| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): My right hon. Friend made much in his introductory remarks of the fact that the fees were indicated in the White Paper and in the original Immigration and Asylum Bill and that little was said about that at the time. That measure brought in vouchers, miserly cash amounts on top of vouchers, a swathe of new powers for immigration officers and bonds, and it turned registrars into immigration officers. Many of the Bill's proceedings were guillotined--officially or unofficially. The reason that not much was said about fees was not because the subject did not provoke strong feeling, but because we wanted to draw the public's attention to so many other aspects of the measure.
Mr. Straw: I accept many criticisms from my hon. Friend--usually with good grace--but I do not accept that, because it is not true. I am proud of the fact that the Bill was subject to much more scrutiny than almost any other Bill introduced during this Parliament and certainly during the previous Parliaments in which I served. I have before me just a few of the reports of the Special Standing Committee--to refresh my memory, as we used to say in the police courts. There was a great deal of meat in the Bill--some greatly welcomed by my hon. Friend; some treated with rather more reservation. She was a member of the Special Standing Committee and will remember that I gave evidence for two and a half hours. That had not been done before on an immigration and asylum Bill.
I have looked through my evidence, for which I received the usual plaudits for a range of liberal measures included in the measure--to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred--but people did not engage me on fees. I make that point only to show that we have been open about the matter. Of course I realise that, sometimes, issues do not arise until the 11th hour; that is in the nature of politics. I accept that, but I refute any suggestion that we have not been open about our intentions from the very start.
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.]
Mr. Straw: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): Can my right hon. Friend clarify a point about the costs? What might families eventually end up being liable for? I am sure that many hon. Members will be familiar with a scenario in
which more than one person applies for a visit visa. In the debate in the Lords, Lord Bassam suggested that, if it were possible for more than one family member to appeal, only one fee would be payable. However, it is far from clear in the regulations that that will be the case. Will my right hon. Friend make the position absolutely clear, so that we know whether families will have to find £500, or £1,000 or £1,500 if two or three members of the family appeal? It would be helpful to know the answer. Will he also clarify when the money will be returned in the case of a winning appeal? The regulations say that it will be returned, but they do not say when. Surely, if an appeal is won, the money should be returned at the point when the visa is granted.
Mr. Straw: The technical answer to the first point is that the regulations are at present phrased to mean one application and one appeal. However, I accept my hon. Friend's point that, in some circumstances, the same issues will be raised by the same cases. For that reason, I am pleased to tell the House that spouses and their children will need to pay for only one appeal. If the appellant wins the case, the whole family will be granted visas. Entry clearance officers have been instructed about that. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend. His second question was about when the refund would be made. It will be made when the person returns to the entry clearance office to be given a visa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has temporarily left the Chamber, but he asked about the estimates on which the Lord Chancellor's Department's calculations were based, and that point is of interest to Liberal Democrat Members, too. The estimate of 19,500 thought likely to appeal is based on the fact that, in May this year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office asked 136 posts worldwide to estimate how many people who had been refused a visit visa would be eligible to appeal as family visitors. The total came to a little more than 39,000 and--although it is generally accepted that it is difficult to estimate how many of them would appeal--it was estimated that about half of them would. That is 19,500, which is probably a fair estimate.
Mr. Gerrard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for suggesting that there will be flexibility and that people will not end up having to pay multiple fees. However, I am still unclear as to what his answer means. He referred to spouses and children, but a very much wider definition of family appears in the regulations. Certainly, like many other hon. Members, I know of cases in which grandparents visit and, perhaps, a nephew comes with them. It is not only spouses and children that arrive together. The issue needs clarifying so that we know where we stand.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will accept that spouses and children will normally be in exactly the same circumstances, and I have given him an undertaking about them. Where a family--husband, wife and children--make an application for a visit and they are all refused a visa, they will have to pay only one fee and the result of the appeal will apply to them all.
I accept the principle behind the point that my hon. Friend raises. Sometimes grandparents may be part of the immediate family unit. Although I cannot give him a firm answer before the debate closes, I certainly undertake to
take the matter up. I shall write to him and make the answer known to the House by way of a written answer. I do not know whether it is possible to give instruction to posts abroad that a family unit--that is, people living in the same household and with similar circumstances--will have one appeal.
Mr. Singh: I should be grateful for my right hon. Friend's help. He was explaining that the sponsor's credibility was not taken into account in settlement cases but that it was taken into account in visitors' visa cases because it related to a family member. My experience is that entry clearance officers always say that it is not the sponsor's credibility but the applicant's credibility that is at stake. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that?
Mr. Straw: That is true, but my hon. Friend should bear it in mind that I am in the same position as he and every other hon. Member in the House who has to deal with immigration cases. I have had cases before and after the election in which the refusal was initially based simply on a view of the applicant without any reference to the circumstances of the sponsor. I have gone into detail about such cases and have sometimes written to or seen the Foreign Office Minister who has been dealing with them, to say, "Look: the circumstances of the sponsor are such as to clarify and confirm the integrity and veracity of the applicant."
Visitor cases pose two fundamental questions for the entry clearance officer. First, is the visit genuine and will the person return from the United Kingdom at the end of it? Secondly, is there adequate maintenance and accommodation while that person is here, without recourse to public funds? In my experience of 21 years, evidence from the sponsor is often relevant to both those considerations.
Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East): The Home Secretary said that we have been honest from the start, but will he read out to the House our manifesto commitment on this issue? Does he not understand that the anger is not only about our hitting people in the poorest communities in the city, but about our getting their loyal, full and thoroughgoing support at the general election because of our manifesto commitment, which we are implementing in a way that is far different from the words on which we fought the election? That might be the Home Secretary's definition of honesty, but it is certainly not mine.
Mr. Straw: I am happy to read out the manifesto commitment. It said that we would introduce
- a streamlined system of appeals for visitors denied a visa.
Mr. Straw: It did not mention charges, but when I campaigned--as did my hon. Friend--at the general election, it was made quite clear that the system of appeal would be different from the previous system which, frankly, had not worked. We also made it clear that funds were going to be limited. That was made absolutely clear throughout the election.
The fact that there would be a charge was made clear as early as possible--namely, in the White Paper published in July 1998--and put on the record of
the House. On Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill--as quickly as we could make the calculations--we gave notice of the cost. The paper appeal system, which will be used by the vast majority of applicants, has been set at a figure 25 per cent. lower than the figure anticipated by Ministers and relayed to the House in July 1999. I understand the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but had this been the huge issue that some suggest it is, we might have heard about it in the past two and a half years--and we have not.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |