Clause 39
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
1:00 pm
Gwyn Prosser (Dover, Labour)
Before we adjourned, we were talking about what I described as the intrinsic unfairness of using legislation and rule changes retrospectively, particularly when it affects individuals’ real lives. We were discussing the text on the back of work cards and whether it gave people, no matter what category they came under, reasonable expectation—not expectation of a natural, God-given right to indefinite leave to remain or to citizenship, but whether the spirit of the text led them to believe that they would be able to do so.
One issue that we did not touch on was that of a spouse joining their partner. On the website and in letters from the Home Office, there are clear statements that a person is entitled to apply for ILR if they are still in the country after two years. The phrase “apply for ILR” is used, and experience shows us that that would be the case in most instances. It is pretty far-fetched to believe that there is no expectation that spouses or partners would be unable to remain. Similarly on the website, there is a phrase that says in effect that, if a person is still married when their temporary period to remain expires, they are entitled to apply to remain in the country.
I will not detain the Committee any longer except to say that we do our best not to apply laws and rules retrospectively. I do not want to introduce a sour note, but let us imagine that the new rules that the House is now considering with regard to MPs’ allowances and expenses were applied retrospectively. It would give us all a great deal to think about.