Legislative Scrutiny: Immigration Bill - Joint Committee on Human Rights Contents


4  Access to services

Background

64.  Part 3 of the Bill introduces new powers to regulate migrants' access to various services. A primary aim of this Part of the Bill, according to the Government's ECHR Memorandum, is "to make it more difficult for those who are not entitled to remain in the United Kingdom (herein referred to as illegal migrants) by limiting their access to services and benefits enjoyed by those legally resident here."[44] We note, however, that the restrictions on access to free NHS health care are not confined to illegal migrants, but extend to those who are lawfully in the UK but with limited leave to enter or remain, and, in the case of the immigration health charge, those applying for immigration permission.

65.  The proposed restrictions on access to residential tenancies and health services clearly fall within the scope of the right to private, family life and home in Article 8 ECHR and therefore the differential treatment on grounds of immigration status requires reasonable and objective justification.

Access to residential tenancies (clauses 15-32)

66.  The Bill introduces a disqualification from renting or occupying property in the private rented sector on grounds of immigration status.[45] A person who is not a British citizen or EEA or Swiss national, and has no right to be present in the UK, is disqualified from occupying premises under a residential tenancy agreement. The disqualification is given effect by a prohibition on landlords renting property to disqualified people,[46] enforced by a civil penalty of up to £3,000 for a contravention of the prohibition.[47]

RISK OF INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT

67.  The Government's ECHR Memorandum considers whether the proposed restriction on access to the private rental sector is compatible with the right in Article 3 ECHR not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in light of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Limbuela.[48] The House of Lords in that case held that the high threshold of "inhuman or degrading treatment" may be crossed if an individual with no means and no alternative sources of support, who is unable to support himself, is, by the deliberate action of the state, denied shelter, food, or the most basic necessities of life.

68.  The Government says in its ECHR Memorandum that it is particularly relevant to assessing the ECHR compatibility of these provisions concerning landlords in Part 3 that a foreign national who is present in the UK but without the necessary leave essentially has the option of being subject to these measures, because they could choose not to be either by obtaining lawful status if they are entitled to it, or by leaving the UK.[49] However, not everyone who requires leave to enter or remain in the UK but does not have it is necessarily free to leave the UK: there may be legitimate barriers that prevent them from doing so. The Bill's restrictions on access to residential tenancies therefore give rise to a risk that such people will be denied shelter and therefore subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as recognised by the House of Lords in Limbuela.

69.  In the Government's view, however, the restriction on access to residential tenancies in the Bill will not have this effect.[50] It says that the people disqualified from taking up residential tenancies in the private rented sector are "those present in the UK in breach of the immigration laws, and in respect of whom it is considered there is no legitimate barrier which prevents them from leaving the UK." It is therefore either open to them to make arrangements to leave the UK in order to access accommodation, or, where it is accepted that there is a legitimate barrier which prevents an individual leaving the UK, the Secretary of State will have the discretion to grant them permission to rent.[51]

70.  The Bill also provides for exceptions from the prohibition,[52] including for arrangements made by local authorities in fulfilment of any statutory obligation, which will cover arrangements made for children and families under the Children Act 1989, for individuals provided with accommodation under the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Mental Health Act 1983, and accommodation provided by hostels for vulnerable individuals. The Government says that these exceptions from the prohibition mean that the vulnerable and those in need of additional support who are unable to support themselves will be able to access appropriate services. The Government is therefore satisfied that this Part of the Bill is compatible with Article 3 ECHR.

71.  The combination of the exceptions for certain kinds of accommodation and the Secretary of State's discretion to grant permission for access to a residential tenancy certainly ameliorate the risk that the Bill will give rise in practice to breaches of Article 3 ECHR. The ECHR Memorandum,[53] however, gives the impression that the disqualification from renting only applies to a migrant who the Secretary of State considers faces no legitimate barrier preventing them from leaving the UK:

those persons who are disqualified from taking up residence as their only main home in the private rented sector are those present in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws and in respect of whom it is considered there is no legitimate barrier which prevents them from leaving the UK.

72.  In fact there is no such precondition: rather, the onus in on the person in question to avoid the disqualification applying by asking the Secretary of State to exercise her discretion in their favour. We asked the Secretary of State to explain how, in practice, a person who lacks the necessary leave to enter or remain, but genuinely faces such a barrier to leaving the UK, avoids being caught by the disqualification from occupying rented premises in the Bill.

73.  The Minister replied that where a person is remaining in the UK without leave and faces recognised barriers to leaving the UK, the Secretary of State will be able to provide a "right to rent" on a temporary basis. He said that such a tenant will be able to secure from the Home Office evidence that they are able to rent before entering the housing market, and a landlord would then be able to obtain verification of this right to rent from the Home Office within 48 hours. The response, however, provides no more detail about how the residual discretion will work in practice to ensure that those facing genuine obstacles to leaving the UK are not left homeless as a result of the operation of the new provisions.

74.  We are concerned about the risk of the new provisions giving rise in practice to breaches of Article 3 ECHR in the case of people who have no right to remain in the UK but face genuine barriers to leaving. The risk of the Bill's provisions on residential tenancies exposing such people to destitution depends to a large extent on how the Secretary of State's residual discretion to grant permission to occupy residential premises will operate in practice. We do not feel that we have been provided with sufficient detail of how that discretion will operate in practice to be confident that the provisions in the Bill will not give rise to a risk of breaches of Article 3 in practice where people who face a genuine barrier to leaving the UK are left effectively homeless because they are prevented from finding a residential tenancy by the disqualification in the Bill.

RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE LIFE, FAMILY LIFE AND HOME

75.  The Government's ECHR Memorandum also considers whether the restriction on access to residential tenancies is compatible with the right to respect for private life, family life and home under Article 8 ECHR. It accepts that the restriction constitutes an interference with those rights, but argues that it is justified as being both necessary and proportionate in pursuit of the aim of immigration control. Its purpose, it says, is to support the effective operation of immigration controls by restricting the ability of persons subject to immigration control to obtain settled accommodation, and the measure is proportionate to that aim because the individuals affected can either regularise their immigration status in the UK or leave the UK. Where the application of the restriction would otherwise produce a disproportionate impact, such as where there is a genuine barrier to an individual leaving the UK, the Government says that the restriction is still proportionate because the Secretary of State has discretion to grant them permission to occupy premises despite their immigration status.

76.  The degree of risk of the proposed restriction on access to residential tenancies giving rise to breaches in practice of the right to family life and home in Article 8 ECHR also depends on the likely impact of the provisions on children. The provisions are clearly capable of operating in a way which interferes with the right to family life, for example by separating a child from their parents, and with the right to respect for a child's home, where they operate to restrict the child's access to occupying rented accommodation. When determining the proportionality of any such interferences, the best interests of any child affected are, as the Government accepts in its response to the our letter, an integral part of the proportionality assessment.

77.  We are concerned to ensure that the Bill does not give rise to an undue risk that migrant children will be exposed to homelessness or separation from family members as a result of these provisions on residential tenancies, and we urge the Government to explain fully to Parliament the safeguards that exist to mitigate in practice the possible negative impact of these provisions on children.

NON-DISCRIMINATION

78.  As far as compatibility with Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 is concerned, the Government in its ECHR Memorandum relies on the wide margin of appreciation afforded to differential treatment based on immigration status in relation to socio-economic matters.[54] It relies on the same justification, namely that the difference in treatment is justified in order to maintain immigration control, by restricting the ability of persons subject to immigration control to obtain settled accommodation. Two distinct discrimination questions arise:

  • first, has the Government demonstrated an objective and reasonable justification for this differential treatment in relation to access to a home on grounds of nationality and immigration status? and
  • second, will the obligation on landlords to check the immigration status of prospective tenants result in discrimination in the provision of services on racial grounds, contrary to the Equality Act as well as Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8?

Justification for differential treatment on grounds of nationality and immigration status

79.  The questions that arise here are not identical to those that arise in relation to access to free health care (considered below). The Government's aims there include the aim of protecting the budget of resource-hungry public services. These provisions, however, concern access to a private supply of residential tenancies, and the sole objective is to reinforce immigration control by making it harder for illegal immigrants to remain in the country. The State has fewer grounds to claim a wide margin of appreciation in those circumstances. These provisions also discriminate directly on nationality grounds. Such discrimination carries a greater onus of justification than discrimination on the grounds of immigration status alone.

80.  As noted above, the purpose of the differential treatment introduced by the Bill is immigration control: to support the effective operation of immigration controls by restricting the ability of people subject to immigration control to obtain settled accommodation. This is clearly a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 14 ECHR. The principal issue, therefore, is whether the Government has demonstrated that a measure which exposes people to the risk of homelessness and destitution, on the grounds of their nationality and/or immigration status, by making it harder for them to obtain living accommodation, is proportionate to the legitimate aim of encouraging people with no leave to remain to leave the country and can be objectively and reasonably justified.?

81.  The Government largely relies on the wide margin of appreciation to which it says it is entitled where differential treatment is based on immigration status, and having regard to the socio-economic nature of the subject matter. Given the risk of homelessness in cases where there are genuine barriers to leaving the UK, the overt nationality discrimination involved in the measure, and the fact that the aim of the measure is not to ration scarce public funds but to regulate access to privately provided services, simple invocation of a wide margin of appreciation is not enough on its own to justify the differential treatment.

82.  We note that the Bill appears to provide stronger safeguards in relation to the disqualification from opening bank accounts than it provides in relation to the disqualification from renting living accommodation, which involves a much more serious interference with the individual's human rights. The scheme of the provisions concerning bank accounts requires the Secretary of State to determine that the individual in question is a disqualified person, and to have notified the relevant organisation, with which the bank or building society must carry out a "status check" to ascertain whether the person in question is disqualified.[55] As the Government's ECHR Memorandum correctly states, this means that "the restriction will not be applied on a blanket basis, but targeted against those individuals who may be expected to make arrangements to leave the country."[56] The disqualification from occupying premises under a residential tenancy agreement on grounds of nationality and/or immigration status, is not similarly targeted, but is a blanket prohibition, subject to the Secretary of State's residual discretion which, it appears, must be invoked by the individual concerned before they seek to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement.

83.  As we have explained above, we consider that the Government needs to satisfy Parliament that the risk of subjecting non-nationals to homelessness is objectively and reasonably justified, including by demonstrating that the Secretary of State's residual discretion is likely to operate in practice to prevent such homelessness in cases where there are genuine barriers to leaving the UK.

Racial discrimination in the provision of services

84.  The Bill itself acknowledges the potential for these provisions to lead to unjustified discrimination on racial grounds in the provision of services in breach of the prohibition on such discrimination in the Equality Act 2010: it provides for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice specifying what a landlord or agent should or should not do to ensure that the landlord or agent avoids discriminating on racial grounds.[57] We asked the Government to provide some specific examples of the sorts of things that landlords will be advised they should or should not do in order to avoid discriminating on racial grounds against prospective tenants, and how it proposes to monitor whether the new provisions are leading to discrimination on racial grounds against members of ethnic minorities, whether permanent residents or UK nationals, who are entitled to enter into residential tenancy agreements.

85.  The Government's response refers to the draft Code of Practice relating to discrimination and the draft Code of Practice for Landlords, both of which have been published since we began our scrutiny of the Bill. Landlords will be advised to conduct checks in the prescribed manner in a consistent fashion in relation to all tenants and occupants. Some examples of the steps that a landlord or their agent is advised to follow are:[58]

  • ensuring that advertisements make clear that successful applicants will need to evidence their immigration status before a tenancy agreement will be granted;
  • informing all applicants who contact them that they will need to be able to produce evidence of their eligibility to rent the premises, for all people who will live there as their only or main residence;
  • only once a potential tenant has been selected, asking them for confirmation of their entitlement to rent, and for all persons who will be living there as their only or main residence, regardless of their race, ethnic origin or nationality.

86.  Guidance on conducting checks will also set out a step-by-step process that the Government says will, if applied correctly in relation to all tenants, assist the landlord to act in a manner that does not breach equalities legislation. The Government proposes to provide an online tool for landlords similar to that which already exists for employers in relation to the similar scheme concerning the right to work.

87.  As far as monitoring is concerned, the Government says that the Home Office will work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Government Equalities Office and local authorities to monitor the evidence of discriminatory behaviour in the private rented sector. The Home Office has already worked closely with housing charities, bodies representing landlords and letting agents and is considering convening a forum of these bodies to facilitate the sharing of experience in future.

88.  We welcome the draft Codes of Practice and the Government's commitment to monitor for evidence of discriminatory behaviour in the private rented sector. However, we are aware of recent reports that, under the current law, letting agents continue to discriminate on racial grounds notwithstanding the legal prohibition on such discrimination contained in the Equality Act. A Runnymede Trust survey found that more than a quarter of black and Asian respondents have felt discriminated against when trying to rent private accommodation and a BBC investigation (for the "Inside Out London" programme) found that a number of estate agents in London were willing to co-operate with a landlord who professed a racist desire to ensure that their property was not rented to black people.

89.  In our view, the provisions in the Bill on access to residential tenancies heighten the risk of such discrimination on racial grounds against ethnic minority prospective tenants, both UK citizens and foreign nationals with permanent residence, who are entitled to rent, notwithstanding the fact that such discrimination is unlawful under the Equality Act. We ask the Government not to commence theses provisions until the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Government Equalities office are satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent such discrimination from arising in practice. We recommend that the EHRC work closely with the Government Equalities Office, landlords' representatives and local authorities to monitor for evidence as to whether such unintended consequences of the provision are materialising in practice, and that the Government keep the provision under careful review in the light of the evidence produced by such monitoring.

Access to health services

90.  The Bill contains two provisions designed to restrict access by migrants to free health care on the NHS:

(1) the "immigration health charge" which the Secretary of State can impose on people applying for immigration permission, such as entry clearance or leave to enter or remain for a limited period;[59] and

(2) extending the reach of the existing NHS charging provisions, which already provide the power to charge for health services those who are not "ordinarily resident" in the UK, by providing that those who require leave to enter or remain and do not have it, and those who have limited leave to enter or remain, are not to be treated as "ordinarily resident".[60]

91.  The Government does not propose to change in any way the exemptions from charging which already apply. So, for example, under the current NHS charging provisions, migrants who are not ordinarily resident and who are therefore chargeable for NHS care are able to access emergency treatment for free. Even where a person is liable to pay charges under the existing regulations, the treatment they need is not held up for payment where the treatment is urgent or immediately necessary. Exemptions also apply for treatment for certain specified serious communicable diseases, on public health grounds. The Government's ECHR Memorandum is therefore correct when it says that the immigration health charge proposals in the Bill are not incompatible with the right to life in Article 2 ECHR or the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in Article 3 ECHR.

NON-DISCRIMINATION

92.  However, these provisions in the Bill clearly treat people differently in relation to their access to free health care according to their nationality and immigration status, and therefore raise a question as to whether they are compatible with the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of Convention rights concerning life, treatment and bodily integrity (Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 8). The question is whether the Government has provided an objective and reasonable justification for treating temporary migrants differently from permanent migrants and UK citizens in relation to their access to free health services. That question falls to be considered in the legal framework outlined above.

93.  We have borne in mind, in considering the ECHR compatibility of the health-charging provisions in the Bill, that the European Court of Human Rights, as the Government correctly points out, will usually afford a relatively wide "margin of appreciation" (or area of discretion) to States in determining whether differential treatment in relation to access to free health care on grounds of immigration status is objectively and reasonably justified, partly because the subject matter (access to free health care) will be regarded as predominantly socio-economic and partly because immigration status involves an element of choice.

94.  Nevertheless, differential treatment based on a combination of nationality and immigration status (as the health charging provisions are) still requires "weighty justification", and we have also borne in mind the risk that such provisions, even if compatible with the ECHR on their face, may give rise to actual breaches in their application. In the case of Ponomaryovi v Bulgaria, for example, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the right to education where two Russian boys living in Bulgaria who had not yet acquired Bulgarian citizenship were charged for their secondary education on the grounds that they were not permanently resident.

Legitimate aim

95.  The rationale for these measures restricting free access to NHS health services is stated in a number of places, in formulations which vary slightly. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the purpose of the immigration charge provision is "to ensure that migrants pay towards the cost of health treatment available in the UK commensurate with their more limited immigration status."[61] The Factsheet on the NHS published alongside the Bill similarly says that the Government's aim is "to ensure that those subject to immigration control should have access to public benefits proportionate to their type of immigration status—reflecting the strength of their connection to the UK."[62] The Government's ECHR Memorandum repeats these statements that the purpose of the immigration charge provision is to ensure the law reflects the Government's "policy that different immigration statuses entitle the individual to have greater or lesser access to benefits and entitlements in the United Kingdom, including access to NHS care for free", but adds a further, distinct rationale—"and—to ensure that free NHS access does not act as an incentive for temporary migration".[63]

96.  In view of the different rationales relied on in the Government's explanatory material, we asked the Government whether the differential treatment of temporary migrants is justified by the need to reinforce immigration control or the degree of connection with/commitment to the UK. The Government's response, in short, is that the restrictions are designed to serve both purposes, but that the primary aim is to ensure that a person's access to benefits should be commensurate with their immigration status in the UK:

"Free NHS services may act as an incentive for some temporary migrants, but the Bill is primarily aimed at ensuring that a person's access to benefits should be commensurate with their immigration status in the UK. Our intention is to bring the rules regulating migrant access to the NHS into line with wider government policy on migrant access to benefits and social housing. Immigration legislation largely restricts access to these benefits to those non-EEA nationals with indefinite leave to remain and those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK. But there has been a long-term failure to apply the same criteria on health access. These clauses will correct that."[64]

97.  The rationales relied on by the Government to justify the restrictions on access to free healthcare, therefore essentially boil down to two, of which the first is clearly the primary purpose:

(1) to confine free access to health services to those who have a significant connection to the UK, in line with the wider Government policy that a person's access to state benefits should be commensurate with their immigration status; and

(2) to reinforce immigration control by reducing the incentive for a person to come to the UK because of the free healthcare benefits.

98.  We also asked the Government what evidence it relies on to demonstrate the scale of so-called "health-tourism" and that free NHS access acts as an incentive to temporary migration to the UK. The Government in its response did not point to any evidence in relation to the latter question, merely commenting that free NHS services "may" act as an incentive for some temporary migrants. On the first question, however, it referred us to the two research studies recently published by the Department of Health and examining the costs to the NHS of treating overseas nationals.[65]

99.  It says that "health tourists", by which it means people who are not resident in the UK but who have travelled here intending to obtain free NHS care to which they are not entitled or not to pay the charges for such care, are by their very nature difficult to identify and thus quantify because they are likely to make efforts to conceal their true eligibility status. Nevertheless, the Department of Health report of independent research into the costs to the NHS of treating visitors and migrants, which was independently peer-reviewed by experts, estimated that the cost of health tourism is between £70m and £300m a year. That global figure is made up of an estimate of between £20m and £100m in costs of deliberate health tourism for urgent treatment plus between £50m and £200m in the costs of regular visitors taking advantage of using the NHS for pre-existing needs whilst visiting the UK for other reasons. The Government also points out that health tourism as defined above is only one aspect of misuse of the NHS. The report it refers to estimates that a further £388m a year is spent on patients who find themselves in need of health care while in England and who should already be paying for their care, but who are not currently charged by the NHS.

100.  Our predecessor Committee in the last Parliament, in its Report on The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, considered this question in the context of proposals to charge refused asylum seekers for health care and concluded that "the Government has not produced any evidence to demonstrate what it describes as 'health tourism' in the UK."[66] The Department of Health's recent research clearly represents a significant advance on that position. However, the weight to be attached to it as a justification for the health charging provisions in the Bill is a matter for debate. The range of estimated cost is very wide and the Government itself accepts that the scale of the problem is very difficult to quantify. There has been a very lively debate in the media about what the Department of Health's research establishes and the extent to which it makes out a justification for the health charging provisions in the Bill. The inherent difficulties with the evidential base in relation to health tourism and misuses of the NHS by migrants may explain the secondary status of the immigration control rationale for the measures restricting access to free health care. Given the very wide range of the estimates it has produced, we caution against ascribing too much weight to the Department of Health's research when assessing whether the Government has demonstrated an objective and reasonable justification for the differential treatment to which the health charging provisions in the Bill give rise.

Proportionality

101.  Turning to the primary rationale for the restrictions, namely bringing access to health care into line with the wider Government policy that a person's access to state benefits should be commensurate with their immigration status, we have considered whether there is a rational connection between the end which it is sought to achieve and the means by which it seeks to do so, namely applying a threshold of indefinite leave to remain. The BMA, in its parliamentary briefing on the Bill, questions the equity of using indefinite leave to remain as the qualifying criterion for entitlement to free NHS services, "given the significant variations in the length of time it can take different individuals to become eligible for indefinite leave to remain".

102.  We asked the Government whether, having regard to the wide variety of types of immigration permission and the varying degree of connection with the UK that accompanies each type of permission, it is the Government's intention that the amount of the proposed immigration charge will vary according to the type of immigration permission sought and, if so, what criteria will be used to determine the appropriate amount of the charge.

103.  The Government replied that it expects the Secretary of State to set the surcharge at around £150 for students and around £200 for other temporary migrant categories, but to exempt Tier 2 Intra Company Transfers from the charge altogether "in recognition of their particular contribution to the UK economy." When setting the levels of the charge, the Secretary of State is free to take into account considerations such as maintaining the UK's competitiveness in the international market for skilled workers and fee-paying students. Indeed, it has made clear that it intends to do so by stating its intention to exempt certain temporary migrants from the charge altogether on the basis of the contribution that group makes to the UK economy. The Government says that the proposed levels of the charge do not attempt to reflect the total annual cost of the consumption of health services by temporary migrants in the UK; rather they reflect a proportionate contribution. It estimates that the charge will generate "an additional £1.9 billion" for the taxpayer over 10 years (we presume that this is a net figure after taking account of the costs of administering the scheme).

104.  We have considered the extent to which immigration status is a reliable proxy for degree of connection with the UK. We consider that there are questions to be answered about whether there is a rational connection between the Government's aim of ensuring that a person's access to health care is commensurate with their immigration status and the means by which it seeks to do so, namely applying a threshold of indefinite leave to remain. We call on the Government to explain further why there is a sound fit between the stated rationale that entitlement to free health care should be commensurate with immigration status and the selected criterion of indefinite leave to remain.

105.  We also asked the Government whether any immigrants paying taxes will also be subject to the new immigration health charge and, if so, what is its best estimate of the proportion of those subject to the charge who will also be paying taxes. The Government replied that the charge will apply to most temporary migrants with leave of more than 6 months. A proportion of those migrants already pay tax in the UK, including direct taxes such as National Insurance, but the Government says that it is difficult reliably to estimate the proportion of those paying the surcharge who will also be paying such direct taxes, because many of those paying the surcharge will not ordinarily be resident in the UK for tax purposes.

106.  The extent to which the proposed immigration charge will result in double recovery, because it applies to temporary migrants who are already contributing to the costs of the NHS through payment of National Insurance, is relevant to any assessment of the proportionality of the measure. It appears, however, that the Government is not in a position to provide even an estimate of this information. The unavailability of this information does not assist Parliament's consideration of whether the Government has demonstrated that the differential treatment of temporary migrants by the introduction of the immigration health charge is objectively and reasonably justified.

107.  We also asked the Government what the justification is for treating a temporary migrant who pays the health surcharge differently from a permanent resident in terms of their access to "particularly expensive discretionary treatments". The Government says in response that it is considering (but has not yet decided) whether to exclude a very limited set of treatments that would not be covered by payment of the surcharge and would therefore be charged at the point of treatment. Some services, it says, may either not be medically necessary during a temporary stay and/or be particularly expensive or scarce, so it is necessary to consider if it is appropriate to provide them to a temporary resident without a strong long-term commitment to the UK.

108.  If charging for particularly expensive discretionary treatments were to be a feature of the health charging scheme it would introduce a further source of differential treatment which would require objective and reasonable justification. However, we consider that it would be premature for us to express a view on the question before the Government has decided whether it will be a part of the scheme. If the Government so decides, Parliament will need to be provided with more information about the exact criteria by which it will be decided which treatments are not covered by the immigration health charge.


44   ECHR Memorandum, para. 4. Back

45   Clause 16. Back

46   Clause 17. Back

47   Clause 18. Back

48   R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 66. Back

49   ECHR Memorandum, para. 7. Back

50   ECHR Memorandum, para. 94. Back

51   Clause 16(3). Back

52   Schedule 3. Back

53   Para. 94. Back

54   ECHR Memorandum, para. 99. Back

55   Clause 35. Back

56   ECHR Memorandum, para. 132. Back

57   Clause 28. Back

58   Draft Code of Practice, para. 25. Back

59   Clause 33. Back

60   Clause 34. Back

61   EN para. 22. Back

62   Factsheet: National Health Service. Back

63   ECHR Memorandum, para. 109. Back

64   Letter to Chair from Mark Harper MP, Q25. Back

65   https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-visitors-and-migrant-use-of-the-nhs-extent-and-costs. Back

66   Tenth Report of Session 2006-07 at para. 129. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 18 December 2013