ansaggart wrote:All,
I have received today a letter from my local MP, Mrs G Jackson with a letter from Mr Tony McNulty attached.
It summarizes as follows:
a. In respect to the paper "Controlling our Borders: the Five ....", during the consultation period between Feb and now the Government has not received any views on the change in the qualifying period for settlement.
b. The change is to line up with other countries.
c. The change does not affect anyone's right to remain and to work in the UK; anyone with valid leave to remain and who is continuing in employment will qualify to remain as before and should have no difficulty in completing the fifth year.
d. UK does not passes retrospective legislation. It passes legislation that takes effect from the date it is passed or later. This means that it applies to those who currently have leave to remain, but the effect that you describe (na Ms Jackson) would happen wherever and whatever circumstances we changed the qualifying period.
e. There is sympathy for anyone getting a mortgage but the lending policy of banks ..... is a matter for those organisations. It is not a Government requirement. Similarly, although local authorities have a residence policy when it comes to education there is no substantial change in the way that University places are allocated as a result of our change. Nevertheless, we are ready to listen to you about any unintended hardship that are directly instigated by this change - but for most areas of life, if not all, things will simply continue as usual.
Guys,
In order to reply to this letter, I would like to get your clear thoughts about:
1. hardship;
2. prove this change is retrospective;
3. AOB
Well, I wrote a response to the claim that there was no feedback on the change to a five-year period by Mr. McNulty. True, the change in the qualifying period is referred to in the text of the consultation paper. However, the consultation paper did not in its feedback section give an opportunity to comment on the change to the qualifying period as all the questions were on the implementation of a points-based system. Also some scepticism about the claim ‘in line with the European norm.’ Please bother to implement a whole EC Directive, notably the requirement to count 1/2 of the time spent as a student to calculate the qualifying period, if you are going to do it… no response yet more than a month on.
----------
28 March 2006
Dear Mr. McNulty,
I have watched in dismay as the Home Office has lifted the requirement for settlement from 4 to 5 years for holders of an Immigration Employment Document in the UK with no opportunity for discussion or comment on this important change.
I am honoured to be part of the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme in the UK and I find great professional fulfilment here. Guidance on a 4-year path to settlement has been reinforced of the granting of limited leave to remain of an initial 1 year followed by an additional 3 years. I signed an oath pledging my future and skills to make to UK my main home. I would think that is it right and fair that the provisions of the scheme on which I was given leave to remain in the UK continue to apply.
I respectively appeal to you, the minister, to not retrospectively change these provisions of those of us who have been planning our lives around the 4-year path to settlement. It is of course not a massive disruption, but nevertheless an inconvenience as I have just finished my 3rd qualifying year in March 2006.
I was indeed sent and read your consultation paper, Making Migration Work for Britain last spring. I was comfortable with a points-based system (the HSMP of course is its precursor), and felt no obligation to comment. However, I did wish to comment on the extension of the qualifying time of settlement from 4 to 5 years for Tier 1 and 2 workers “converted” from HSMP and work permit holders. There was no opportunity given.
I also note that that you have quoted the norms established in Directive 2003/109/EC on third-party nationals who are long-term residents of the European Union as a reason to change to a 5-year settlement period. I would like to point out the method of calculation as set out in Article 4 permits applicants to count half of their time spent in the country for the purpose of full-time education towards the five year period provided the applicant is currently now in a category that leads to settlement. No translation of this is apparent in the new immigrant rules published this month. Perhaps it is because the UK is not bound to implement the directive and therefore it is inappropriate to quote it as a reason for changing to a 5-year settlement period!
Thanks for your time and I wish you good luck in the difficult job you have ahead reforming immigration policy and practice.
Regards
cc: Frank Dobson, MP for Holborn and St. Pancras
