A raft of new government measures will ensure that resident workers can have every opportunity to fill vacancies before they are offered to workers abroad, the Home Secretary announced today.Following careful consideration, the government has accepted the recommendations made last month by the Migration Advisory Committee to tighten up the rules controlling when skilled workers are allowed to take jobs in the United Kingdom under the government’s points-based system.
This will mean that, from next year, all jobs must be advertised to British workers in Jobcentre Plus for four weeks – extended from two weeks – before companies can seek to employ individuals from outside Europe. This will ensure that British workers not only are first in line for jobs but also have more time in which to apply.
The government will also extend the qualifying period for all those overseas workers who want to transfer to work at their company’s United Kingdom base. This will mean that they will need to have worked for their firm for at least a year – rather than six months as at present – before they can transfer here.
Additionally, the minimum salary that will allow an individual to qualify as a skilled worker and be eligible to work in the United Kingdom will rise, from £17,000 to £20,000.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said:
‘The introduction of the points-based system has radically improved our ability to respond quickly to changing economic circumstances.
‘We have now accepted all of the committee’s recommendations and we will continue to work with them to make sure that we use the flexibility in the points-based system to the best advantage of society and the economy.
‘These changes will ensure that businesses can recruit the skilled workers that the economy needs, but not at the expense of British workers, nor as a cheaper alternative to investing in the skills of the existing workforce.’
A total of 16 recommendations were put forward by the Migration Advisory Committee, all of which will now be put in place to ensure that the points-based system does more to support United Kingdom workers while continuing to facilitate the trade, travel, and study that benefits the United Kingdom.
In reaching this decision, the government has been advised by informative discussions with businesses and key public service organisations. It will continue to work with business to develop a plan for implementing the recommendations.
As part of our planned programme of improvements, the online tools and applications for the points-based system (the self-assessment tool, the sponsorship management system and sponsor application) will be unavailable for the duration of Sunday 6 September, so that essential maintenance can be carried out.
During this period you will not be able to create or submit an application. We apologise for any inconvenience that this may cause.
The UK Border Agency has clarified the age requirements for husbands, wives and civil partners under the points-based system (PBS).
To be allowed to enter the United Kingdom as the husband, wife or civil partner of a PBS applicant, the dependant and the main applicant must both be aged 18 or over on the date when they are due to arrive in the United Kingdom.
Paragraph 35 of the policy guidance for PBS dependants has been amended to include this clarification. You can download the revised policy guidance from the right side of the UKBA page.
Source:www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk
The sponsorship management system is now available to use.
We apologise for any inconvenience caused. Please be assured that we are doing our utmost to investigate the reasons for this problem occurring and to ensure that it will not happen again.
If sponsors still experience any problems please contact the customer contact centre on 0300 123 4699 or email sponsorshipPBSenquiries@ukba.gsi.gov.uk
By Tom Peck
The government has proposed the creation of a new category of “probationary citizen” whose application for a British passport can be sped up or slowed down on the basis of a points system that evaluates their conduct.
Migrants who contribute to “the democratic life of the country”, by canvassing for political parties for example, or who show “active citizenship” by serving in their communities, may have their application process shortened from three years to one.
But those who show an “active disregard for UK values”, which could include protesting at homecoming parades of British troops, may find their applications blocked. The proposals, unveiled yesterday by Immigration minister Phil Woolas, would make it much tougher for the 150,000 people who apply for British citizenship each year.
He said: “If someone is applying to be a citizen to our country we think that you should not only obey the law but show you are committed to our country. This is what America does, it is what France does … and we think we should do the same.”
Those who fail to integrate into “the British way of life”, or find themselves in “circumstances where an active disregard for UK values is demonstrated” would face having points deducted.
Until now, newcomers were virtually assured of British citizenship provided they had been resident in the country legally for five years, working and paying taxes. Family members and refugees would automatically pass the test but for economic migrants, criteria such as earning potential, artistic, scientific or literary merits, qualifications, their ability to speak English and how long they have been resident in Britain would all play a part.
The Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green said the proposals were “pure spin”, adding: “This is an act of desperation by a government that … has let immigration run out of control for more than a decade.” – The Independent
No time for a proper post on this new case from the tribunal, NA & Others (Tier 1 Post-Study Work-funds) [2009] UKAIT 00025, so I’ll just paste in the headnote, which speaks for itself:
i. The new-style Immigration Rules governing Tier 1 (Post Study Work) contain a Maintenance (Funds) requirement in mandatory terms that admit of no discretion and make no allowance for sickness or other mitigating circumstances.
ii. The effect of para 245Z (e), read together with Appendix C of the Immigration Rules and closely related parts of the Policy Guidance dealing with Tier 1 (Post-Study) Work, is that, to qualify, an (in-country) applicant must show he or she held £800 or over for each and every day of the period of three months immediately preceding the date of application.
iii. This requirement, however, is relaxed for those who applied before 1 November 2008. Under transitional provisions they were only required to provide a bank statement showing a closing balance of £800 or over bearing a date anywhere within the period of one month immediately preceding the date of application.
iv. The requisite amount of £800 or over can be shown in the form of a personal or joint account and may be shown in the form of personal savings held in overseas accounts.
v. Because the relevant provisions require applicants to show that they had the requisite amount of £800 during a three-month period of time immediately before their application, it is not possible to apply s.85(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so as to enable them to succeed on appeal by proving they had the requisite funds for a period of time (wholly or partly) subsequent to the date of application.
vi. However, until s.85A of the 2002 Act is brought into force (subsection 85(4)(a) of which stipulates that in respect of appeals in Points Based System cases the Tribunal may consider evidence adduced by the appellant only if it was submitted at the time of applying), it remains possible for appellants to satisfy the requirements of para 245Z(e) by providing on appeal evidence in specified form showing that they had £800 or over in personal savings for the period of three months immediately prior to the date of application.
Source:Free Movement
By Frances Webber
The introduction of the points-based system, together with the habitual contempt for foreigners shown by immigration staff, is turning the UK into a pariah destination for artists and creative workers, according to an important new report.
The Manifesto Club’s report UK Arts and Culture: Cancelled, by Order of the Home Office: The Impact of New Restrictions on Visiting Artists and Academics by Josie Appleton and Manick Govinda, launched on 3 June 2009, explains the new system and reveals the impact of these tough requirements on visiting artists and academics.
The report sets out the requirements introduced by the points-based system which must be satisfied before creative workers are given visas to come to the UK for work-related visits include:
* a requirement to apply for a visa in person and supply biometric data, electronic fingerprint scans and a digital photograph;
* the need to show that the visitor has at least £800 of savings, which have been held for at least three months prior to the date of their application, or the host organisation must maintain and accommodate the migrant until the end of their first month of employment in the UK;
* a requirement that the host organisation keeps copies of the visitor’s passport and their UK biometric card, and their contact details;
* a requirement that the host organisation informs the UK Border Agency (UKBA) if the visitor does not turn up to their studio or place of work, or their whereabouts are unknown.
It is the first time that so many cases of obstacles for creative workers in obtaining visas have been collated and brought together, from the worlds of music, visual arts, dance, theatre, academic visits and literary festivals, and the cumulative effect of the stories is shocking. So many concerts, exhibitions and recitals cancelled, so many artists unable to perform in Britain, so many small organisations forced to close. The disrespect with which internationally acclaimed artists are treated by UKBA staff is also laid bare.
Iranian film director, Abbas Kiarostami, who cancelled his trip to direct Cosi fan tutte for the English National Opera, described his treatment: ‘”I want to be absolutely clear that my decision was based solely on the disgraceful treatment to which I was subjected. I travel regularly to France and Italy and am no stranger to the bureaucratic dances we Iranians need to perform to obtain visas. However, the actions of the [British] embassy were of a wholly different order.” His paperwork was deemed correct, and he gave fingerprints, he said. “A visa was duly granted. A few hours later it was withdrawn and I was asked to resubmit my application. I did so immediately and was asked for a second set of prints. When I pointed out my prints were unlikely to have changed … I was told this method had been used to catch over 5,000 criminals worldwide.” He decided to withdraw.’
A campaign against the Home Office’s points-based system and its effect on artists was launched in February 2009, with a letter to the Observer signed by artists including Antony Gormley and Jeremy Deller, and heads of arts institutions including the directors of the National Theatre and National Portrait Gallery. The campaign sparked a strong response from artists and academics, in the UK and across the world. Over 6,000 people have signed their petition, and many others have sent email testimonies or joined its Facebook group. – Institute of Race Relations
Download the report: UK Arts and Culture: Cancelled, by Order of the Home Office (pdf file, 360kb)
Manifesto Club
Read the letter in the Observer
Sign the petition
Source: Free Movement
Wending my way north on the train at an ungodly hour this morning, I found my reserved seat was opposite a fellow immigration lawyer I know from times past. We had a gossip, and he tells me that he was recently at Processions House, the temporary home of the Senior Immigration Judges after the Great Fire of Field House, while a three day appeal on the Points Based System was being heard. Ian MacDonald QC was instructed, amongst others, and my friend thought that one of the panel was Hugo Storey.
It sounds like the tribunal has finally gotten around to listing a test case of some sort.
Guidance is certainly much needed, although many lawyers suspect that when it comes it will not be terribly helpful to the clients caught out by the strict and arbitrary requirements of the PBS. If a taster is needed, this unreported decision (my thanks to the reader who spotted it) suggests that at least one of the arguments commonly used to mitigate the effects of the PBS has not found favour in the senior eschelons of the now doomed Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
One possible alternative approach worth highlighting is to make use of the 28 day concession announced by Lord Bassam at the time of the debates on the PBS in Parliament (see here at column 97-98). The Home Office will consider applications submitted within 28 days of the expiry of a person’s leave as if the application had been made in time. Well, because of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, if an applicant under the PBS is rejected by the Home Office and appeals, that person’s leave only expires when his or her appeal rights are exhausted. Some lawyers report that PBS applications made within 28 days of the end of the appeal process have been accepted and granted.
Whether it is financially worthwhile paying a lawyer and the hefty application fee is an open question, as no-one can predict the chances of success at the moment. It may be that such applications end up being rejected by the Home Office. The only remedy at that point would be an expensive judicial review application.
« Previous Page
