The Home Office should consider scrapping fees charged to children looking to regularise their immigration status, especially in hardship cases and should refund profits made from failed citizenship applications.
The Home Office in the UK made £22m in 10 months by charging fees to children who meet the strict eligibility criteria for citizenship in that country. The cost of a citizenship application for a child is £1,012, while the cost of processing is just £372, which means the Home Office makes an estimated £640 profit from each child application it receives. It is estimated that the department handled approximately 40,000 applications in the last twelve months.
Fees for immigration and nationality applications have risen since the implementation of the UK’s “hostile environment” policy in 2010, and have continued increase steadily up to as recently as April 2018. The exorbitant fees have a negative social and equality impact and can either deter applications from persons who are eligible or place enormous financial and other burdens on those who do, which has had the effect of denying some persons their basic rights, and of sending others into destitution.
“The impact on children who are unable to apply for citizenship because of the fees is particularly disturbing. The Home Office should not be profiteering off immigration and citizenship applications.”
Minnie Rahman, public affairs and campaigns manager at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants
Urgent action, including a full review of the process governing the waivers, has been demanded.
A spokesperson from the Home Office said that while the department has a duty to support the vulnerable through the implementation of fee waivers on a needs basis, fees were necessary to reduce the burden on UK taxpayers. In addition to the cost of processing the applications, the amount of the fee takes into account the wider costs involved in running the border, immigration and citizenship system. The Home Office has acknowledged the hardship this causes in some instances and noted that fees were constantly under review.
