Important consideration (which I must admit I did not realise and was made of the following on another forum):
The Committe stage in the Commons is very different to the Lords. Unlike the Lords where the whole house can turn up at a Grand Committe, at the Commons normally only those nominated to a committee can attend it as Members. In other words, in the Commons the committee stage is a 'members only' event.
This is significant as a very limited number of people can vote for or against an amendment. The BCI committe is 18 people (although the chairman cannot vote - so it's actually only 17)
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Con) (Chairman): wintertonn@parliament.uk
Miss Anne Begg (Lab) (Chairmen): begga@parliament.uk
Mr David Anderson (Lab): andersonda@parliament.uk
Mr Crispin Blunt (Con): crispinbluntmp@parliament.uk
Tom Brake (LibDem): braket@parliament.uk
Mr Simon Burns (Con): burnss@parliament.uk
Damian Green (Con, Shadow Minister for Immigration): greend@parliament.uk
Andrew Gwynne (Lab): gwynnea@parliament.uk
Mr David Hamilton (Lab): hamiltonda@parliament.uk
Mr Adam Holloway (Con): hollowaya@parliament.uk
Steve McCabe (Lab): mccabes@parliament.uk
Kerry McCarthy (Lab): mccarthyk@parliament.uk
Siobhain McDonagh (Lab): mcdonaghs@parliament.uk
Gwyn Prosser (Lab): prosserg@parliament.uk
Paul Rowen (LibDem): rowenp@parliament.uk
Mr Charles Walker (Con): walkerc@parliament.uk
Phil Wilson (Lab): wilsonphil@parliament.uk
Phil Woolas (DON"T CONTACT!)
If you haven't written or emailed anyone yet - the above are the people to contact NOW. The BCI outcome in the commons rests with the above people.Here is a template letter you can use:Dear Mr. Green,
First, having followed this Bill closely since it was first introduced in the Lords, I would like to thank you for the valuable contribution you made at 2nd Reading.
I write specifically regarding the Government’s relentless intention to apply the changes of Part 2 retrospectively to migrants already part-way through the current path to citizenship. Despite Mr. Woolas’ closing remarks, nothing has changed: The Government still fully intends to apply the changes retrospectively. That is why Mr. Phil Woolas has tabled amendment 30 which seeks to remove Clause 39 from the Bill.
Retrospection
First – and for clarity - the ONLY migrants that will suffer from retrospective changes are those holding qualifying Limited Leave to Remain.
Those holding Indefinite Leave to Remain have never had anything to worry about this Bill. This is because the Bill itself provides that those with Indefinite Leave to Remain will be automatically treated as having the new “permanent residence leave” (Clause 50(3) page 42, line 34). This position has also been confirmed by Lord Brett on the floor of the House of Lords as well as in written correspondence to Lord Avebury.
However, without Clause 39, Part 2 WILL be applied retrospectively to holders of Limited Leave to Remain. This ignores good practice, two High court judgements (HSMP), and a letter issued by the Home Office to migrants issued with Limited Leave to Remain which categorically states that they are permitted to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain at the end of their current leave.
Baroness Hanham, and Lord Avebury made very clear at the other place that those with Limited Leave to Remain should not be caught up by the changes – hence an amendment was accepted which is now Clause 39 in the Bill.
Phil Woolas: A Meaningless Assurance and ‘Twisting’ the HSMP High Court Ruling?
Do not be fooled by Mr. Woolas’ closing remarks:
“I have reassured the House that these proposals do not in any way retrospectively affect those with ILR. The hon. Member for Ashford fairly raised a point relating to the highly skilled migrants scheme; I concede that point, the court has ruled, and we will of course obey.”
This is a meaningless assurance for three reasons:
1. The two Home Office High Court defeats did NOT concern retrospective changes to migrants holding Indefinite Leave to Remain as Mr. Woolas would have you believe. Rather, the HSMP High Court rulings concerned migrants with Limited Leave to Remain.
2. The Home Office has to obey anyway – the Court Order cannot be ignored.
3. Clause 39 seeks to those protect migrants with limited leave to remain who are on a path which leads to citizenship. These include family members (spouse/civil partner), economic migrants (HSMP, Work Permit holder etc) and UK Ancestry paths. For clarity the clause is not limited to only HSMP.
Astonishingly, it seems that the Home Office is up to its old tricks again. It has made clear it intends to make changes and apply them to people already part-way through the system.
One point that may have been overlooked is the High Court found on both Home Office defeats that retrospective changes to the immigration rules are UNLAWFUL.
It is of paramount importance that Clause 39 remains as part of the Bill. This is even more important as Jacqui Smith dropped the new bombshell of the upcoming points-based system for Citizenship. Without Clause 39, Part 2 will be applied retrospectively. This would be unfair, unjust and above all unlawful.
I cannot urge you strongly enough not to agree to Phil Woolas’ amendment 30 which seeks to remove Clause 39 from the Bill.
Bottom Line: Clause 39 MUST remain part of the Bill - Oppose Amendment 30.
With the Committee stages approaching quickly, I hope that this letter will prove beneficial and my concerns taken onboard.
Yours Sincerely,
Don't forget to include the Clause 39 briefing which is found at:http://www.londonelegance.com/transpondia/response/Clause39Briefing.pdf
