ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

5 years for ILR rule implemented

General UK immigration & work permits; don't post job search or family related topics!

Please use this section of the board if there is no specific section for your query.

Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator

Locked
nonothing
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:04 am

Post by nonothing » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:44 am

now, we've got two important points.

1. Hidden Dragon discovered the way the HO deliberately ignore the Impact Assessment breached the RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment) rules.
“A final RIA must be laid in the House alongside legislation and published on your department's website whether or not there will be legislation. You will not secure collective ministerial agreement to proceed without an adequate RIA.”
2. aj77 unveiled some embarrassing contradictions in the HO officers' emails.

i'm just wondering how we can use those two good points. how can they be used by Christine Lee's Team and BTCD? shall we integrate those points in our email to MPs?

any thoughts?

nonothing
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:04 am

Post by nonothing » Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:02 am

morerightsformigrants wrote:But a spokesman for the Home Office, responsible for immigration rules, said transitional arrangements drawn up with the Department of Health would apply to some of those affected. Junior doctors and dentists in current training posts would be allowed to complete those placements.
it seems the demonstration worked immediately.

the changes to the overseas doctors were introduced in the very same documents (HC 974/HC 1016) alongside the 4-5 changes. as far as i'm aware, they never mentioned there were transitional arrangements before the demonstration.

sorry, did a google, there were transitional arrangements when Department of Health announced the changes on 7th March. but not sure if they're the same interpretation with those from the spokesman for the Home Office.
What about those doctors and dentists who have already been appointed?

If you have offered a post to a doctor or dentist before 7 March (the date the rule changes were announced), and;

that doctor/dentist does not have sufficient leave to complete the post they have been appointed to, and
that doctor/dentist will take up post on or before 4 August

then you can apply for a work permit on their behalf without the need for you to demonstrate there was no suitable EEA candidate.

Applications for Work Permits should be made in the usual way. The normal switching provisions still apply – this affects who can take up the post without leaving the UK to make their application. This means that, for example, doctors and dentists in the UK with leave as a Postgraduate Doctor or Dentist can switch into leave as a work permit holder, but those in the UK as Visitors will need to go abroad and make the correct application for entry clearance as a work permit holder.

These special arrangements also apply to doctors and dentists who were ‘matched’ to a Foundation Programme before the announcement was made, regardless of whether a formal offer of employment has been issued by the employer.

In these cases, a letter from the Postgraduate Dean will need to be included with the application to confirm that the offer was made before the 7th March.

Any offer of employment that is made on or after 7 March (the date of the announcement), or for a post which starts after 4 August, will be subject to the normal Work Permit requirements, as set out above.

stedman
Member
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:15 pm
Location: london

Post by stedman » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:12 am

nonothing wrote:
it seems the demonstration worked immediately.
No it didn't. There were always transitional arrangements. But training posts could be anything from 6 months to 6 years! All it means is people whose training contracts end this august would be able to remain in work until august as opposed to quitting now or applying for a retrospective work permit .

People halfway through for e.g. a 6 year SpR contract will be allowed to complete this. But some trusts are insisting they get a visa to cover the entire training period..

Hidden dragon
Junior Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:53 am

The Indian Doctors' Demonstration

Post by Hidden dragon » Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:33 pm

It will be useful to see if the demonstration worked (even partially). If it didn't work at all, what are the doctors planning to do next. What can be learnt from their success or failure.

I guess demonstration by itself won't work, because the media will quickly forget about it and the HO can just ignore it after that. Demonstration could work if it carries a threat (such as a strike) or has a delivery method such as to support a current political debate in the House.

For our campaign, if the lobbying effort fail, we should also demonstrate. Ideally, to demonstrate with the Indian Doctors shoulder by shoulder. After all, we are all against retrospective nature of new rules. But, coming back to what I said in above, the demonstration must have a delivery method, otherwise when it finishs the whole matter is forgotten. We are lack of the "delivery method" at this moment. I think the EDM1992 could just serve as the "delivery method", but the timescale seems too tight (40 days from the parliament reopens?) :roll: .

It seems to me that, if our demonstration fails too, the only way forward will be through Court Action, although it will be a gigantic task. I will be interested to see Indian Doctors' next step.
Trust and value ourselves, because we deserve it!

Hidden dragon
Junior Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:53 am

Post by Hidden dragon » Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:50 pm

tutu1005 wrote:Really encouraging news for all of us!! Please read the following !!


To this end we have laid a motion against these changes which we hope to debate in committee before the deadline as stipulated by parliamentary procedure (we anticipate this will be in the next month).

This post has been edited by tutu1005 on 21 Apr 2006, 9:09
nonothing wrote:now, we've got two important points.

1. Hidden Dragon discovered the way the HO deliberately ignore the Impact Assessment breached the RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment) rules.
“A final RIA must be laid in the House alongside legislation and published on your department's website whether or not there will be legislation. You will not secure collective ministerial agreement to proceed without an adequate RIA.”
2. aj77 unveiled some embarrassing contradictions in the HO officers' emails.

i'm just wondering how we can use those two good points. how can they be used by Christine Lee's Team and BTCD? shall we integrate those points in our email to MPs?

any thoughts?
I think these can be used in the "debate in committee" mentioned by the shadow home secretary of Lib Dems. Ideally, we need to provide a supportive document for the debate (if it goes ahead). The document should be short and precise, and can serve as evidence that the Lib Dems and Tories can refer to.
Trust and value ourselves, because we deserve it!

Hidden dragon
Junior Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:53 am

Draft OS

Post by Hidden dragon » Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:38 pm

Dear all,
This is a draft Overall Strategy for our campaign.
Image
Last edited by Hidden dragon on Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Trust and value ourselves, because we deserve it!

Hidden dragon
Junior Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:53 am

Draft Action Plan

Post by Hidden dragon » Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:32 pm

Dear all,
You might have seen the Overall Strategy (OS) that I posted today. Base on the OS, I was trying to estimate how much work needs to be done and how many people are required if we want to get the work done.

So below please see a draft Action Plan (AP).

You will find out that in the AP, some actions are being taken already and some are not. According to this AP, we will need at least 12 people (apart from BTCD and Christine Lee's Team) to start to implement the stages 1 and 2 of the OS.

I must emphasize that this AP is only my personal opinion. Although I consulted it with members in association with BTCD, Christine Lee's Team and SaynotoHO, and they did not object it, this AP is NOT an agreed plan. It is purely a voluntary protocol that I hope would somehow unite all of our actions, and make clear our directions.
I know all of us are busy and I dare not and should not ask people to do this and that. However, I would welcome comments and especially criticisms. I would most welcome you to become one of the 12 badly needed people. Please say:"I can help", or "I can be Person A"!

Good Luck to all of us!

The documents in below can also be found and downloaded from: http://immigrationboards.pochta.ru/OS_and_AP.html

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Last edited by Hidden dragon on Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:18 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Trust and value ourselves, because we deserve it!

nonothing
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:04 am

Post by nonothing » Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:42 pm

this is from LKCN.net (chinese forum).

is it "a clue for the start date of new law" (the poster's word)?

i think it's too soon, but who konws. don't you think?
acupoftea,21 Apr 2006, 23:49 wrote: Why all these HSMP form and guidance only "Valid from 03/04/2006 to 18/06/2006" ? (See the water mark on the footnote of these forms !!!)

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/working_i.../all_forms.html
Maybe the T1 of new law will start from 19/06/2006. Who konws?

rg1
Member of Standing
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:08 pm

Post by rg1 » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:01 am

My local MP Ms Margarett Moran [Labour party] replied to me that she would give attention to 5-yr retrospective rule issue in the parliament.

nonothing
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:04 am

Re: Draft Action Plan

Post by nonothing » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:02 pm

Hidden dragon wrote:I would most welcome you to become one of the 12 badly needed people. Please say:"I can help", or "I can be Person A"!
this's a great plan.

i take the person b's job.

ansaggart
Newly Registered
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:18 pm
Location: London

Re: Draft Action Plan

Post by ansaggart » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:17 pm

Dear all,

I have recently written to Mrs Glenda Jackson MP (Hampstead and Highgate) on the recent changes in the immigration rules. I have received a swift reply stating that she will contact the Home Secretary, on my behalf, for his comments on the points I have made.

On the other hand, I have been observing this forum for some time now as I have missed out on ILR with just few weeks.

Though I am not against the fundaments of the changes in the immigration rules but I believe that the retrospective application these changes is outrageous. The fact that we are just tax payers without representation is even more frustrating. I am not sure but I guess that the IND is mainly funded by people like us but nevertheless we have absolutely no rights in saying anything about them. As an analogy, I am wondering what would public opinion be saying if from next week the students in the last year of school would be required to study another year in order to graduate or similarly if the soldiers that would expect to be released from duty in a month time would be forced to serve another year only being given few days notice.

Maybe that most of us are not going to be severely affected by these changes. It may be more difficult to buy a property, you may be sent home if your company goes bust or you are laid off etc. The fundamental issue is that laws like thins should not be retrospective.
Even more upsetting is that the message sent that we are regarded as insignificant entities. The even big question is: what’s next?

Coming back to the action plan, I think that the best way is an open dialogue involving the politicians and even the Home Office. I am not sure if there is a door that we can go through for an open discussion with them, but it may be worth a try. Also we should not forget about or employers. Some of them are well regarded companies and it this generally them that will carry the administrative burden of additional fees and bureaucracy. Maybe we can put together a standard letter which is to be signed by MD’s, CEO and so on and have this sent to HO and the local MP’s. There words are hundreds of times louder than ours.

We should not forget that we are all here to work, pay tax, do a good job and the most important is leave or lives and we should be entitled to do so. I do not think that we are burden for the society but in contrary we are contributing a lot the welfare of this nation and the government should acknowledge this fact beyond the dry statistics published from time to time saying that we generate more GDP than the “settled” population.

Yours, etc

Eugene_UK
Newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:35 pm

Post by Eugene_UK » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:58 pm

I agree.
Guys, our plan is good, but we need a TEMPLATE ASAP, which we can use, and our employers can sign and it will be sent to HO.
I know that one template was drawn and posted on this web site but there were some amendments. I would appreciate in native speakers could correct it from the point of language and so on and repost final version here.
I feel that time is slipping; we should not hesitate or think that somebody else will do this work for us. I know that our committee is great and I believe that Christine will be "lobbying" although I have never heard that lawyers have successfully lobbied the government, but corporates - our employers - did quiet well many times and now their voice should be heard - WHY THERE was NO consultation? So we need to collect signatures of our CEO`s, sign at work (at least 3-4-5 people at every company) and send copy to Christine so she can use it while meeting HO people.
Does it sound right? What do you say?
Please repost a template again and we should start sending it to Hon C.C. and HO.

Eugene_UK
Newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:35 pm

Post by Eugene_UK » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:41 pm

Doctors protested on Friday again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/s ... 36,00.html

Shall we?

likewise
Newly Registered
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:51 pm

Post by likewise » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:14 pm

I think we need to list out every single negative effect caused by this unfair change and include those in the letter to MP
i didn't mean "hardship", i mean the negative effects to the economy, society and country, in detail, so they can picture it.

Also, we need to question what's the real reason behind this change, what they exacly wanted to do by applying this rule retrospectively

Hidden dragon, you did a great job, however i think the poster action should be done together with the demonstation.

Hidden dragon
Junior Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 9:53 am

poster and demonstration

Post by Hidden dragon » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:50 pm

likewise wrote:I think we need to list out every single negative effect caused by this unfair change and include those in the letter to MP
i didn't mean "hardship", i mean the negative effects to the economy, society and country, in detail, so they can picture it.

Also, we need to question what's the real reason behind this change, what they exacly wanted to do by applying this rule retrospectively

Hidden dragon, you did a great job, however i think the poster action should be done together with the demonstation.
Likewise, you are right. I think we need 2 posters. The first poster is Actions 1, designed for publicity and awareness raising. The second one (Task 14) will be designed specifically for calling for demonstration with time and place etc info.

And, thank you for your encouragement and input.
Trust and value ourselves, because we deserve it!

slor
Newly Registered
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 12:06 pm

Re: meeting with gareth thomas MP (harrow west)

Post by slor » Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:40 am

tarzan wrote: Mr Thomas strongly suggested that:
1- everyone should write to their local MP's, ALSO mentioning their
support for the changes introducing Points based system overall, but "the retrospective element to be abolished"

2- as specific reasons why is this cousing us trouble, we should
mention the current and possible hardships that each one would have if
the changes are applied, such as:

*it gets almost impossible to get a mortgage without ILR, lenders wont
offer the same rates.
*we can not study further in universities with home student rates, we
will still need to pay foreign student fees.

we need to find much more cases as above and write a new letter
including these.
I expect your feedback.
Let's stop this about getting home fees as a reason for wanting ILR; one's application for ILR off of an IED is on the basis that you will continue to work - if any case officer has reasonable suspicion that you will cease employment immediately after obtaining ILR to go into education, get on the dole, etc. they can deny your ILR application. So please, no talking about wanting ILR quicker to go straight to university on home fees, this only strengthens the government's resolve.

timefactor
Member of Standing
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 11:46 am
Location: london-UK

Post by timefactor » Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:41 am

My parish priest agreed to display a notice in church regarding recent changes in immigration rules.

rooi_ding
Member
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:17 pm

Post by rooi_ding » Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:58 am

Slor

I think people are probably referring to their Children benefiting from reduced education fees, don’t forget we spend 4 years paying taxes and we will continue to pay taxes so that our children can actually have a education. You are right though every point we put forward has to have a valid explanation that would not be contradictory to the rules of ILR.

sowhat
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:57 pm

Re: meeting with gareth thomas MP (harrow west)

Post by sowhat » Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:53 am

slor wrote:
tarzan wrote: Mr Thomas strongly suggested that:
1- everyone should write to their local MP's, ALSO mentioning their
support for the changes introducing Points based system overall, but "the retrospective element to be abolished"

2- as specific reasons why is this cousing us trouble, we should
mention the current and possible hardships that each one would have if
the changes are applied, such as:

*it gets almost impossible to get a mortgage without ILR, lenders wont
offer the same rates.
*we can not study further in universities with home student rates, we
will still need to pay foreign student fees.

we need to find much more cases as above and write a new letter
including these.
I expect your feedback.
Let's stop this about getting home fees as a reason for wanting ILR; one's application for ILR off of an IED is on the basis that you will continue to work - if any case officer has reasonable suspicion that you will cease employment immediately after obtaining ILR to go into education, get on the dole, etc. they can deny your ILR application. So please, no talking about wanting ILR quicker to go straight to university on home fees, this only strengthens the government's resolve.
I disagree. I thing that home student fees is a very strong point. HSMP was labelled from the beginning as an immigration programme (road to settlement mentioned in some booklets and requirement to make the UK one's main home). It is obviously that many people who came here on this programme intend to stay in the country as well as their children.

The main reason for the difference between home and foreign tuition fees in my opinion is as follows. International students come here to get the education and in many cases to return to their home countries. Therefore the government has no incentive to subsidise their studies. However, home students will stay in the country in many case and will benefit to the economy and the society after graduation. Thus the government gives the the incentive to go to higher education.

Therefore our children should basically be eligible for home fees as they will stay in the UK after graduation. Also as rooi_ding rightfully mentioned we have been paying the taxes for last 4 years. In addition you should not forget that every highly skilled migrant (or any other migrant with higher degree) automatically saves the government around 100,000 pounds: the state does not pay for early years care, schooling and university and does not bear any other costs associated with children. So I guess we have all right for home student fees for our children.

abcd1
Junior Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:08 pm

Post by abcd1 » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:10 pm

We should also write to Parliamentary Ombudsman. They can often overrule parliament.

a11
Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: London

Post by a11 » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:24 pm

This is a good idea, but I think that we need to make sure we present the case in as convincing a way as possible. Also, they require that a local MP has given their 'green light' to apply to the ombudsman. So we need to talk our MPs into it first.

seff_efrican
Newly Registered
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:33 pm

Post by seff_efrican » Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:35 pm

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but does it now effectively take 6 years from zero to naturalisation / British Citizenship?

... edited to say that the home student rates also bites really hard if your spouse wishes to study. My wife in fact postponed her studies by a year (we would have been elligible in august for ILR under the 4 year old rule, now we may well have to put it off until next year)

sams
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:19 pm

Post by sams » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:00 pm

Website Link

http://www.workingintheuk.gov.uk/workin ... ation.html


Changes to Immigration Rules for Indefinite Leave to Remain Applications

24 April 2006

Background

On 3 April 2006, revisions to the existing Immigration Rules will bring into effect the following, important changes:



The qualifying period for settlement, for individuals who are in the UK within an employment or business category or under the UK Ancestry provisions, will be increased from four to five years.


The maximum initial period of leave which can be issued in respect of most employment or business categories, (except for Work Permit holders, Retired Persons of Independent Means, domestic workers and Self employed lawyers), will be increased to two years. Subsequent applications to extend this initial period may be issued for a further period of up to three years.


The UK ancestry provision will still allow leave to be granted in one single period up to the settlement qualifying period.


Retired Persons of Independent Means will still be eligible for one single period of leave all the way up to the settlement qualifying period as before.


Work Permit holders will continue to be granted leave in line with the period indicated on their work permit/immigration employment document.


There are no changes to the initial grant of leave for domestic workers (in both private and diplomatic households) and those applying under the concession for Self Employed Lawyers (part of the Rules for Persons Intending to Establish Themselves in Business). As before, they will be granted a maximum of 12 months of leave at a time. The qualifying period for settlement will be 5 years.


Highly Skilled Migrants can continue to amalgamate continuous time spent in the UK as a work permit holder, Highly Skilled Migrant and / or an Innovator when applying for indefinite leave to remain as a Highly Skilled Migrant. We have clarified this in the Immigration Rules.


The Government announced these changes to the Immigration Rules in February 2005, in its paper 'Controlling Our Borders: the Five-Year Strategy for Asylum and Immigration'. These changes will bring the requirements for settlement nearer to those for citizenship. They will also bring our practice for the qualifying period required in line with the European norm, under the Free Movement of Persons Directive for EEA nationals exercising treaty rights after 30 April 2006.

Transitional Arrangements


Any application made for entry clearance or limited leave to remain on or before 2 April will be considered under the Immigration Rules in place on that date (i.e. the old' rules). Therefore, for categories such as the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, initial grants of leave to enter or remain will be granted for a period of up to 12 months. Applications submitted on or after 3 April will, where applicable under the revised Rules, have an initial grant of up to 24 months.


For applications for settlement submitted on or after 3 April, the applicant will need to have completed the new, 5-year qualifying period. If the applicant has not completed the required qualifying period, the application would normally be refused.


We will be updating the SET (O) and BUS application forms as quickly as possible so that they reflect these changes but this will not be completed immediately. However, in the meantime, information will be inserted in the guidance notes of these forms or enclosed with them explaining the new arrangements.


We recognise the difficulties customers may experience due to the forms not being updated immediately. Consequently, we are introducing an interim arrangement, whereby applicants who submit applications for settlement on or after 3 April, and have only completed 4 year's continuous leave, will be asked if they wish to vary the grounds of their application to an application for a further period of limited leave to remain. Applicants who do seek to vary their settlement application in this way will be requested either to complete the appropriate application form, or to provide any further information required for their application to be considered.


Where appropriate, work permit holders will also need to ensure that their employer applies for a fresh work permit.


This transitional arrangement will apply for applications submitted between 3 April, and the planned date for publication of the revised application forms in June 2006.


Once the revised application forms become available, any indefinite leave to remain application for which the new forms are prescribed will be refused, where the applicant has not completed the required 5-year qualifying period.

tarzan
Newly Registered
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:41 pm

how did you discover?

Post by tarzan » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:57 pm

if we can prove that they breached their own code of conduct in this, it can be a life saver, showing they have not consulted, or considered the likely effects of this change at all. how did you discover, how can we prove this?

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulat ... /index.asp

also, it is better if we gather the answers from home office somewhere.
the contradictions will work for us, i hope they keep sending different mails, one saying there is not any retrospectiveness, one saying there is but not very significant, one saying UK never passes retrospective rules, etc.

we can use BTDC website if you like, or we exchange HO letters via email, or here.

-------------------------------

nonothing wrote:now, we've got two important points.

1. Hidden Dragon discovered the way the HO deliberately ignore the Impact Assessment breached the RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment) rules.
“A final RIA must be laid in the House alongside legislation and published on your department's website whether or not there will be legislation. You will not secure collective ministerial agreement to proceed without an adequate RIA.”
2. aj77 unveiled some embarrassing contradictions in the HO officers' emails.

i'm just wondering how we can use those two good points. how can they be used by Christine Lee's Team and BTCD? shall we integrate those points in our email to MPs?

any thoughts?

likewise
Newly Registered
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:51 pm

Re: how did you discover?

Post by likewise » Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:00 pm

tarzan wrote:if we can prove that they breached their own code of conduct in this, it can be a life saver, showing they have not consulted, or considered the likely effects of this change at all. how did you discover, how can we prove this?

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulat ... /index.asp

also, it is better if we gather the answers from home office somewhere.
the contradictions will work for us, i hope they keep sending different mails, one saying there is not any retrospectiveness, one saying there is but not very significant, one saying UK never passes retrospective rules, etc.

we can use BTDC website if you like, or we exchange HO letters via email, or here.

-------------------------------

nonothing wrote:now, we've got two important points.

1. Hidden Dragon discovered the way the HO deliberately ignore the Impact Assessment breached the RIA (Regulatory Impact Assessment) rules.
“A final RIA must be laid in the House alongside legislation and published on your department's website whether or not there will be legislation. You will not secure collective ministerial agreement to proceed without an adequate RIA.”
2. aj77 unveiled some embarrassing contradictions in the HO officers' emails.

i'm just wondering how we can use those two good points. how can they be used by Christine Lee's Team and BTCD? shall we integrate those points in our email to MPs?

any thoughts?
There is a list of departmental rias http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulat ... /index.asp
can't find anything to do with this change, but does that mean they breached it? or does it really matter to breach it?

Locked