header-logo header-logo

27 March 2019
Issue: 7834 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Human rights , EU
printer mail-detail

Immigration Bill human rights warning

The Immigration Bill removes the rights of EU citizens in the UK after Brexit with no guarantee of replacement, MPs and Peers have warned.

In its current version, the Bill provides that it will be up to the Home Secretary to reinstate these rights via secondary legislation. In a report published this week, the Human Rights Committee contends that this leaves families in too precarious a situation regarding their housing, social security and other free movement rights. They propose a series of amendments to enshrine protections and guarantees in the Bill.

Harriet Harman MP, the Committee’s Chair, said: ‘EU citizens living in this country right now will be understandably anxious about their futures.

‘We’re talking about the rights of people who have resided in the UK for years, decades even, paying into our social security system or even having been born in the UK and lived here their whole lives. When it comes to rights, promising that everything will be worked out in the future is not good enough, it must be a guarantee, which is why the Committee have reinserted rights guarantees back into the wording of the Bill.’

The Committee also raises concerns about the lack of physical proof of status given to individuals registering under the EU Settlement Scheme. It says that, unless the Home Office ensures physical proof is provided, individuals could suffer problems similar to those endured by the Windrush generation.

It argues that the rights of individuals who may have lived and worked in the UK their whole lives should not depend on their registering with a scheme within a specific time limit.

The Committee also wants to UK and Irish governments to clarify the rights of Irish citizens post-Brexit, with a view to continuing existing arrangements.

Issue: 7834 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Human rights , EU
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll