A number of immigration reforms were announced in the Queen’s speech on 8 May. Reforms in the proposed Bill include:
The introduction to the Bill by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister states, “We want this country to attract people who will add to our national life– but those who will not, should be deterred. That's why we are going to bring forward an Immigration Bill to clamp down on those from overseas who abuse our public services.”
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett has denounced the proposed reforms as “politics of blame and resentment” and argued that the reforms would cause bitterness towards immigrants. Barrister and legal blogger Adam Wagner in a piece for the New Statesman said that the changes enforced the government's position on the ECHR onto judges, rather than allowing them to exercise their existing wide discretionary powers. He concludes that there are “very good reasons for letting judges, not politicians, decide whether public authorities have breached individual rights. We should therefore be very careful indeed before letting the Home Office load the dice in human rights cases.” Click here to read Adam Wagner's article in the New Statesman.
Click here to read a UK government announcement on the Queen’s speech.
Click here to view read the contents of the Queen’s Speech.
Meanwhile, on 8 May the High Court said UK Home Office policy on discretionary leave to remain was unlawful in the case of SM and TM and JD and Others v SSHD. The case concerned a child who had been granted discretionary leave to remain for three years under Article 8 of the ECHR. The child had been refused indefinite leave to remain. The policy was held to be unlawful as it failed to consider the best interests of the child before deciding on the period of leave.
Coram Children’s Legal Centre (CCLC) intervened in the case, making submissions on the consequences of temporary leave periods on a child’s welfare, health and development. CCLC also provided the Court with evidence of the consequences of temporary status on a child’s mental health, welfare and development, as well as expert opinion on the government’s duties to safeguard children under legislation. CCLC was represented pro bono by Manjit Gill QC and Joanne Rothwell of No. 5 Chambers. It received funding for its work on the case from the Strategic Litigation Fund for Vulnerable Young Migrants.
CCLC instructing solicitor Sophie Freeman said, “We are delighted that, once again, the Court has confirmed that children’s interests must be a primary consideration in all immigration decisions affecting them. This judgment recognises that repeated grants of temporary status can be damaging to the welfare of children and contrary to their best interests. Children need stability and security and this must be factored into all decisions that the Home Office makes affecting them.” Click here to read a press release from Coram Children’s Legal Centre.