Agenda item

That this Council:-

(a)       is concerned that changes to the immigration policy will be hugely detrimental to the multicultural vitality of Sheffield and the UK, and believes that changes to the minimum income threshold, right of appeal and student immigration would cause damage to the culture and economy of our City;

(b)       disagrees with the decision of the Government to scrap the full right of appeal for more than 80,000 relatives of British families who are refused entry to visit them each year;

(c)        notes that from 9 July 2012, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and first cousins will no longer be considered to be family visitors for appeal purposes;

(d)       is further concerned about Government intentions to remove completely the right of appeal against family visitor visa refusal decisions through a clause in the Crime and Courts Bill (House of Lords Bill 4 of 2012-13);

(e)       is worried that if this Bill is passed in 2013, the family members (spouses, parents, siblings, children, grandparents, grandchildren, in-laws) will also lose the right of appeal;

(f)         recognises the importance of right of appeal: principles of equality, and respect for the rule of law demand an appropriate mechanism to check the actions of the entry clearance officers through scrutinising their findings, decisions and all of the relevant evidence upon which they are based, and  that appropriate mechanism is a right of appeal;

(g)       opposes the proposal by the Home Secretary to impose a minimum income threshold of £27,500 to allow a British Citizen to bring their non European Union partner/spouse and family to settle in the U.K;

(h)        condemns the Liberal Democrats in Government for supporting the measures and doing a u-turn in their support of Article 12 of the Human Rights Act ‘the right to marry and found a family’ ;

(i)         supports the right of people to choose their life partner from anywhere in the world and believes these proposals, if implemented, would have a detrimental effect on the vitality of multicultural life in Sheffield;

(j)         views these proposals as a back door attempt by the Conservative  party to bring back the Primary Purpose Rule which was abolished by the previous Government, thereby enabling families to be reunited who had been separated for more than 10 years by the rule;

(k)        supports the work of Paul Blomfield MP, in particular, his work on the Select Committee on Business Innovation and Skills towards taking students out of the net migration targets and reviewing the restrictive proposals on the new English test and the restrictive rules on post-study work, noting that overseas students contribute millions of pounds a year into the local economy and according to Professor Edward Acton (Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia) the change could result in as many as 70% of these students being barred from entry to the U.K; and

(l)         resolves to write to the City’s six MPs requesting that they write to the Home Secretary to raise the deep concerns of this Council and on behalf of the families living in our City, further requests the City’s six MPs including Sheffield Hallam MP and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, to oppose the Bill.      

It was moved by Councillor Mohammad Maroof, seconded by Councillor Nikki Bond, that this Council:-

(a)       is concerned that changes to the immigration policy will be hugely detrimental to the multicultural vitality of Sheffield and the UK, and believes that changes to the minimum income threshold, right of appeal and student immigration would cause damage to the culture and economy of our City;

(b)       disagrees with the decision of the Government to scrap the full right of appeal for more than 80,000 relatives of British families who are refused entry to visit them each year;

(c)        notes that from 9 July 2012, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces and first cousins will no longer be considered to be family visitors for appeal purposes;

(d)       is further concerned about Government intentions to remove completely the right of appeal against family visitor visa refusal decisions through a clause in the Crime and Courts Bill (House of Lords Bill 4 of 2012-13);

(e)       is worried that if this Bill is passed in 2013, the family members (spouses, parents, siblings, children, grandparents, grandchildren, in-laws) will also lose the right of appeal;

(f)         recognises the importance of right of appeal: principles of equality, and respect for the rule of law demand an appropriate mechanism to check the actions of the entry clearance officers through scrutinising their findings, decisions and all of the relevant evidence upon which they are based, and  that appropriate mechanism is a right of appeal;

(g)       opposes the proposal by the Home Secretary to impose a minimum income threshold of £27,500 to allow a British Citizen to bring their non European Union partner/spouse and family to settle in the U.K;

(h)        condemns the Liberal Democrats in Government for supporting the measures and doing a u-turn in their support of Article 12 of the Human Rights Act ‘the right to marry and found a family’ ;

(i)         supports the right of people to choose their life partner from anywhere in the world and believes these proposals, if implemented, would have a detrimental effect on the vitality of multicultural life in Sheffield;

(j)         views these proposals as a back door attempt by the Conservative  party to bring back the Primary Purpose Rule which was abolished by the previous Government, thereby enabling families to be reunited who had been separated for more than 10 years by the rule;

(k)        supports the work of Paul Blomfield MP, in particular, his work on the Select Committee on Business Innovation and Skills towards taking students out of the net migration targets and reviewing the restrictive proposals on the new English test and the restrictive rules on post-study work, noting that overseas students contribute millions of pounds a year into the local economy and according to Professor Edward Acton (Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia) the change could result in as many as 70% of these students being barred from entry to the U.K; and

(l)         resolves to write to the City’s six MPs requesting that they write to the Home Secretary to raise the deep concerns of this Council and on behalf of the families living in our City, further requests the City’s six MPs including Sheffield Hallam MP and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, to oppose the Bill.      

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Denise Reaney, seconded by Councillor Penny Baker, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the substitution of the following words therefor:-

(a)       recalls the view of the current Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition that the previous Government ‘got it wrong’ with regards to immigration policies;

(b)       notes that the current Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition reiterated this point in his Party Conference speech by claiming that the failure to take public concern over the issue seriously was one of the reasons the previous Government lost the 2010 general election;

(c)        deplores the previous Government’s record on immigration, in that it took no action against the incarceration of thousands of children in immigration removal centres such as the infamous Yarl’s Wood facility;

(d)       praises the successful efforts of Liberal Democrats in Government to end this barbaric and inhumane practice;

(e)       notes with concern proposals to remove the right of appeal against family visitor visa decisions and recalls Liberal Democrat support for the re-introduction of this right in 2000;

(f)         however, understands that it is much quicker and cheaper for applicants to re-submit a fresh application than launch an appeal, with the UK Border Agency processing 95% of visit visa applications within 15 working days; and

(g)       therefore, calls upon the Government to consider carefully the potential implications of this proposal during the passage of the Crime and Courts Bill.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was negatived.

The original Motion was then put to the vote and carried, as follows:-