Legal aid spending on immigration appeals in the United Kingdom has surged to more than £17 million in the latest financial year, drawing criticism from government officials amid concerns over the growing backlog of cases. Figures released by the Ministry of Justice show that expenditure on legal aid for appeals heard by the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTTIAC) rose from £11.5 million in 2020-21 to £17.6 million in 2024-25, despite a decline in the number of legal aid providers involved.
The increase in spending coincides with a significant rise in the backlog of immigration and asylum appeals. Currently, the system faces approximately 87,400 pending cases, involving more than 110,000 rejected asylum seekers—a stark increase from around 10,000 appeals awaiting consideration in 2020. The average time taken to resolve an asylum appeal now stands at 67 weeks, leaving many appellants in limbo and reliant on taxpayer-funded accommodation during the prolonged process.
Critics argue that the legal aid system is being exploited, referring to the involvement of 224 providers as a “cottage industry” benefiting from the high volume of appeals. Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy described the situation as an abuse of public resources, asserting that individuals who overstay visas or enter the country illegally should face prompt deportation rather than prolonged appeals funded by taxpayers.
The government has announced plans to overhaul the current two-tier immigration tribunal system. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood intends to establish an Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, which would replace professional judges with members of the public in magistrate-style hearings. Under the proposed changes, asylum seekers would have only one opportunity to contest a refusal, with the new authority expected to begin operations by the end of next year. Officials argue that this reform is necessary to accelerate deportations and reduce the extensive delays currently hampering the system.
The debate over the escalating legal aid costs is also intertwined with broader policy disputes. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp criticized the previous Labour government for failing to address what he described as a “lawfare machine” within immigration. Philp advocated for more stringent measures, including abolishing legal aid for immigration cases, withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention Against Trafficking, banning asylum claims from illegal entrants, and increasing deportations to 150,000 per year.
However, some experts caution that prolonging the appeals process may inadvertently strengthen migrants’ cases, noting that individuals who establish family ties or integrate more fully into the UK during lengthy waits have a higher likelihood of winning human rights claims.
Overall, the escalating legal aid costs and mounting backlog highlight ongoing challenges in balancing efficient immigration enforcement with legal safeguards and due process rights. The forthcoming reforms aim to streamline appeals, but critics warn of potential reductions in fairness and access to justice.