Immigration Appeals — 20 Nov 2000

I beg to move,

That the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2446), dated 11th September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th September, be revoked.

the appellant may qualify for representation funded by the Legal Services Commission.

There is no new money to fund appeal rights for visitors. The Government therefore proposes that those who wish to appeal against the refusal to grant entry clearance as a visitor should pay for at least part of the costs of their appeal. The costs will vary depending on the way in which the appeal is disposed of. It will still be open to an applicant to make a fresh application for a visa at any time.

Part IV therefore fulfils our manifesto commitment to reinstate a right of appeal to those who are refused a visa for the purpose of a family visit. Provision may be made by regulations that those who wish to appeal will have to meet the costs of doing so, but fees would be refunded to those whose appeals were allowed.--[ Official Report , 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 43.]

I was also asked what the fee is likely to be. It will be about £200 for hearing on the papers or for consideration of the papers and £400 for a full oral hearing.--[ Official Report , 22 Feb 1999; Vol. 326, c. 120.]

The cost will depend on the type of appeal: approximately £200 for an appeal on the papers, and about £400 for a full oral hearing of the appeal. Appellants whose appeals are allowed will have their costs refunded.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 19 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 791.]

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000 may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half past Eleven o'clock.-- [Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Question again proposed.

a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked about appeals and how many appeals one family group should make. We would expect it to be just the one appeal, the outcome of which would decide the case for the other family members.--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 2 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1223.]

a business or medical application or even a short term student application.

at least half of the refusals I have monitored--

It will be very expensive to set up such a system.

subject of course to . . . financial eligibility and merits tests.

reform the system in current use to remove the arbitrary and unfair results that can follow from the existing "primary purpose" rule. There will be a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.

Our experience of conducting a large number of visitor appeals in the past is that an oral hearing with the sponsor giving evidence is often the only way in which to address criticisms by the entry clearance officer about the credibility of the applicant.

Question put:--

The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 238.

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con3 303.8%
Lab234 (+2 tell) 17061.3%
LDem0 40 (+2 tell)089.4%
PC0 2050.0%
UUP1 0011.1%
Total:238 62048.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Diane AbbottHackney North and Stoke NewingtonLab (minister)aye
Mr Harry BarnesNorth East DerbyshireLabaye
Mr Harold BestLeeds North WestLabaye
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabaye
Mr Terry DavisBirmingham, Hodge HillLabaye
Neil GerrardWalthamstowLabaye
Fabian HamiltonLeeds North EastLab (minister)aye
Ms Oona KingBethnal Green and BowLab (minister)aye
Dr Jim MarshallLeicester SouthLabaye
Robert Marshall-AndrewsMedwayLabaye
John Martin McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLabaye
Austin MitchellGreat GrimsbyLab (minister)aye
Julie MorganCardiff NorthLabaye
George MudieLeeds EastLabaye
Gordon PrenticePendleLabaye
Marsha SinghBradford WestLabaye
Dennis SkinnerBolsoverLab (minister)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive