Immigration Rule changes - those from Malawi and Croatia

[John]

There is more detail in this IND document but in a nutshell the UK visa regime is getting worse for those from Malawi ..... and easier for those from Croatia.

Malawi? That country has been added to the list requiring DATV .... Direct Airside Transit Visa ... so now need a visa merely to transit through a UK airport.

Conversely those from Croatia will no longer be visa nationals as from 22nd March. Accordingly they no longer need a visa to travel to the UK for a visit of up to six months duration.

As with all other non-visa nationals, visa still required for all other purposes.

[JAJ]

Malawi? That country has been added to the list requiring DATV .... Direct Airside Transit Visa ... so now need a visa merely to transit through a UK airport.

There is a strong argument to at least partially follow the lead of the U.S. and do away with the DATV system entirely.

In other words, it's difficult to see why those who need visas to visit the UK ought to be exempted from visas to transit the UK. If the logic is preventing asylum applications, it's hard to see how any other solution makes sense.

Although there's no particular need to follow the U.S. lead and make all transit passengers clear customs and immigration.

[tt]

But Malawi citizens will still retain all the rights of a "commonwealth citiyen", which includes possibilities of the ancestry visa, right of abode in certain cases, rights offered in the Visiting Forces Act 1952, Naval Discipline Act 1957 and other such legis enabling work in the armed forces, working holiday visas, and voting in all elections in the UK?

[ppron747]

Many Commonwealth citizens are visa nationals: I cannot see any reason why Malawians should not continue to enjoy the exisiting rights available to them. To make it otherwise would, I thunk, require primary legislation, which would entail a lengthy process...

[JAJ]

Many Commonwealth citizens are visa nationals: I cannot see any reason why Malawians should not continue to enjoy the exisiting rights available to them. To make it otherwise would, I thunk, require primary legislation, which would entail a lengthy process...

Section 37(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 allows Schedule 3 of that Act (the list of countries whose citizens are Commonwealth citizens) to be amended by Order in Council.

[ppron747]

I knew I could rely on you! Thought of changing your user name to Cato?

How about the Visiting Forces Act, Naval Discipline Act and the Representation of the People Act?

I think I'm right in saying that previous deletions (from s.1(3) BNA 1948, rather than Sch 3 BNA 1981) have been effected by means of primary legislation, because there was more to it than just the amendment to the list. Additions have been done through Orders, though.

[tt]

Indeed, s37(2) and (3) of the BNA 1981 state:-

(2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council amend Schedule 3 by the alteration of any entry, the removal of any entry, or the insertion of any additional entry.

(3) Any Order in Council made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. (no surprise, since this simply follows the 'negative resolution procedure').

Schedule 3 itself has been amended by the British Nationality (Brunei) Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/1699); the British Nationality (Cameroon and Mozambique) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/3161); the Brunei and Maldives Act 1985, s.1, Schedule, paragraph 8; the British Nationality (Pakistan) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1331); the Saint Christopher and Nevis Modification of Enactments Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/882); the British Nationality (South Africa) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/1634); the British Nationality (Namibia) Order 1990 (S.I. 1990/1502).

As you can see they are all SIs. These were not lengthy processes. Nice try.

[ppron747]

And how many of those were deletions? Oh, and why bother to ask the question when you were clearly equipped to ascertain the answer if you didn't already know it?

[tt]

Well, I guess St Kitts and Nevis had to be.

My original comment was simply to highlight what I thought was relevant to the topic.

[ppron747]

Well, I guess St Kitts and Nevis had to be.

No - it was an addition, like the others - St Kitts Nevis became independent and joined the Commonwealth in 1983, IIRC. You're right, of course that amendments can be made by Order, but since deletions would involve a lot more than a simple stroke of the pen - making transitional arrangements for those about to become foreign, but who are already benefitting from being Commonwealth - that an Act would be necessary in practice. Additions are less work, and don't involve stripping anyone of anything...

Enjoy the Oscars!

[tt]

ppron747. That's right. St Kitts changed status, deleted from its prior (what we would call now overseas territory) status, and introduced as a Commonwealth member.

I can see your point about the need in practice to introduce an Act of Parliament to cover the awkward situation created on the removal of a country from the Schedule 3 list, and I imagine something like this was done for Pakistan and South Africa - nevertheless, it is interesting that Parlt allowed for the actual removal in the form of an Order in Council.