Concession re no return rule - advice is essential
Last week the Secretary of State, via her representative Lord Bassam of Brighton in the House of Lords, made an important concession regarding the scope of the general grounds for refusal contained in the recent statement of changes in the immigration rules, HC 321.
It was pointed out in the text of the article entitled “No return rule - those in UK now not affected if they go home before October” (Thursday 20 March 2008) on this site that anyone who might be affected by the terms of the concession should seek professional legal advice before taking any action.
Gherson stresses that it is essential that legal advice is sought as suggested. Of course people should always take advice before taking any action, which will affect their legal rights – however this is particularly true of the circumstances of people currently in the UK who may be affected by the statement of changes in the immigration rules and by the government’s concession.
It should be remembered that the concession was made in the face of strident complaints from the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, the Immigration Advisory Service, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Refugee Children's Consortium and Universities, none of whom were consulted by the government before HC 321 was implemented. Lord Avebury stressed the lack of consultation with these important “stakeholders” in the debate in the House of Lords.
The fact that the concession had to be made therefore indicates that the changes and their effects upon people in the UK - and in particular upon their human rights – were plainly not thought through by the government.
Beyond the statement that the government agreed that it was a good idea to give people who were here illegally a chance to leave the United Kingdom before the new rules were applied to them and that the new rule 327B would not be applied to anyone currently in the UK who leaves voluntarily before 1 October 2008 there has been no further clarification by the government of the scope of its concession. The government has not said – for example - whether it will make any provision for people who for whatever reason are unable to leave the country and so to take advantage of the concession.
It is understood that precise questions raised by the concession have been put to the immigration minister by the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association and that a reply is now awaited.
This lack of care on the government’s behalf both in producing the statement of changes without considering its consequences and in failing to explain how the concession will work in practice makes it all the more important that people only take action to protect their positions after having had the advantage of professional advice.
