BCI: UK-Y Commons

Here's a reply I just got-

Lisa,

Thanks you for your email. I am fully aware of this issue. The Liberal
Democrats will not be supporting the goverement in seeking to apply
these measure retrospectively.

Best wishes

Paul Rowen
MP for Rochdale

Anyone received a reply from a Conservative MP on the Committee?

I have received three replies, all from Lib-Dem MPs (Rowe, Drake and Holloway), stating that the Lib-Dems on the committee will all be voting against deleting clause 39.

I have received no replies from the Conservatives and have received 1 reply from Labour (Anne Begg) that as she is a co-chairperson of the committee, she will not have a vote on this bill (including clause 39). Apparently the other chairperson (who is a Conservative MP) will also not be able to vote on the bill.

Edit - it appears that Mr. Holloway is a Conservative MP - so we now have both Conservatives and Lb-Dems in the Committee who have indicated that they will vote to retain clause 39.

Also, for someone with the ear of a conservative/ Lib Dem MP - could they not threaten that the Conservative/Lib Dem lords will (to put it euphemistically) consider any deletion of clause 39 in the "other place" - presumably Labour want to pass this Bill while they are still in government and would be willing to live with Clause 39 if it is clear that any attempt to delete it will be reversed in the Lords thus delaying the passage of the Bill?

Hi McClaine - nice to see you here! Regarding your points:

No response from any Conservative MP. That said, we've done the important bit by getting the message across so a response is merely an unexpected bonus!

Labour have tabled a whole stack of amendments and not just the one which seeks to remove Clause 39 (amendment 30). The Bill, therefore, will undoubtedly go back to the Lords anyway. So, it's not the bargaining chip it might otherwise have been if it was the 'sole' amendment.

No responses to my stuff yet.  Oh well.

I just got back a letter from Mark Fields, a Conservative.

He said he'd contact Chris Grayling to see what his party is doing and get back to me.   Unfortunately, if I am understanding it right, the Conservatives have now wanted to limit clause 39 to apply only to HSMP holders.  Not expecting much now that I've read the other thread, but I actually felt a bit of hope when I first read the letter.

Anyone looking to send an email/letter to the list regarding the Tory U-Turn on Clause 39, here's my letter:

Dear X

I write following my previous letter which highlighted the importance of the survival of Clause 39.  This is the clause that provides a twelve-month grace period to ensure that migrants already part-way through the current path to citizenship would not be caught up by retrospective changes of Part 2.

Clause 39 was added by a Tory amendment tabled by Baroness Hanham in the other place –yet, horrifyingly, now the Tories have tabled amendments to amend their own clause!

Amendments 43 and 44  - Is it OK to Avoid Retrospection for Some Migrants… But not for others?

Amendments 43 and 44 - tabled in the name of Damien Green and Crispin Blunt – seek to restrict the 12-month grace period so it protects ONLY migrants who were admitted to the UK on the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP).

A quick study of Hansard will reveal that Clause 39 was designed to avoid retrospective changes by protecting all migrants who are in the final stages of their Limited Leave to Remain. At no time whatsoever was it debated that this protection would be restricted to only those admitted under HSMP. That's why the clause is drafted as it currently is.

Their are several legitimate paths to settlement/citizenship in the UK:

   Economic Paths - HSMP, Work Permit
   Family Paths - Spouse/Fiancé/Partners

The Lords - particularly Baroness Hanham and Lord Avebury - fought hard to get Clause 39 in the Bill as currently drafted.

If Amendments 43 and 44 are accepted it will bring about massive negative implications and massive discriminatory issues for other legitimate migrants who are also in the final stages of limited leave to remain.  At the same time undo all the hard work carried out in the Lords that brought about Clause 39 in the first place.

Whilst the Home Office defeats at High Court referred to during the Bill’s passage of the Lords concerned HSMP, these cases were brought to the attention of the Lords simply to highlight the unfairness and unlawfulness of making retrospective changes to the immigration rules. This does not mean that it's perfectly OK to make retrospective changes to NON-HSMP migrants.

I cannot urge you strongly enough NOT to support amendments 43 nor 44. Addionally, I would urge you not to support amendment 30 – tabled in the name of Phil Woolas - which removes Clause 39 completely.

In the interests of fairness, justice and lawfulness, please ensure that Clause 39 is left alone.

Bottom Line: Clause 39 MUST remain part of the Bill – AS IT IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.  Please Oppose Amendments 30, 43 and 44.

Yours Sincerely,