UKBA Consultation on fees and charging, immigration and visas

[bifftastic]

I think that the idea that the service should be self-financing isolates it from the benefits it generates for the economy.

It's like charging someone for providing them with a way of paying you.

I know they already do that, but once the basic idea has been set the way it is, they will raise the costs to the people who have no choice but to comply at every opportunity they get. Dressing it up as doing us all a favour.

The politics of focus groups has done little to improve who we end up with as a government.

After this consultation they will do what they wanted to do in the first place, increase the visa fees.

[theoldgit]

After this consultation they will do what they wanted to do in the first place, increase the visa fees.

Spot on.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Basil B]

I think that the idea that the service should be self-financing isolates it from the benefits it generates for the economy.

It's like charging someone for providing them with a way of paying you.

I know they already do that, but once the basic idea has been set the way it is, they will raise the costs to the people who have no choice but to comply at every opportunity they get. Dressing it up as doing us all a favour.

The politics of focus groups has done little to improve who we end up with as a government.

After this consultation they will do what they wanted to do in the first place, increase the visa fees.

It is like charging to enter a shopping mall.

[Jay Sata]

I don't think so. Most of the UK population will never need to use the service.

As for increased fees and new services to increase revenue that is suggested as the way forward.

Following the latest government Spending Home Office review 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.

So prices are going to rise for sure unless additionional income can be generated by premium services .One sensible move proposed is to make the charging structure more streamlined

There are still around 120 different fee levels, reflecting the fact that different application routes have different processing costs and provide

benefits, and that we are required to offer certain concessions.

If you read between the lines they've already found area's to increase the fees.

For example, somebody applying for leave under

Tier 2 of the Points Based System currently pays £494 if applying overseas, but pays £578 if

applying for the same type of leave within the UK

Although 7by7 complains about these visa costs they something we all only ever pay once. However the taxpayer funds the system year in year out and as I said earlier for something most never use.

[7by7]

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.

As repeatedly said, no one expects the taxpayer to fund their spouse/partner/child/whatever visa and/or LTR application.

What we do expect, though, is a fair charging system which reflects the actual cost of processing.

"In an ideal world the system will be self funding."

It already is; in fact it makes a profit!

Ok, a large proportion of that profit goes to fund IOs at ports of entry and enforcement teams.

But, as previously explained, most people passing through UK immigration don't have a visa; why should those who require a visa pay for those who don't?

Enforcement teams are in some ways similar to the police. Do you think that anyone who needs to use the services of the police should pay a fee so the tax payer doesn't have to fund them?

"Just look at the impact Blair's immigration policy has had on A and E services."

What impact? The fact that most A&E departments are staffed by immigrants?

"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.....""

Then charge those organisations! Why should visa and LTR applicants pay to give these, often commercial, organisations free advice?

"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."

And as I said earlier, airlines etc. are commercial organisations who rightly wish to make a profit and one can shop around and choose one's travel provider based on one's requirements and budget.

There is no such choice when it comes to applying for a UK visa or LTR. One has to use UKV&I and the fees should reflect costs; not make a profit.

[7by7]

Although 7by7 complains about these visa costs they something we all only ever pay once. However the taxpayer funds the system year in year out and as I said earlier for something most never use.

As previously explained; the tax payer does not fund the system; visa and LTR fees do.

No one I know of wants the tax payer to fund their visa and LTR applications; no one I know of objects to paying a reasonable fee to cover costs.

BTW, I am a tax payer, my wife is a tax payer, my step daughter is a tax payer.

As are the vast majority of immigrants and their sponsors.

[Jay Sata]

"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.....""

Then charge those organisations! Why should visa and LTR applicants pay to give these, often commercial, organisations free advice?

I'm pleased to see we agree on that point. You appear to complain about people who do not need a visa making no contribution to the system but surely that is fair. Why should they support those from outside the EEC.

Most of us have paid all the fees and have partners who are here. I don't see why a UK visitor to Thailand,paying for airfares and hotels etc, who then meets someone cannot afford a couple of thousand for visa fees. It's highly likely they will make several journey's to Thailand before making the application and that travel does not come cheap.

The consultation document appears to have the bones of a speech Mark Harper will be making soon.

At present, fee levels are set on an annual basis, with fee proposals agreed, cleared and debated

in Parliament before being put into place. This means that it is a relatively slow process to make changes to fees and respond to emerging market opportunities and government priorities, such

as lowering a fee to support growth in a key market or introducing a new premium service.

As well as expanding the criteria used to set fees, the new measures will allow for maximum

fee amounts to be set for a number of fee categories, under which specific fee levels may then

be set out in Regulations through a faster approval process. It is not our intention to increase

specific fees several times a year. Rather, the proposed new framework is intended to allow new

or amended fees to be introduced more quickly (for example, to respond to government policy to

support growth in specific areas or to meet customer demand) to introduce new optional premium

services, and to ensure that unnecessary or redundant fees may be removed to improve clarity.

The changes are not intended to reduce the level of parliamentary scrutiny of any new fees or policies.

The above suggests that a series of increases are on the table and that future adjustments will not require

asking for parliamentary approval.

As a taxpayer I'd like the system to be 100% user funded. As I keep saying we will only ever use it once and the cost spread across several years is minimal.

Can I point out the obvious. The visa fee system,language requirements,minimum income levels etc are all part of a government scheme to substantially reduce UK immigration. These are measures that have the support of over 50% of voters.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Jay Sata]

As previously explained; the tax payer does not fund the system; visa and LTR fees do.

No one I know of wants the tax payer to fund their visa and LTR applications; no one I know of objects to paying a reasonable fee to cover costs.

BTW, I am a tax payer, my wife is a tax payer, my step daughter is a tax payer.

As are the vast majority of immigrants and their sponsors.

It appears you have a different take than the government on how the system is funded. Have you read this part of the consultation?

In 2013-14 the Home Office plans to spend around £1.75bn on managing the immigration

system, approximately half of which will be recovered through the fees from applications and

the services we offer. Most of the remaining costs are met by general taxation. It is a significant

operation, for example in the last 3 years the Home Office processed around 7.5m visa

applications and over 2m applications to remain in the UK.

[7by7]

Mr Sata,

As I have repeatedly pointed out to you; the visa and LTR system is already 'user funded' to such an extent that it makes a profit. It's not me saying that; it's the government's own cost v fee figures linked to earlier!

Most of that profit is used up in paying for IOs, enforcement teams and other activities.

Also, to say that most British taxpayers will never use the services of UKV&I is, of course, incorrect.

British tax payers use their service every time they go abroad; whether it be for business or pleasure.

Why should visa and LTR applicants subsidise non visa nationals, EEA nationals and British nationals who make up the vast majority of the people passing through UK immigration at points of entry?

I've asked you that before; will you answer this time?

You keep coming back to say that having a foreign spouse/partner means one has probably already spent a considerable amount on air fares visiting them; I have already given the reasons why this argument is irrelevant.

But I can see where you're coming from in repeating it. You obviously believe that only the rich should be allowed to marry a foreigner.

That certainly seems to be the government's policy; witness the changes to the family immigration rules introduced in 2012 and now this veiled threat to, yet again, increase family visa and LTR fees.

Of course, all this will have very little effect on substantially reducing immigration; most immigrants come to the UK from other EEA countries and they wont be effected at all.

But, of course, the government don't want people to know that!

Edit:

As we are now going round and round in a circular argument, I wont be responding to any further posts from you unless you have something new to say.

Edited November 15, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

Can I suggest you write to Mark Harper and give him the good news that the system is making a profit?

I'm not saying you have to be wealthy to pay for a spouse visa.

Just stating the obvious that if a person can afford multiple trips to Thailand then they can afford the visa fees.

The UK government does not have an anti Thai agenda as these charges apply across the globe.

Since the demise of the Blair /Brown debacle Cameron and Clegg have turned this country around to the point where we now face a positive future. They have slashed red tape and petty rules everywhere and are making efforts to reduce the burden on the taxpayer.

You are always claiming the visa fees are a tax on being married to a non EU spouse but may I remind you the option exists for everyone to go and settle in their partners country.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

As we are now going round and round in a circular argument, I wont be responding to any further posts from you unless you have something new to say.

Can I suggest you write to Mark Harper and give him the good news that the system is making a profit?

I have already said this in my submission to the consultation.

The UK government does not have an anti Thai agenda as these charges apply across the globe.

Where have I said that the government does have an anti Thai agenda?

These charges do not apply across the globe.

EEA nationals and their qualifying non EEA national family members pay nothing. Non visa nationals do not need a visa to visit the UK so pay nothing if entering as a visitor.

You are always claiming the visa fees are a tax on being married to a non EU spouse but may I remind you the option exists for everyone to go and settle in their partners country.

Many do; as the fact that most members of this board live in Thailand shows

But that is not always the best option.

In my case, whether living in Thailand or the UK we both needed to work. Having looked at all the options we decided that as the prospects of me finding work in Thailand was significantly lower than the prospect of my wife finding work in the UK that living in the UK was the better option for us.

I am sure that there are many in a similar position; regardless of which country their spouse/partner originates from.

But then I'm one of those low income people you despise so much.

[wooloomooloo]

In my case, whether living in Thailand or the UK we both needed to work. Having looked at all the options we decided that as the prospects of me finding work in Thailand was significantly lower than the prospect of my wife finding work in the UK that living in the UK was the better option for us.

I am sure that there are many in a similar position; regardless of which country their spouse/partner originates from.

Couldn't agree more.

My wife and I both reside in UK. We would love to live in LOS and return to Blighty occasionally, but, needs must.

Today was a good example of why we reside in UK. My wife gave her mum a not insignificant amount of cash from her hard earned and that's on top of what I send to my MIL each month. Mum's happy, my wife's happy, therefore we're all happy.

Until such time as we are able to make the move, this is life. The grass is always greener.

[Jay Sata]

Look it's got nothing to do with having a low income. It's also got nothing to do with EEC nationals or those that don't need a visa.

This consultation is a precursor to the government introducing a new charging scheme where the user pays.

There will be expensive fast tracking and VIP lounges for the wealthy in return for some pretty hefty charges. There will be loopholes closed where services or advice is currently provided free or where some visa charges are below others of a similar nature.

You say you chose to live in the UK but you know the truth is foreigners have no right to live or work in Thailand on a permanent basis.

They are subject to permanent visa control for life.

Perhaps you can give me an example of what you'd consider a reasonable fee for ILR?

[Jay Sata]

Making the move to Thailand is not easy.

One of the few jobs open is teaching English for which you now need at the very least a Bachelors degree. No right to own property or have a company unless you are a minority shareholder.

Foreigners are subject to permanent visa control for life. Look at what you need for a retirement visa.

• Bank Account showing THB 800,000
• Monthly income of at least THB 65,000
• Combination (Bank Account + Income x 12 = THB 800,000)
• The retirement once approved allows you to stay in Thailand for one year. You are not allowed to have employment while on this type of visa. Also you must report to Immigration every 90 days to verify your current address.

http://www.thaiembassy.com/retire/retire.php

Comparing those numbers the UK looks a bargain.

[7by7]

Mr. Sata.

As I have said before, the visa regime in Thailand, or any other country, is irrelevant; two wrongs do not make a right.

A reasonable fee for ILR? Well, as the government's own figure for the unit cost of processing an ILR application is £403, I say that is a reasonable fee to charge.

As an ILR application cannot take more than 30 minutes to process (probably less) then unless the decision makers are being paid £806 per hour, that unit cost figure must include overheads etc.

If people wish to pay extra for fast tracking or a same day service, that's their choice.

Now, as I have already said, I have no desire to be dragged into yet another circular argument with you; so I will only respond to you again if you do actually have something new to add, rather than repeating the same old propaganda in a different way.

[theoldgit]

Indeed this is nothing whatsoever to do with visa requirements for Thailand or any other country.

It might be better if people concentrated their efforts on making a meaningful contribution to this consultation exercise instead of attempts at point scoring.

Whilst I live in Thailand and I remain a higher rate UK tax payer, I am content for my taxes to contribute to protecting the UK Borders, I don't see this as the responsibility of UK visitors.

I know from bitter experience that UKBA, as was, departmental spending isn't ring fenced and will be allocated to individual departments at the whim of our political masters.

Anyway, now I digress, so back to the consultation exercise.

[Kevin1908]

As an ILR application cannot take more than 30 minutes to process (probably less) then unless the decision makers are being paid £806 per hour, that unit cost figure must include overheads etc.

That is some overhead.

[Basil B]

Looking at the unit cost and the fact that they make a loss on the 6 month Visit Visa, maybe this should be replaced with a 3 month Tourist Visa aimed at Tourists and for those wishing to stay longer a six month visit visa say cost of £175.

[Jay Sata]

I think we need to get some of these figures in to context.

7by7 claims..

Well, as the government's own figure for the unit cost of processing an ILR application is £403, I say that is a reasonable fee to charge.

As an ILR application cannot take more than 30 minutes to process (probably less) then unless the decision makers are being paid £806 per hour, that unit cost figure must include overheads etc.

Where does that figure come from. Unit costs are something the government hasn't a clue about. It's probably the direct cost of the employee and paperwork not factoring in management costs or infrastructure. That's why so many government services are now operated by private contractors from prisons to search and rescue.

However this paragraph defends claims that the direct cost of processing a visa such as 7by7's argument should be passed on the the applicant.

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 competitiveness and support wider government aims.

Nothing in the consultation document suggests that those requiring a UK visa to live work or study should get it at cost. There is a benefit in being admitted to the UK as the spouse or partner of a UK passport holder. The minimum wage in Thailand is 300 baht a day which roughly equates to the hourly rate in the UK.

That point is mentioned here.

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.

The consultation document also mentions my argument regarding other costs related to meeting and bringing a partner to the UK.

These are cost 7by7 will not discuss.

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).

Edited November 15, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Jay Sata]

Looking at the unit cost and the fact that they make a loss on the 6 month Visit Visa, maybe this should be replaced with a 3 month Tourist Visa aimed at Tourists and for those wishing to stay longer a six month visit visa say cost of £175.

That's an excellent suggestion Basil and if you don't mind I'll be including in my response to the consultation and a private letter to Mark Harper.

Thailand offers a 15 day or 30 day visa as standard which mirrors the fact that very few people are lucky enough to be able to take extended

holidays.

What often happens in some communities is that the six month tourist visa is used to exploit someone to work in the family garment factory,restaurant or taking care of infants/babysitting for peanuts.

Genuine tourist have usually had enough after a month in the UK.

[7by7]

Mr Sata,

As I said, the unit cost figure comes from the ministerial statement announcing the last set of visa and LTR fee increases.

You seem happy to swallow the government's propaganda when it suits you; why don't you accept their figures on unit costs?

Are your seriously suggesting that employee and paperwork costs for processing each ILR application comes to £403, at least £806 per hour, and other overheads are not factored in?!

Wages in Thailand are significantly below those in the UK; but so are living costs. You keep banging on about Thailand, conveniently forgetting that these fees apply to all those who require a visa; including countries where incomes are the same or higher than in the UK.

There are many reasons why a visitor, especially a family visitor, may wish to spend up to 6 months in the UK. The type of exploitation you mention is, as anyone with any knowledge of the rules would know, illegal.

Your other 'points' are mere repetitions of your previous posts; which I have previously answered.

Now, as I have already said, I have no desire to be dragged into yet another circular argument with you; so I will only respond to you again if you do actually have something new to add, rather than repeating the same old propaganda in a different way.

Edited November 16, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

It appears the me that the majority are more than happy to pay the fees. I am not reading many complaints here.

They represent a small component in bringing a partner to the UK and the benefits of living here outweigh the cost.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with spending six months in the UK. However 99% of tourists will need only a month which could be allowed by the standard fee. Double it for three months and triple for six months.

Very few people can afford to leave their home,job and responsibilities for six months in the expensive UK.

The consultation is just a procedure required before Mark Harper gets his new plans endorsed so it's a done deal.

[bobrussell]

Visit visas are not just for tourists. A general visitor can come to the UK for numerous reasons. Most on this site are visiting family and friends.

How do you propose that 1,3 and 6 month visas are to be policed? I suspect the cost would outweigh any benefits.

[Jay Sata]

I'm not suggesting that as they are policed already. Restaurants, massage parlours and nail bars are high on the police and Border Agency website and they raid them every week.

What I'm suggesting is getting more money in to the system. The consultation is there for suggestion on how taxpayer costs can be reduced. My attitude is the user pays.

Someone who can give up their employment or has funds for a six month UK holiday can and should pay more than the 30 day tourist.

The discussion here seems to pivot on one persons perception that certain visa fees are too high.

I see no problem in increasing tourist visa's by the rate of inflation and the rest by 20%. Will the UK voter scream and shout?

Yes in support of the idea that if you want rights to reside and work here you have to pay.

Would David Beckham wait in line at Heathrow if VIP charges went up by 50%?

I don't think so.

[7by7]

I'm not suggesting that as they are policed already. Restaurants, massage parlours and nail bars are high on the police and Border Agency website and they raid them every week.

What I'm suggesting is getting more money in to the system. The consultation is there for suggestion on how taxpayer costs can be reduced. My attitude is the user pays.

In the case of enforcement teams combating illegal working that would be the employer, then.

Who does already pay by way of the fines levied per illegal employee.

Why should a genuine, law abiding visa applicant and/or their British family pay for enforcing the law against those who break it?

Law enforcement benefits the whole community and should be funded by the whole community via taxation.

It's like saying that the victims of a crime should pay the police to investigate it!

As your attitude is that the user should pay, you must want everyone who passes through UK immigration to pay a fee; including EEA nationals, non visa nationals and even British nationals.

David Beckham may not care if VIP fees went up by 50%, but many ordinary people who already struggle to find the visa and LTR fees so that their foreign spouse can live with them would if the fees for these did.

As would many ordinary people who would like their foreign relatives visit them.

But, as you have made clear in this and many other topics on fees and similar subjects, you don't care about ordinary people.

Edited November 16, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

Look 7by7 you are doing nothing constructive to add to suggestions on the consultation.

The government want the immigration system to be as close as possible to breaking even so visa fees are needed to rise.

Where would you increase fees?

As I've said before if someone can afford six months in the UK they can afford paying triple the cost of a one month visa.

Law enforcement is, and always should be, funded from taxation.

It's like saying that the victims of a crime should pay the police to investigate it!

That's the way it is these days. If you get your 2 grand ride on mower nicked from the garden shed plod will maybe turn up in a few days time and give you a crime number. In many cases you don't even get a visit because the crime number dumps the problem on the insurance company which comes back to the victim who gets an

increased premium.

You have the impression I have some sort of agenda but it's only that the user should pay.

The same applies to foreign truck companies who load up with cheap diesel at Calais in vehicles designed with extra tanks then use UK roads for nothing. British drivers have to pay tolls or buy expensive vignettes to use Euro roads and have much more expensive costs via road fund licencing.

As your attitude is that the user should pay, you must want everyone who passes through UK immigration to pay a fee; including EEA nationals, non visa nationals and even British nationals.

I just want those who need a visa to pay. We have reciprocal rights with the others so it's a two way street.

You appear to just want to focus one one small component in the consultation and offer no suggestion on the rest.

Let me ask you this question. Is it fair that there are reduced fees for some visa applications outside the UK. I think not and that's another loophole to close.

[7by7]

I have already said that I think the fee should relate to the cost.

Although I can understand why some fees, but not many, are below cost; as previously explained by others.

You seem to think that those very few fees which are below cost should be raised to reflect costs, yet want those fees which are already well above cost, double, triple or more in many cases, raised even further.

Very odd.

You say those who use the service should pay for it; and everyone who passes through UK immigration uses the service; visa or no visa.

Those who require a visa do pay; well above cost in most cases.

Those who don't require a visa pay nothing; and I have no objection to that. But as you insist that the user pays, then you must have!

Perhaps rather than cherry picking from the document you should do some real research before commenting any further.

Edited November 16, 2013 by 7by7

[Seekingasylum]

The notion that a visitor seeking entry to the UK is somehow subsidised by the taxpayer is fanciful. All movements into any country are subject to some form of taxation incorporated into the airline fares structure. GDP is further augmented by the airline industry itself not least by the charging of landing fees passed onto passengers producing a revenue stream which itself is subject to corporation taxes etc. All visitors are consumers one way or the other, generating revenue in many ways - VAT in the UK is charged at an absurd 20% - and the tourism, hospitality and leisure industries alone generate billions from which the government extracts its pound of flesh.

Visa nationals seeking to visit the UK are a hostage to the UKVI's fortune. The unit cost of issuing a visit visa, cited to be loss leader for them, is an arbitrary figure of little worth in itself and has no relevance in terms of the overall economy. In truth, it's no more than a tax and like all taxes it will be subject to the law of diminishing returns. Any visa national family of, say, four would quite rightly baulk at paying £520 entrance fee to a fairground which can be visited elsewhere at a fraction of that cost. For those intending to visit kith and kin then it just represents another burden which every camel knows cannot be borne indefinitely.

Immigration fees are becoming a scandal in the UK. Linked to those levied by increasingly onerous changes to spurious language tests etc, it now means that the typical foreign spouse will pay on average £6,000 for the privilege of being able to live without restriction in the UK, a significant majority of whom will not receive any direct financial benefit beyond what they derive from their own endeavours.

Folk who lap up the propaganda churned out by government lickspittles are really quite stupid. The alleged aim to cut migration through onerous financial criteria is thwarted by the reality of intra EU migration about which no government has any real control.

Bangkok used to consider in its heyday, on average, 3,000 settlement cases per year. That is now reduced to about 700. The 6,000 or so Roma from Romania that have fetched up in Sheffield in the past year alone rather puts matters into perspective.

It's all about the money these days and, as ever, Britiain scrapes the barrel.

[7by7]

Folk who lap up the propaganda churned out by government lickspittles are really quite stupid. The alleged aim to cut migration through onerous financial criteria is thwarted by the reality of intra EU migration about which no government has any real control.

Indeed, but the ignorant public lap it up.

The government should be educating the public about the realities of immigration and the contribution made to the British economy by the majority of immigrants; but there's no votes in that!

[Jay Sata]

Seeking asylum ;You make some good points.

Immigration fees are becoming a scandal in the UK. Linked to those levied by increasingly onerous changes to spurious language tests etc, it now means that the typical foreign spouse will pay on average £6,000 for the privilege of being able to live without restriction in the UK, a significant majority of whom will not receive any direct financial benefit beyond what they derive from their own endeavours.

That applies to all of us. By the time my son left university with a masters he owed £37,000 which is a lot higher than the £6000 you quote.

Any visa national family of, say, four would quite rightly baulk at paying £520 entrance fee to a fairground which can be visited elsewhere at a fraction of that cost.

I take it you never paid for a family trip to Disney in Florida. Airfares etc and £5k is nearer the mark.

I have to agree 100% on your last paragraph. I count myself lucky I have a house in rural Norfolk where the lifestyle and property prices mean local towns are pretty much how they were 50 years a ago. The same applies in rural France where I have spent a lot of happy days over the last two decades. The French have a much more draconian attitude to the issues causing problems in the UK.

It was Blair and Brown who left us the legacy we now see unfolding in certain parts of the UK.

Visa fees and other tarriffs are designed to tackle a broader issue than that of UK residents with Thai partners.

Let's not forget there are some nasty little minxes out there as demonstrated by 'The Honeymoons over' thread.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Jay Sata