at some General Aviation sites (sites where

non – scheduled flights arrive). This enables General Aviation operators to deliver a high quality,

seamless experience of border control to their passengers, including expedited immigration

clearance. Border Force intend to apply consistent charges for these services.

We intend to expand the provision of dedicated VIP suites and premium fast-track processing

through the border at certain ports, both of which are currently charged at a cost-recovery level.

In an ideal world the UKBA should be self funding thus reducing support from the general taxpayer.

This point is made in the document.

Home Office funding from general taxation

will decrease over the next two years. To maintain the immigration system that customers and the

public want to see, an increased contribution must be made by migrants who benefit directly from

Home Office services, particularly as policy changes to reduce net migration come into effect.

The margin of increase for visa fees to reach the point where they cover the cost is small and I ask the question why should I as a taxpayer subsidise tourist visa's?

For

example, one way of increasing the contribution from applicants would be to ensure all fees meet

or exceed our administration costs (a tourist visa would increase from £80 to at least £136, which

would be more expensive than all of our competitors). Lower fee levels would reduce the funding

available to manage the immigration system, potentially harming customer service and immigration

If a traveller from Thailand or wherever cannot afford the sum of £136 to visit the UK how can they justify the airfare?

[7by7]

As can be seen from the table in this ministerial statement announcing the last set of fee increases; whilst the unit cost of a standard visit visa is above the fee charged, for most applications it is well below.

For example, the unit cost of a visit visa is the same regardless of it's term; £136. But the fee for a 2 year one is £278; for a 10 year one it is a whopping £737!

Looking at the other applications which concern the majority of members here:-

Settlement visa: unit cost £407, fee £851.

FLR (LTR other in table); unit cost £281, fee by post £575, add another £375 (including £100 booking fee) if applying in person.

ILR; unit cost £403; fee by post £1051, add another £375 (including £100 booking fee) if applying in person.

Naturalisation; unit cost £187, fee £874.

The government, via UKV&I, may make a loss on 6 month visit visas; but on nearly everything else it makes a tidy profit.

Remember, too, that the majority of visitors to the UK are tourists who are not visa nationals and so do not need a visa to enter the UK as a visitor; therefore they pay nothing.

Edited November 14, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

As can be seen from the table in this ministerial statement announcing the last set of fee increases; whilst the unit cost of a standard visit visa is above the fee charged, for most applications it is well below.

For example, the unit cost of a visit visa is the same regardless of it's term; £136. But the fee for a 2 year one is £278; for a 10 year one it is a whopping £737!

Looking at the other applications which concern the majority of members here:-

Settlement visa: unit cost £407, fee £851.

FLR (LTR other in table); unit cost £281, fee by post £575, add another £375 (including £100 booking fee) if applying in person.

ILR; unit cost £403; fee by post £1051, add another £375 (including £100 booking fee) if applying in person.

Naturalisation; unit cost £187, fee £874.

The government, via UKV&I, may make a loss on 6 month visit visas; but on nearly everything else it makes a tidy profit.

Remember, too, that the majority of visitors to the UK are tourists who are not visa nationals and so do not need a visa to enter the UK as a visitor; therefore they pay nothing.

You suggest the fees are excessive but look at this paragraph in the consultation document.

In order to maintain the required level of funding for our immigration system, any reduction in income as a result of

lowering the fee for one route, must be offset by increases elsewhere.

This has led to a situation where the fee paid for some routes may not clearly reflect the benefits of

a successful application. For example, the fee for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) is the same as,

or lower than, the fee for some Tier 1 applications, even though ILR allows the successful applicant

to settle permanently in the UK, with access to a wider range of public funds and services.

Therefore given the benefits obtained by ILR or naturalisation it could be argued the current fees are quite a bargain.

I don't think anyone would disagree that if there is an decent income stream from charging pop stars/celebs/the extremely wealthy thousands then let them bypass the immigration lines and enjoy some comfort.

[thaicbr]

Visit visas for the UK are double that of Shengen countries. Why? Are Shengen countries more efficient?

Sent from my phone with the app thingy.

[7by7]

Mr Sata, the paragraph you quote is a cynical move by the government to con the public; much the same was said by Blair when he first decided to make a profit from visa and LTR fees.

Speaking personally, I am not concerned about pop stars/celebs/the extremely wealthy; I am concerned about ordinary people like the members of this forum who just want to live in the UK with their spouse or partner. Successive governments since Blair's have made that increasingly difficult and expensive.

For settlement, visa and LTR, applicants, using their own figures, the cost to the government is far less than the fees charged and the fees cannot be justified in any way other than the desire by the government to make a profit.

Yes, a proportion of that profit goes to fund IOs at ports of entry, using the excuse that those who use the system should pay for it.

Ridiculous; most people passing through UK immigration are EEA nationals or non visa national visitors; both of whom pay nothing.

To say that these applicants will benefit in other ways, e.g. NHS, is another cynical manoeuvre by the government to deflect the gullible and the ignorant from the facts.

Yes, those who settle in the UK are entitled to NHS treatment (but bugger all else except schooling for their children if any, until they have ILR); for which either they, their British spouse/partner or both are paying tax.

Ditto for any benefits they may claim once they have ILR.

[Tony M]

Here's an extract from an article I did in 2011 ( Please remember much has changed since it was written). Costs have changed since then, but it gives you a flavour :

If you want a similar visit visa for some other places, it will cost you:

USA - $ 140 ( approx 86 GBP ) Now $160, but valid for 10 years

Canada - C$ 75 ( approx 48 GBP )

Schengen (covering most of Europe ) - 60 Euro ( approx 53 GBP )

Australia - e-visa ( visit) - FREE !

- Visit visa - A$ 105 ( 68 GBP )

There seem to be some major price differences here. Looking at the list, a visit visa for the USA seems to be the most expensive, but it is likely to be a multiple visit visa valid for use for a period of 10 years. The UK equivalent of that is more than 700 GBP !

For settlement visas the figures are even more interesting :

UK - 810 GBP Now 851 GBP

USA - $ 350 ( approx 216 GBP )

Canada - $ 550 ( approx 350 GBP )

Australia - $1735 ( approx 1135 GBP )

Schengen - 60 Euro ( approx 53 GBP )

So which is best value ? Well, you have to consider that Australia’s DIAC can take a full year, with enquiries inside Australia and interviews of the applicant, before reaching a decision, whereas the UK makes a decision on documents only..

Now this gets even more interesting when you look at the figures published by the government/UKBA for how much it actually costs to process a UK visa, what they call the “unit cost”. For a UK visa :

Visa Fee (what you pay) Unit cost

Visit visa ( 6 month) 76 GBP 140 GBP

Visit visa ( 2 year ) 265 140

Visit visa ( 5 year ) 486 140

Visit visa ( 10 year ) 702 140

Settlement visa (for a spouse ) 810 391

Settlement ( other relative) 1814 458

The figures raise some obvious questions. If it costs ( the unit cost ) 140 GBP to process a visit visa, whether it is a short term visa or a long term visa, why is the charge for a long term visa 702 GBP ? UKBA will argue that they lose money on short term visas (they put the cost of processing that visa at 140 GBP, and charge only 76 GBP ), but can it really cost 140 GBP to process the visa ? How can the Americans do a 10 year validity visa ( which normally includes being interviewed by a real person) for just $ 140 ?

Processing a settlement ( spouse visa) for the USA can take more than a year, with enquiries being made in the USA and Thailand, plus an interview at the Embassy, yet they are able to charge just $ 350 for that visa. The cost for the same visa for the UK is 810 GBP !

So why are UK visa costs so high ? The visit visa costs are presumably kept low in order to try to attract visitors to the UK, and to not frighten them off with high visa costs. The settlement visa costs are high, I believe, because the government knows that British citizens will have to pay whatever they are asked if they want to bring their spouse to the UK. You either pay, or you can’t bring your spouse. I guess there are other considerations too., such as the cost of operating the visa system overseas. Is the cost of keeping visa officers overseas good value ? I don’t think so. It can all be done from UK anyway, especially if the visa officer overseas never interviews any applicants. Anyone can look at documents and make a decision, from anywhere in the world. I think the day is coming when all visa applications will be dealt with from the UK.

[Jay Sata]

You say you are not concerned about pop stars or celebrities and what fees they may pay for a premium service but you are missing the point that such services can keep the costs down elsewhere. An example being international airlines who make most of their money out of first and club class passengers not those who turn right on entering the aircraft.

The current fee for a six month tourist visa to the UK is lower than what I pay the Thai government for a 12 month multi entry O visa.

If you think immigration fees are expensive take a look at what your local authority charges for planning permission and building control services. Add to that section 106 charges for private owners to support play scheme etc and the UKBA is a bargain.

The consultation paper suggest the fees are reasonable.

We believe our fees continue to represent good value for money. Indeed, the visa fee is usually a

small portion of the overall amount someone will pay if they decide to come to the UK (other costs

include flights, hotels, living expenses and so on). We also believe our fees compare favourably

with competitor countries. We carefully monitor different visa prices in a range of countries,

although direct comparisons are not always possible. For example, in New Zealand individual visa

fees may exceed £2,500 (the highest individual fee in the UK is under £2,000) and a USA tourist

visa costs around £100 (compared with £80 in the UK).

I'm inclined to agree but if further income can be generated to reduce input from the general taxpayer,the bulk of whom never use the system,so much the better.

As for anyone complaining about £810 for a spouse visa well that is just a little over the airfare from BKK to Heathrow.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Tony M]

Haha............................. Quote - ".................................and a USA tourist visa costs around £100 (compared with £80 in the UK)."

They forgot to mention that the US visa is valid for 10 years, multiple entries, the UK equivalent of which is 737 GBP.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Tony M

[Jay Sata]

A 10 year multi entry UK visa may cost £737 but that is only £73.70 a year which is much less than I pay for my one year Thai visa.

[Tony M]

A 10 year multi entry UK visa may cost £737 but that is only £73.70 a year which is much less than I pay for my one year Thai visa.

Mr Sata, you are again, as usual, completely missing the point. The statement was not comparing the cost of a UK visa over 10 years with your Thai one year visa. It was comparing the cost of a UK visit visa with a US visit visa, and "spinning" it as a "like for like". That is clearly nonsense, and a poor attempt to spin the reality.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Tony M

[Jay Sata]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but all I'm saying is the UK tourist visa is not expensive. If someone wants to commit to buying a 10 year visa then compared to airfares it's cheap.

The government could increase all the fees across the board by 10% and they'd still be reasonable. It sometimes appears here that everyone complains about visa fees but not airfares.

The current UK government are trying to clear up the mess left by Blair and Brown and self funding of operations such as the UKBA makes sense.

[7by7]

You (7by7) suggest the fees are excessive but look at this paragraph in the consultation document.

In order to maintain the required level of funding for our immigration system, any reduction in income as a result of

lowering the fee for one route, must be offset by increases elsewhere.

This has led to a situation where the fee paid for some routes may not clearly reflect the benefits of

a successful application. For example, the fee for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) is the same as,

or lower than, the fee for some Tier 1 applications, even though ILR allows the successful applicant

to settle permanently in the UK, with access to a wider range of public funds and services.

Should have realised this before; don't know why I didn't; but that last sentence is extremely misleading.

The fee for ILR by post is £1051.

Tier 1 fees vary according to category; the highest fee for an in UK Tier 1 application is £1545.

Looks like Tier 1 is more expensive, doesn't it?

Wrong, because they have not taken into account the fees paid prior to arriving at that stage.

Settlement visa, £851

FLR after 30 months (by post) £578

ILR (by post) £1051.

Total £2480. Plus an extra £375 per application if the FLR and/or ILR application was made in person.

Tier 1 visa £841 (that's the most expensive, the cheapest is £268)

In UK application, £1545 (that's the most expensive, the cheapest is £406).

Total £2386 maximum; could be as low as £674.

So the route to ILR is actually more expensive entering the country under the most expensive Tier 1 route and then extending one's stay.

As for the 'wider range to public funds and services' bit; Tier 1 migrants can access all public funds not on the proscribed list; including access to the NHS, just as a spouse qualifying for their ILR can.

They cannot access social housing, income support etc.; but then as their leave to stay in the UK is dependent upon them working and earning a high income; they wouldn't need to anyway!

[7by7]

Deleted: duplicate.

Edited November 14, 2013 by 7by7

[7by7]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but all I'm saying is the UK tourist visa is not expensive. If someone wants to commit to buying a 10 year visa then compared to airfares it's cheap.

The government could increase all the fees across the board by 10% and they'd still be reasonable. It sometimes appears here that everyone complains about visa fees but not airfares.

The current UK government are trying to clear up the mess left by Blair and Brown and self funding of operations such as the UKBA makes sense.

Air fares are set by commercial organisations who want, naturally, to make a profit. As another current topic shows, passengers have a choice and can shop around for a fare/airline which suits their requirements.

Immigration and visas are a government department and those who wish to enter the UK have no choice; use UKV&I and pay their fees, or don't come.

Whilst I, and I suspect no one else here, has any objection to a reasonable fee which covers costs, the excessive profits made on most applications is wrong.

BTW, get your history right. It was Blair and Brown who decided to increase visa and leave to remain fees so the IND (as it then was) would be profitable.

Despite vociferous opposition at the time from both Tories and LibDems, the coalition is continuing with that policy.

One of Blair's excuses for the vast increase in fees his government introduced was that it brought the UK in line with countries he described as 'our competitors such as the USA, Australia.' So any comparison of visa fees and the service provided between the UK and these countries is apt and relevant.

[bifftastic]

As can be seen from the table in this ministerial statement announcing the last set of fee increases; whilst the unit cost of a standard visit visa is above the fee charged, for most applications it is well below.

For example, the unit cost of a visit visa is the same regardless of it's term; £136. But the fee for a 2 year one is £278; for a 10 year one it is a whopping £737!

Looking at the other applications which concern the majority of members here:-

Settlement visa: unit cost £407, fee £851.

FLR (LTR other in table); unit cost £281, fee by post £575, add another £375 (including £100 booking fee) if applying in person.

ILR; unit cost £403; fee by post £1051, add another £375 (including £100 booking fee) if applying in person.

Naturalisation; unit cost £187, fee £874.

The government, via UKV&I, may make a loss on 6 month visit visas; but on nearly everything else it makes a tidy profit.

Remember, too, that the majority of visitors to the UK are tourists who are not visa nationals and so do not need a visa to enter the UK as a visitor; therefore they pay nothing.

You suggest the fees are excessive but look at this paragraph in the consultation document.

In order to maintain the required level of funding for our immigration system, any reduction in income as a result of

lowering the fee for one route, must be offset by increases elsewhere.

This has led to a situation where the fee paid for some routes may not clearly reflect the benefits of

a successful application. For example, the fee for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) is the same as,

or lower than, the fee for some Tier 1 applications, even though ILR allows the successful applicant

to settle permanently in the UK, with access to a wider range of public funds and services.

Therefore given the benefits obtained by ILR or naturalisation it could be argued the current fees are quite a bargain.

I don't think anyone would disagree that if there is an decent income stream from charging pop stars/celebs/the extremely wealthy thousands then let them bypass the immigration lines and enjoy some comfort.

VIP fast track services aside, the thing that irks me most is the notion that the 'value' of a settlement visa is thought of as being of value to the person who is granted it rather than the country as whole. This research http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467 clearly shows that immigration benefits the country more than it does the individual. Immigrants contribute more than they receive, and the whole argument that this is somehow a 'burden on the taxpayer' is, in my opinion, something that has been skewed to pander to what is laughingly referred to as 'public opinion'.

An opinion that does indeed exist, but is largely formed without people feeling the need to allow the facts to get in the way of what they wish to be true.

For me, the whole concept that entry to the UK is a privilege is slightly flawed, and people have to pay the government in order to adhere to it's own regulations.

All immigration, be it tourism or settlement, generates money for the country and it would be refreshing to see a government actually recognise that fact and, for once, stop dressing up cuts in spending as somehow protecting it's citizens from a perceived threat that is, in reality, exactly the opposite.

I didn't see a question in the consultation that would allow that as an answer though

[Jay Sata]

Immigration and visas are a government department and those who wish to enter the UK have no choice; use UKV&I and pay their fees, or don't come.

That's true of most things in life.

I can't see where the excessive profits are that you suggest. The consultation document points out that a lot of advice abroad is given free at the moment.

£2386 for ILR is a bargain as that gives you full you full UK rights and can be quickly paid off by working. If that was the only barrier to residency in the UK half the world would sign up now.

[7by7]

It was you who compared visa fees and air fares; I simply pointed out that they cannot be compared; apples and oranges if you will..

Do you now agree with me; on that point at least?

£2386 fee when the actual cost to the government is, according to their figures, £1091.

I don't call that a bargain, I call it excessive profiteering.

I would like to see how they calculate the cost; seems a bit high to me; but we'll take their figures as their all which are available. Though they do, presumably, cover all costs; such as running overseas offices and the free advice you mention (if they bother to respond to the query at all!)

Yes, the immigrant can work; and then pay tax. More money for the government. Even if they don't work, e.g. stay ay home to look after children, they will still pay tax in the form of VAT on many of the things they buy!

As I said before, no one, I hope, objects to paying a fair fee to cover the costs of processing the application; it's the excessive profits which irk.

Edited November 14, 2013 by 7by7

[7by7]

Of course, settlement visa and LTR fees are not the only area where the government makes an obscene profit.

As they have used Tier 1 as a comparison, and justification for increasing, ILR fees; let's take a closer look.

The most expensive LTR fee under Tier 1 is for Tier 1 General; a whopping £1545 plus £375 if applying in person: £1920.

But the cost, according to the government, is just £336!

Profit: £1584.

Whereas the fee for most expensive ILR application, i.e. in person, is £1426.

The governments figures show the cost to be £403.

Profit: £1023.

Yet it appears from the part of the consultation document quoted by Jay Sata that the government are trying to justify a potential massive increase in ILR fees by saying that they are cheaper than a Tier 1 General extension!

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that a comparison between these two shows that the Tier 1 General fee should come down, not the ILR fee go up!

[Jay Sata]

As my old accountant used to say 'it all depends on how you do your measuring'.

You talk about profit on visa's as if the government was running some sort of corner shop or franchise.

I suspect if you factored in total overheads of employing a person to process a visa application the numbers would come

out a lot different.

The purpose of the consultation is to help with forward planning to make the UK immigration service more cost effective.

Hence this paragraph.

Income from fees has been used to cover the costs of deciding applications and has contributed

to operating wider immigration controls. We believe it is right that those who use and benefit most

from the immigration system (migrants and the organisations that sponsor them for work or study)

should make an appropriate contribution towards its operation. Similarly, those who receive an

enhanced service at the border should help meet the cost of providing that service.

There we have it. Like most businesses gain in one area subsidises loss in another.

Yet it appears from the part of the consultation document quoted by Jay Sata that the government are trying to justify a potential massive increase in ILR fees by saying that they are cheaper than a Tier 1 General extension!

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that a comparison between these two shows that the Tier 1 General fee should come down, not the ILR fee go up!

Why should the Tier 1 fee come down? You use words like whopping to describe sums that equal an average council tax bill on a modest house.

I and I'm sure most on Thai Visa would be very happy if the Thai government gave me ILR rights for the figures you describe as profiteering.

The current government are looking at root and branch everywhere to make the economies needed to get this country back on an even keel after years of mismanagement.

If you read between the lines there is an intention to increase fees across the board with the intention of lowering immigration.

With an election coming up it's a wise move that will appeal to voters.

The Government has already made changes to our immigration policies with the aim of reducing

net migration levels from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. The former UK

Border Agency has been replaced with new organisations within the Home Office which will get

an effective grip on the volume of casework, improve service standards and provide an effective

enforcement response to those who break our immigration laws. IT systems will be overhauled

and replaced. We are supporting businesses and the growth agenda by improving the range,

speed and accessibility of our service provision to business and individuals. A new Immigration

Bill will make a number of improvements to the immigration system, including how the system is

funded in future.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Basil B]

Even though the 6 month visa is a loss maker in reality it is not assuming all visitors are going to spend money in the UK which is actually important to our trade balance, even say someones Thai girl friend over for a few weeks who has no funds of their own will generate spending in the UK as opposed to someone going to Thailand for a few weeks, winch would be a negative spend on our trade balance.

[Jay Sata]

I think they want the visitors Basil and the high spenders but there is also an aim to raise fees and generate enough revenue to cut the cost of the service on the public purse and also use financial barriers to lower immigration.

This paragraph says a lot and I seem to recall the words came from Cameron.

We want to make Britain open for business and ensure that high value visitors who can make a contribution to the UK

economy receive the kind service at the border which makes their entry to the UK as seamless

and comfortable as possible. However, we must also ensure that fees make an appropriate

contribution to the end-to-end costs of the immigration system and must not rely on the public

purse to meet all of these costs.

[7by7]

Mr. Sata, in response to your post; post 25.

The unit cost used by the government must include all costs involved; employment costs, building costs, all overheads.

Otherwise how could they say that processing, for example, a visit visa costs £136?

£136 for, at most, 15 minutes work!

Unfortunately, both this government, and Brown's and Blair's before them, do view immigration like some form of corner shop or franchise; or rather a cash cow to be milked for every penny they can get away with.

You ridicule my mention of profits, and then say that UKV&I is a business! Make your mind up, please.

How can you justify using the difference in fees between a Tier 1 General extension and an ILR application as reason to increase ILR fees when the profit on a Tier 1 General extension is more than the fee for an ILR application?

No wonder that many of the entrepreneurs Tier 1 was designed to attract to the UK are going elsewhere; taking their investment and the jobs that would have provided with them.

Council tax is charged at a rate to cover the costs of the services provided, not to make a profit. Think the outcry if the average local authority made profits on council tax similar to that made by the government on visa and LTR fees.

I agree, the Thai immigration system is unfair; but since when has two wrongs made a right?

As for the last quote; hot air which means nothing. Labour said more or less the same when the IND became the UKBA. Result? Millions spent on rebranding, no improvement in performance or efficiency.

You are correct about one thing, though; an election is coming up.

As the article previously linked to by bifftastic, and many similar ones, shows; migrants taken as a whole have made a positive contribution to this country. That needs to be publicised more by the government; but instead they go for the easy, vote winning anti immigration stance; playing on the prejudice of people who either don't know the facts or worse, like you, choose to ignore them.

Edited November 14, 2013 by 7by7

[7by7]

Even though the 6 month visa is a loss maker in reality it is not assuming all visitors are going to spend money in the UK which is actually important to our trade balance, even say someones Thai girl friend over for a few weeks who has no funds of their own will generate spending in the UK as opposed to someone going to Thailand for a few weeks, winch would be a negative spend on our trade balance.

It also needs to be remembered, Basil, that, as said before, non visa nationals and EEA nationals make up the vast majority of visitors to the UK. They don't need visit visas and so pay nothing.

But, as you say, the contribution these visitors make to the British economy makes it worth it.

But most immigrants make a far greater contribution to the British economy once here.

Cameron and his apologist seem to have forgotten that in their desire to screw as much out of immigrants, most of whom are family members of tax paying British citizens remember, in the way of visa and LTR fees as they can get away with.

As TonyM said far earlier in this topic; those of us with the audacity to fall in love with a foreigner have no choice other than to pay these outrageous fees if we want to live in the UK with them.

However, that does not mean we should not take every opportunity to protest about them; as I have been doing since Blair first started to turn the screw.

[Jay Sata]

The consultation document is quite clear in it's aims to lower the cost of the service to the general taxpayer and make those who use it pay.

The service is not some sort of buffet where you can pick out the bits that suit you and leave the rest. Mark Harper is quite honest in where he sees the future.

We currently set some fees at or below the cost of providing

the service and some fees above that cost to reflect the value of the product. Charging fees

above administrative cost helps to raise the revenue required to fund the overall immigration

system. It also allows us flexibility to set other fees below the cost of providing the service, to

balance international competiveness and support wider government aims. For example, we set a

visit visa fee that is below cost to support tourism in the UK,

In an ideal world the system will be self funding.

Income generated from fees contributes directly to managing the immigration system and helps

raise the revenue required to make necessary investments and improvements

I agree migrants make a positive contribution. I'm married to one.

Mark Harper agrees.

We want to strike a good balance between the economic

interests of the UK and the need to maintain a sound immigration system. There is widespread

acceptance that migration is a factor in our economic growth but also concern about the possible

impact on public services and communities.

Points I've made in previous posts. Just look at the impact Blair's immigration policy has had on A and E services.There is also a desire to generate income abroad from some advice now provided free.

We provide advice on compliance matters to other third

party organisations who wish to be recognised by the Home Office as meeting our standards,

for example test providers for Secure English Language Tests, providers of premium services

overseas, and those who provide additional support and assistance to migrants applying from

within the UK. Currently we provide account management and advice free of charge to third

parties, and this service is funded from other fee income. These services can enable third party

organisations, once recognised as compliant, to generate income from applicants for immigration

and nationality products.

We believe it is fairer to be able to recover the costs of ensuring compliance and offering other

services related to immigration and nationality advice, through the establishment of commercial

agreements with those that directly benefit, rather than passing on these costs to other

customers. This would help to keep down fee increases required across other products, and

enable us to improve the service that we are able to give to all of our customers. It is possible,

however, that charging for these services may reduce the number of third party organisations able

to offer these services on a sustainable basis.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256443/Fees_and_charging_immigration_and_visas.pdf

As I said earlier looking at the total cost for ILR to describe it as whopping or outrageous belies the fact that to meet a partner who requires

the service means one must have spent a considerable sum in travel costs in the first place.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Jay Sata