division_name: Immigration Appeals
motion: <p>
   I beg to move,
  <p> 
   
    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.
  <p>the appellant may qualify for representation funded by the Legal Services Commission.
  <p>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.
  <p>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.]  <p>I was also asked what the fee is likely to be. It will be about &#163;200 for hearing on the papers or for consideration of the papers and &#163;400 for a full oral hearing.--[ Official Report , 22 Feb 1999; Vol. 326, c. 120.]
  <p>The cost will depend on the type of appeal: approximately &#163;200 for an appeal on the papers, and about &#163;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.]
  <p>It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. 
  <p>Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), 
  <p>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.] 
  <p>Question agreed to. 
  <p>Question again proposed. 
  <p>a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
  <p>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.]
  <p>a business or medical application or even a short term student application.
  <p>at least half of the refusals I have monitored--
  <p>It will be very expensive to set up such a system.
  <p>subject of course to . . . financial eligibility and merits tests.
  <p>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.
  <p>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.
  <p>Question put:-- 
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 62, Noes 238.
   