PM: We’ll close loophole that allowed Palestinian family to use Ukraine scheme

Sir Keir Starmer said he wants to close a “loophole” that allowed a Palestinian family the right to remain in the UK after they applied through a scheme designed for Ukrainian refugees.

The Prime Minister said the decision was “wrong”, Parliament should make the rules on immigration and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has got her team “working on closing this loophole”.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch raised the case at Prime Minister’s Questions as she urged Sir Keir to appeal the decision and bring forward legislation to “clarify the right to a family life” in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Displacement

The family-of-six – comprising a mother and father and their four children who were aged 18, 17, eight and seven in September – were displaced when their home in the Gaza Strip was destroyed by an air strike in the Israel-Hamas war.

They applied for entry to the UK using the Ukraine Family Scheme to join the father’s brother, who has lived in the UK since 2007 and is a British citizen, but this was refused in May last year after the Home Office concluded the requirements of the scheme had not been met.

The family, who have been granted anonymity, had an appeal against the decision dismissed by a first-tier immigration tribunal judge in September.

A further appeal has been allowed by upper tribunal judges on the grounds of Article 8 of the ECHR after a hearing in January.

“Completely wrong”

Speaking at PMQs, Mrs Badenoch said: “The Conservative government established the Ukraine family scheme, and in total over 200,000 Ukrainians, mostly women, children and the elderly, have found sanctuary in the UK from (Russian president Vladmir) Putin’s war.

“However, a family-of-six from Gaza have applied to live in Britain using this scheme, and a judge has now ruled in their favour.

“This is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong. It cannot be allowed to stand. Is the Government planning to appeal on any points of law, and if so, which ones?”

Sir Keir replied: “I do not agree with the decision. She’s right, it’s the wrong decision. She hasn’t quite done her homework, because the decision in question was taken under the last government according to the legal framework for the last government.

“But let me be clear, it should be Parliament that makes the rules on immigration. It should be the Government that makes the policy, that is the principle, and the Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole which we need to close in this particular case.”

Mrs Badenoch pressed Sir Keir to bring forward new legislation or amend existing proposals going through the Commons.

She said: “If he plans to appeal, then the appeal may be unsuccessful and the law will need to be changed. And if he does not appeal, the law definitely will need to be changed.

“He talks about a decision made under the last government, it was not made by the last government, it was made by the courts. The issue we are discussing today is about judicial decisions.

“We cannot be in a situation where we allow enormous numbers of people to exploit our laws in this way. There are millions of people all around the world in terrible situations. We cannot help them all, and we certainly cannot bring them all here. Will he commit to bringing forward that new legislation or amending his Borders Bill?”

The Prime Minister replied: “I’ve already said the Home Secretary has already got her team working on closing this loophole. We don’t need to wait for that. We’re getting on with that because we’re taking control.”

“Crazy decision”

Mrs Badenoch went on to urge Sir Keir to “put our national interest before the ECHR”.

She said: “Given this crazy decision and so many others, new legislation is needed to clarify the right to a family life in Article 8 – I’m not talking about what he just said, I know Labour MPs don’t understand much of what they’re saying, but the Prime Minister literally wrote a book on the European Convention on Human Rights.

“This is a situation where we need to put our national interest before the ECHR. Does he agree that we should legislate, even if lawyers warn that this might be incompatible with human rights law?”

Sir Keir replied: “She complains about scripted answers and questions, her script doesn’t allow her to listen to the answer.

“She asked me if we’re going to change the law and close the loophole in question one, I said yes. She asked me again in question two, and I said yes. She asked me again in question three, it’s still yes.”

When pressed following the exchange, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman did not specify what the “loophole” that needed closing was.

Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor said in his judgment: “We conclude that the respondent’s (Home Office’s) refusal of the collective human rights claim does not, on the particular facts of these cases, strike a fair balance between the appellants’ interests and those of the public.

“On a cumulative basis, the weight we attach to the considerations weighing on the appellants’ side of the scales demonstrates a very strong claim indeed. Put another way, there are very compelling or exceptional circumstances.

“Accordingly, the appellants’ appeals are allowed.”