|
HSMP Forum's letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights ! |
|
The below is a letter HSMP Forum sent to Joint Committee on Human Rights in reference to a recent evidence session the joint committee conducted. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: The Joint Committee on Human Rights Sub: Human Rights Issues Relating to the Home Office This is in reference to the earlier evidence session the committee had with Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary on 28th October 2008 (Questions 55 to 65 -> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/uc1142-i/uc114202.htm). The Home Secretary on the questions concerned with HSMP was denying that our recent judgment was concerned with April 2006 Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) changes and further more to a question by Dr Harris the Home Secretary tried to misinterpret that the Judge agreed to the 4 to 5 years April 2006 ILR changes. The below are the paragraphs of the Judgment1 which clearly emphasises that we made a submission during the judicial review for ILR after 4 years and the Judge’s own interpretation and belief about it. * The judgment emphasised on settlement after 4 years at various paragraphs e.g. 8, 13, 31, 55. * Justice Sir George Newman also emphasised in paragraph 28 of the Judgment “I am wholly unimpressed by the attempt to interpret the scheme as a commitment only to the terms of entry and only those terms could not subsequently be altered. The real question is whether, properly interpreted, the scheme conferred a commitment on the part of the government not to change the conditions in connection with the continuing implementation of the scheme.” * Paragraph 52 of the Judgment Justice Newman says “In my judgment the correct answer to the "dispositive" question requires a contextual analysis of the purpose and terms of the HSMP up to November 2006, not a textual analysis of its parts interpreted in isolation from the other parts of the scheme. My analysis, which is to a large extent laid out in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, is as follows: (1) The scheme represented a change in the policy of controlling immigration. (2) The policy was designed to target a particular group of migrants and to encourage them to come to the UK to assist the UK economy. (3) The scheme was not composed of severable parts but of interlocking provisions. Once a migrant had joined the scheme he was entitled to enjoy the benefits of the scheme according to its terms. He was obliged to establish a migrational intent to make the UK his main home. (4) Participation in the scheme was designed to provide a path to settlement and once a migrant had embarked on the scheme it was intended that he should carry the expectation of attaining settlement. That was the purpose of the scheme”. * In paragraph 57 Justice Newman says ““I find that the terms of the scheme, properly interpreted in context and read with the guidance and the rules, contain a clear representation, made by the defendant, that once a migrant had embarked on the scheme he would enjoy the benefits of the scheme according to the terms prevailing at the date he joined.” The Judgment concluded in paragraph 61 that “In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the terms of the original scheme should be honoured and that there is no good reason why those already on the scheme shall not enjoy the benefits of it as originally offered to them. Good administration and straightforward dealing with the public require it. Not to restrain the impact of the changes would, in my judgment, give rise to conspicuous unfairness and an abuse of power.” There were two main benefits which were promised to the Highly Skilled Migrants those were - extensions based on economic activity and settlement after 4 years. The indefinite leave to remain after 4 years qualifying residence is a benefit which was originally promised to migrants who were admitted under the HSMP scheme before the April 2006 ILR changes. To deny that the judgment did not cover the ILR issue the Home Secretary would have to deny that ILR after 4 years was never a part of the terms or benefits of the HSMP which she cannot. It is very important that the committee further raises this matter in its upcoming report. Many of the migrants are eagerly waiting to see the committee to highlight this matter in its upcoming report on home office’s denial to implement the judgment in full and thereby further effecting human rights of the affected migrants. We are of a firm belief that the Judgment covered the ILR after 4 years aspect as well which the home secretary denies to implement in full in bad faith and to further abuse her powers. We eagerly wait to see the committee’s further steps. Meanwhile please feel free to get in touch in case of any further information or assistance required. - HSMP Forum |