News & Views Monday 20th July to Sunday 26th July 2020


EDM 768: End and Reverse Privatisation in the NHS

That this House believes every penny spent on NHS privatisation and outsourcing is a penny less spent on patient care; recognises the urgent need to fully repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012, reinstate the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to provide a free, comprehensive, universal healthcare system, and end the requirement on health authorities to put services out to competitive tender; accepts the undisputed accuracy of the information on that matter contained within the UK-US Trade and Investment Working Group documents which cover meetings that took place between 2017 and 2018 and came to light during the 2019 general election campaign; affirms that insurance based health service systems, such as in the US, leave many millions without healthcare and are more expensive and less efficient than the UK’s NHS; and acknowledges that the NHS must not be on the table in any negotiations for a trade deal between the UK and United States and that such a development would risk paving the way for a US style health insurance system in the UK, significantly to the detriment of the health and well-being of the UK population.

Parliament, Tabled 21 July 2020,

Put Your MP to Work – Ask Them to Sign EDM 768
To find your MP go here:

Priti Patel’s Refusal to Grant Immigration Bail - Ruled Unlawful

1. The Secretary of State's policy and practice for granting Schedule 10 accommodation to FNOs are unlawful because: (a) They are systemically unfair. (b) They fetter the Secretary of State's discretion to consider whether the situation of an individual applicant amounts to exceptional circumstances.

2. In the case of the First Claimant (CO/307/2019), the First Claimant was unlawfully detained between 1 November 2018 and 23 January 2019 by reason of material public law errors in determining his eligibility for Schedule 10 accommodation.

3. In the case of the Second Claimant (CO/144/2020), the Defendant's failures to consider and grant the Second Claimant's requests for Schedule 10 accommodation and bail variation were unlawful; and the Second Claimant's street homelessness from 23 March 2019 until 7 February 2020 breached his rights under Article 3 ECHR for which he is entitled to damages.

4. In the case of the Third Claimant (CO/1345/2020), the Defendant's failures to consider and grant the Third Claimant's request for Schedule 10 accommodation were unlawful and the Third Claimant was unlawfully detained from 10 January 2020 to 22 April 2020 for which she is entitled to substantial damages.

Read the full judgement: Handed Down, 21/07/2020

Immigration Bail Legislation Means What It Says

In Kaitey v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 1861 (Admin), the High Court has confirmed that the power to set immigration bail conditions exists even when a person cannot be lawfully detained in compliance with the Hardial Singh principles. This is an unsurprising result, since that was exactly the intention of Parliament when it passed the Immigration Act 2016 and replaced the old bail legislation.

Section 61 of the Immigration Act 2016 was a response to the decision of the Court of Appeal in B v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 445 (later upheld by the Supreme Court). In that case it was held that the old bail provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 only provided a power to grant bail to (and so set bail conditions on) someone who was lawfully detained.

For someone who was liable to be detained, but could not actually be lawfully detained because of the Hardial Singh principles, the only option available to the Home Office was to grant them temporary admission (in line with the House of Lords decision in R (Khadir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 39).

Section 61 replaced the temporary admission system with a single power to grant immigration bail for anyone who is liable to be detained. For the Home Office, this fixed the problem caused by B (Algeria) and allowed it to impose bail conditions lawfully.

Read more: Freemovement,

This report assesses the situation in 30 countries, which the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) has designated as its human rights priority countries. These are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

Almost 75 years ago, the UN charter established the three pillars of the UN’s work: maintaining international peace and security; promoting and protecting human rights; and fostering development. As we mark the UN’s 75th anniversary, the UK’s commitment to these three pillars remains steadfast. This report details the UK’s partnerships with human rights defenders, our leadership on promoting media freedom and gender equality, our work to eradicate modern slavery, and our commitment to deliver change for those who are abused, targeted, or killed for their religion or beliefs.

Download the full report:

Seven Year Rule Does Not Apply to EU Children Until They’ve Lived in UK for Seven Years

In MM (section 117B(6) – EU citizen child) Iran [2020] UKUT 224 (IAC ) the Upper Tribunal holds that the seven year rule at section 117B(6) of the 2002 Act (which applies to British children and foreign national children resident for seven years) cannot be read as applying to EU children resident for les than seven years on the basis that it is contrary to the EU prohibition on discrimination between citizens of a Member State and other EU citizens. The official headnote:

1. The definition of “qualifying child” contained in section 117D(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 does not include an EU citizen child resident in the United Kingdom for less than seven years.

2. The non-inclusion of EU citizen children resident for less than seven years in the definition of “qualifying child” does not breach the EU law prohibition against discrimination on grounds of nationality.

An ambitious argument, but one of which we may hear more given that an appeal seems likely.

Source Freemovement,

Help Gurmit Kaur Stay In The UK - Deportation No Way

Forty-one thousand people have signed an Online Petition to keep Gurmit Kaur in the UK. Gurmit came to the UK in 2009, and Smethwick has been home to her ever since. Gurmit Kaur has no family to turn to in the UK and no family to return to in Panjab, So the local Sikh Community of Smethwick have adopted her. Gurmit applied to stay but has been refused even though she has no family to return to in Panjab, India. Gurmit is a very kind woman, even though she has nothing she is still generous and will always give what she can when she can. Most of her days are spent volunteering at the local Gurdwara. At a local Black Lives Matter protest Gurmit was giving out fruit to protesters in solidarity with the cause. Gurmit is an asset and a kind auntie to Smethwick. We want her to stay here. Smethwick is her home!

Please Sign this Online Petition:

EDM 751: Indefinite Leave to Remain for Health and Social Care Workers

That this House recognises the invaluable role of foreign nationals working in the health and social care sector on the frontline of the covid-19 outbreak; applauds their brave and unwavering hard work in the face of such unprecedented and difficult circumstances to ensure people get the care they need; notes that the Government’s announcement of a one-year visa extension excludes many of those working on the frontline, including cleaners and social care workers; further notes foreign nationals eligible for that extension will still need to renew their visa next year at an approximate cost of £700 or leave the country; believes that those measures do not go far enough and that those people who have put their lives at risk for the country should be welcome to live in it; further believes that the only meaningful way to recognise and celebrate the contributions of foreign nationals working in the health and social care sector is to grant them indefinite leave to remain; and calls on the Government to grant indefinite leave to remain in the UK to all foreign nationals currently working in health and social care, and to their families.

Parliament, Tabled 20 July 2020,

General Grounds for Refusal: Alleged Deception and Innocent Mistakes

Making a mistake on an immigration application form can be disastrous. If the mistake is interpreted by officials as an attempt to mislead or deceive, the application will inevitably be refused. If the application was for entry clearance, it will also lead to a ten-year ban on re-entry to the UK. There are a number of relevant court cases and Home Office policies that can help if such a situation does arise, although of course it is far, far preferable to avoid such a problem in the first place.

What are the Immigration Rules on deception? Automatic refusals. There are two key effects of a finding of deception:
1. The application concerned will always be refused no matter what. 2. If the application was for entry clearance, future applications for entry clearance will automatically be refused for a period of ten years from the date of deception.

The actual rules that have these effects are set out in Part 9 of the Immigration Rules, and for visitors in Appendix V. The relevant paragraphs in Part 9 of the main Immigration Rules are paragraphs 320(7A) and 7(B) for entry clearance, as well as paragraph 322(1A) for leave to remain applications. These are written in a very confusing way, unfortunately.

Paragraphs 320(7A) and 322(1A) have the effect of causing any application in which deception is used to be refused. Paragraph 320(7B)(d) combined with (ii) causes future entry clearance applications to be refused for ten years.

Read more: Freemovement,

EDM 737 Immigration Minimum Income Requirement

That this House condemns the minimum income requirement under Immigration Rules; notes that forty per cent of the UK population does not earn the required £18,600 to be eligible to live with a partner from outside the EEA under the Government's policy; recognises the level of anxiety this policy has caused thousands of families throughout the covid-19 as many parents have been forced to take on extra work, risking their lives as they lack additional support; further notes that in the eight years since that policy has been introduced, there is no evidence to suggest that it has had any positive effects; is deeply concerned by the growing number of children unnecessarily made to live without one of their parents, causing mental health issues for both the children and the parents; and calls on the Government to conduct a full review on the minimum income requirement and pledge to end this immoral policy that has devastated families for far too long.

Parliament, Tabled 16 July 2020,

Put Your MP to Work – Ask Them to Sign EDM 737
To find your MP go here:

Date to be Taken Into Account for a ‘Minor Child’ is the Date of Submission of the Application for Entry and Residence

The action against the rejection of an application for family reunification of a minor child cannot be declared inadmissible on the sole ground that the child has reached majority during the court proceedings. In the first place, that the date which should be referred to in order to determine whether a ‘minor child’ is concerned is that of the submission of the application for entry and residence for the purposes of family reunification, and not the date on which a decision was given on that application by the competent authorities of that Member State, as the case may be, after an action against the decision rejecting such an application.

National actions enabling the sponsor and members of his or her family to exercise their right to challenge before the courts decisions rejecting an application for family reunification must be effective and real. In addition, the dismissal of an action on the ground that it is inadmissible could not be based on a finding that the persons concerned no longer have an interest in obtaining a decision from the court seised. A third-country national whose application for family reunification has been rejected could still retain an interest, even after reaching majority, in the court’s giving a decision on the merits, in so far as, in certain Member States, such a judicial decision is necessary in order to enable the applicant to bring an action for damages against the Member State in question.

European Court of Justice:

IRC Officers - Dismissed for Undue Force on Detainees

Management information indicates that 20 detainee custody officers have been dismissed for either the inappropriate use of force or inappropriate behaviour towards a detained individual from 1 January 2015 to 18 July 2020. Of these 20 dismissals, 1 took place in 2015, 2 in 2016, 14 in 2017, 2 in 2018, 1 in 2019 and none in the year to date. These individuals have also had their certification revoked by the Home Office. This is provisional management information that is subject to change. It has not beenassured to the standard of Official Statistics.