Member

Thirdly, I will expand on a point made by several noble Lords in Committee: the “argument from economy” was how the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, put it. Put simply, how could this amendment actually save the taxpayer money? The Public Law Project has carried out research on cost shifting in immigration and legal aid—or how cutting legal aid forces up costs for other government departments and public services. In a 2024 report, it identified, first, that there are costs to the Ministry of Justice and the courts and tribunal services: parties who are unrepresented need longer hearings and more support at appeals, and they are more likely to pursue low-quality appeals and need more adjournments. Secondly, there are costs to local authorities. The longer an asylum claim remains unresolved because people are unable to access legal advice and representation, the longer local authorities have to provide housing support and support for asylum-seeking children in their areas, for example. Thirdly, there are costs to our NHS. People who are not properly supported suffer from greater ill health and mental stress, especially when combined with pre-existing traumas, placing a burden on health services. Hospital discharges can be delayed by unresolved immigration applications, because there may be no suitable accommodation to discharge a patient to.