Connect with us

Published

on

A “loophole” that allowed a Palestinian family to be granted the right to come to the UK under a Ukrainian resettlement scheme was the subject of a lot of debate in the House of Commons today.

Both the prime minister and leader of the opposition criticised a decision by a judge to allow the family of six the right to enter the UK.

Sir Keir pledged to close the “loophole” after he was asked about it by Kemi Badenoch – but could not elaborate on what it was.

Sky News has read through the judgment given by Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor to understand what happened.

Politics latest: ‘Leak’ probe launched at Treasury

Why did the family apply?

The family of six, a husband and wife and their children aged 18, 17, eight and seven, lived in Gaza and their homes were destroyed after the 7 October attacks and subsequent conflict.

They ended up living in a humanitarian zone and then a refugee camp.

In January 2024, the family applied to come to the UK via the Ukraine Family Scheme form, in a bid to join one of the parent’s brothers, who is a British citizen and has lived in the UK since 2007.

While they acknowledged they were not eligible for the Ukraine scheme, the family chose to apply in an attempt to use the Home Office‘s policy on “applications for entry clearance outside the rules”.

The Home Office rejected the request, saying they were not satisfied there were “compelling, compassionate circumstances” to justify a request outside the rules.

They also noted the lack of a resettlement scheme for Palestinians.

Read more:
Judge ‘wrong’ to let Gaza family settle in UK
Palestinian family allowed to settle in UK

The appeals

Despite the Home Office saying there were no grounds to appeal, the family launched one against the decision on human rights grounds.

A judge then ruled that the initial rejection constituted a rejection of human rights, and so allowed an appeal.

Part of this appeal was under Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to a family life between the man living in Britain and his family in Gaza.

This appeal was rejected, with a lack of a Palestinian resettlement scheme noted as a reason.

An appeal was launched at a higher tribunal – and one of the arguments was that the case should be considered on its own merits and not allow the lack of a Palestinian resettlement scheme to outweigh other arguments.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PMQs: War on immigration

The loophole

It is here that the “loophole” seems to have appeared.

At this point. Judge Norton-Taylor heard the case and allowed the appeal.

In his judgment, he stated that it was “wrong to have taken the absence of a resettlement scheme into account at all”.

The judge added that there was “no evidence” he had seen that the Home Office had made a deliberate decision not to implement a Palestinian resettlement scheme.

He also noted that the lack of immigration rules on a topic should not count against someone.

In layman’s terms, the argument seems to be that just because a scheme to resettle people does not exist it does not mean they are banned from coming to the UK via humanitarian routes.

The judgment said the absence of a “resettlement scheme was irrelevant” to their decision.

What next?

Judge Norton-Taylor went on to back the claim from the family in Gaza based on the ECHR and the right to a family life between them and their relative in Britain.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The Ukraine Family scheme was clearly set out for Ukrainians. We have been clear that we do not agree with this judgment and we twice vigorously contested this case.

“As the prime minister made clear, article 8, the right to a family life, should be interpreted much more narrowly. It is for the government and Parliament to decide who should be covered by the UK’s safe and legal routes.

“We are pursuing all legal avenues to address the legal loophole which has been exploited in this case. The home secretary is urgently reviewing this case to ensure the correct processes are always followed and existing laws correctly interpreted.”

👉Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim on your podcast app👈

They added that there was no evidence to support the argument and that data from the government shows a “very small” number of Gazans have been allowed to enter the UK – equal to roughly 150.

Sir Keir said he was planning to close the loophole, but it is not clear what this will entail.

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Published

on

By

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

Crypto’s path to legitimacy runs through the CARF regulation

The CARF regulation, which brings crypto under global tax reporting standards akin to traditional finance, marks a crucial turning point.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Published

on

By

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

Tokenized equity still in regulatory grey zone — Attorneys

The nascent real-world tokenized assets track prices but do not provide investors the same legal rights as holding the underlying instruments.

Continue Reading

Politics

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn budget after welfare bill U-turn

Rachel Reeves has hinted that taxes are likely to be raised this autumn after a major U-turn on the government’s controversial welfare bill.

Sir Keir Starmer’s Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill passed through the House of Commons on Tuesday after multiple concessions and threats of a major rebellion.

MPs ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to universal credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Initially aimed at saving £5.5bn, it now leaves the government with an estimated £5.5bn black hole – close to breaching Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules set out last year.

Read more:
Yet another fiscal ‘black hole’? Here’s why this one matters

Success or failure: One year of Keir in nine charts

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma

In an interview with The Guardian, the chancellor did not rule out tax rises later in the year, saying there were “costs” to watering down the welfare bill.

“I’m not going to [rule out tax rises], because it would be irresponsible for a chancellor to do that,” Ms Reeves told the outlet.

More on Rachel Reeves

“We took the decisions last year to draw a line under unfunded commitments and economic mismanagement.

“So we’ll never have to do something like that again. But there are costs to what happened.”

Meanwhile, The Times reported that, ahead of the Commons vote on the welfare bill, Ms Reeves told cabinet ministers the decision to offer concessions would mean taxes would have to be raised.

The outlet reported that the chancellor said the tax rises would be smaller than those announced in the 2024 budget, but that she is expected to have to raise tens of billions more.

It comes after Ms Reeves said she was “totally” up to continuing as chancellor after appearing tearful at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why was the chancellor crying at PMQs?

Criticising Sir Keir for the U-turns on benefit reform during PMQs, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the chancellor looked “absolutely miserable”, and questioned whether she would remain in post until the next election.

Sir Keir did not explicitly say that she would, and Ms Badenoch interjected to say: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”

In her first comments after the incident, Ms Reeves said she was having a “tough day” before adding: “People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday.

“Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reeves is ‘totally’ up for the job

Sir Keir also told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby on Thursday that he “didn’t appreciate” that Ms Reeves was crying in the Commons.

“In PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang,” he said. “That’s what it was yesterday.

“And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that’s just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation.”

Continue Reading

Trending