Secret Home Office policy to detain people with NHS debt at airport found unlawful

[SerendipityJane]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/26/secret-home-office-policy-to-detain-people-with-right-to-live-in-uk-found-unlawfu

my eye was caught by this line:

In a judgment handed down today Mr Justice Chamberlain found that the two women and their young children were falsely imprisoned by the home secretary without justification. He also found that Suella Braverman had breached her duty to consider the equality impact of the policy on women, who are known to be disproportionately affected by NHS charging.

Obviously we expect Suella to have no concerns about the law - either personally or professionally. But I note (again) this policy was almost deliberately intended to be inequal.

Respectfully you have missed my point to a fantastic degree. I am illustrating consequences of holding the viewpoint that disproportionate outcomes indicate judicial prejudice.

Satire does not always come across well in writing.

Tax fraud and evasion are crimes and why? Because taxes are a debt to the Government. So I can and I did.

You did miss their point though. Numerous studies have shown that when you have an offender on convicted of the exact same offence under almost identical circumstances with almost identical consequences and the same criminal histories male offenders are far more likely to be handed a custodial sentence than are female offenders and even when female offenders are given a custodial sentence, they are on average much shorter. There is a justice system bias of leniency towards women, especially (fragile) white women. When you look at the intersection of race and sex, Black women are treated like white men by the justice system.

Good points, Gardinia. The sort you might expect a newspaper to include in a news report.

When someone states that male incarceration rates are FAR higher than female incarceration without defining the population under consideration, I default to the total population. If you were trying to make a point about custodial sentencing by sex, you should have said that you were referring to incarceration of male convicted criminals compared to female ones.

Your lack of clarity is not my responsibility to try to work around.

Well, I didn’t post it, but it was perfectly clear to me that when the poster stated evidence that courts are biased in favour of women and against men
they were deffo talking about bias…

they definitely did not say “male incarceration rates are FAR higher than female incarceration”

Its sort of your responsibility to respond to what is written in a post and not what you thought you read.

it was perfectly clear to me that when the poster stated evidence that courts are biased in favour of women and against me they were deffo talking about bias…

But it wasn't clear what the reference population was for the assertion that "male incarceration rates are FAR higher than female incarceration". Which was why I referred to different offending rates by sex. Now, I would be happily discussing possible underlying causes for that court bias, but then you called me a liar...

they definitely did not say “male incarceration rates are FAR higher than female incarceration"

Actually Gardenia did say what I quoted, its in https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4814705-secret-home-office-policy-to-detain-people-with-nhs-debt-at-airport-found-unlawful?reply=126479747 from 10:38 this morning.

Its sort of your responsibility to respond to what is written in a post and not what you thought you read.

It's sort of your responsibility to make sure that you are correct before accusing another poster of fabricating quotes.

No, because tax fraud and evasion are deliberate theft.

How confused and what a tangent this has become, based on a simple misreading. The details of male vs. female incarceration are irrelevant either way, because it's missing the point I made. And fwiw, it wasn't satire at all. The point is straight-forward. This ruling appears to have been based on the idea that it is discriminatory based on disproportionate outcome and a poster to whom I replied also made a reply based on this viewpoint.

I do not think this view has been proven and if it is not proven then the court ruling on the basis of the policy being discriminatory is flawed. I then further said to the person I was replying to that "if you feel that it does [indicate discrimination]" then presumably you also thin that disparity in outcome in male incarceration rates is the result of massive anti-male bias in society. This being the feminism boards and reading the tone of the post I was replying to, I was fairly sure they would not feel this. The point, made the third time now and as clearly as can be, is that if it doesn't prove discrimination in the case the poster doesn't agree with, why should it prove discrimination in the case that they do?

It is a selective argument on the court's basis unless they have some deep understanding of how this law is discriminating against a protected class. Debtors and those running out on debt, are not a protected class.

Going down a rabbit hole of trying to justify the outcome of males being far more incarcerated at a higher rate than women is in the most absolute terms, proving my point that it is not sufficient to point at a disparity in outcome by itself to show a law is discriminatory against a protected class. If it were, then every law in the country (seemingly except fraud) would have to be repealed because they all have a disparity in outcome based on sex.

The court appears to have ruled against the policy on this basis which means the court ruling is flawed. Hopefully no more misreadings of what I wrote or personal attacks.

Surely the NHS should be checking people's right to free treatment before they start, oh your not entitled, please give me your insurance details!

No insurance- there's the door.
In fact health insurance should be a requirement for people entering the country.

Sometimes a woman is here on a family visa as the partner of a British man (or a man with ILR). He dumps her and disappears, leaving her pregnant, with no recourse to public funds and no valid visa (because she's no longer his partner).

If she has other children with a right to remain in the UK she can apply to change visa and be here as their parent instead but she may not have the money or necessary access to immigration advice.

If she can evidence domestic abuse and that she is destitute (this is way beyond the level of any DWP means test) then she can apply to have NRPF lifted and her route to settlement will double from 5 to 10 years. This depends on her knowing about this and again, being able to find help and advice to apply.

Otherwise she becomes someone who is here illegally and will be required to pay 150% of the cost of her maternity care, even if the child she is giving birth to is British. They don't chase the British/settled man for his half of the bill, it's all on her, even though the Home Office obviously knows exactly who he is.

Or there may be an ordinary happy family - British man, wife on a family visa, maybe an older child from wife's previous marriage who is on her visa, maybe a younger child in common who is therefore British. They both work but are on low wages. She has NRPF so they are not entitled to the same level of in-work benefits as other families. They are one payslip away from a clusterfuck, same as most families in the UK.

They've been together here for 2 1/2 years and visa renewal time is coming up so they need to raise:

£1048 visa fee for the woman
£1048 visa fee for the non-British child
£1560 healthcare surcharge for the woman
£1175 healthcare surcharge for the non-British child

It will cost this family £4831 just to be legally allowed to live together in the UK for the next 2 1/2 years, after which there will be another hefty bill.

Maybe they just don't have it. Maybe they were saving diligently but covid or inflation or ludicrous rent rises, a job loss or health issues got in the way, the same as can happen to any other family.

So this family quietly become overstayers because there's no mechanism for contacting the home office and explaining your situation to someone with the authority to act like a normal person and arrange an affordable payment plan.

Maybe their late renewal application is accepted, or they are given different leave to remain on human rights grounds, even if they have run up NHS debt while not covered by the healthcare surcharge.

The immigration rules allow for leave to remain to be granted even if a person owes money to NHSBSA, up to a strict limit.

Leave to remain also includes leave to re-enter the country.

It is possible to end up with a criminal conviction for non-payment of some debts (e.g. council tax) but not until it's been to court and you have failed to comply with a court order.

In this family's case, only the woman would be detained. Her husband with the British passport would sail through a different queue.

Sometimes this happens the other way round and a dependent husband ends up detained but not usually. And obviously, no British women are dumping their pregnant husbands with LLR and NRPF.

it is not sufficient to point at a disparity in outcome by itself to show a law is discriminatory against a protected class

That's entirely correct and much clearer than how you originally stated your argument.

I only joined the thread in the first place to tell the OP about the link being broken...

The people who this affects are not 'visitors' to the UK. They have visas which grant them leave to remain. They live here.

Do you think women should be shown the door when they are in active labour?

And obviously, no British women are dumping their pregnant husbands with LLR and NRPF.

And there's your grounds for arguing that the policy is sexist: only women can be pregnant and run up maternity-related costs if dumped by a British spouse.

I found the ruling in Bailii. https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1272.html

Not read it yet because it's really long and I only just located it.

A PCP that affects both sexes but disproportionately affects women can also be sex discrimination.

This is what indirect discrimination means.

This is why equality impact assessments are important and need to take into account not only how different groups might be affected but also how they are affected in real life.

Thank you for finding this, I'll read it through tomorrow.

Reading the ruling:

• Paragraph 9, the claimant SXB's costs were related to miscarriages, so maternity related.
• Para 38a, some medical care is available to everyone for free, regardless of immigration status.
• Para 38c, maternity care is not available to NRPF immigrants.

Given that only women can be pregnant, the failure to give free mat care is sexist. Given that only children can be newborns, the failure to give free mat care is also ageist against the youngest possible people, who are amongst the most vulnerable in society.

That all makes sense.

The case is about unlawful detention and this is far more likely to happen to women than men. Theoretically a man or a woman could be held because of an unpaid NHSBSA debt but it's far more likely for women because as well as the normal illness / injury risks, women get pregnant and give birth so they are far more likely to have a debt.

The age discrimination is an interesting angle that I haven't thought about.

What always astonishes me is that the 'NHS is for British people' lot never stop to consider that many of these babies are British, even if their mothers are not.

You don't have to have 'some deep understanding' to work out why men in general end up in prison at many times the rate of women. You can just look at the offending rates.

You don't need to have 'some deep understanding' of why this policy unfairly discriminates against women. You can just look at who ends up with NHS debts and how they are incurred.

No, they’re not theft because not you’re not stealing from the Government, those crimes are Benefit fraud. But tax evasion and tax fraud are crimes because you are failing to pay a debt you owe the government because it is YOUR money that YOU OWE to the Government. You are not TAKING money FROM the Government. FFS didn’t think I’d have to explain the difference between a debt and theft.

Except that basic maternity including childbirth falls under the A&E exemption that is free to everyone. No woman, illegally here, health tourist or otherwise would run up a debt for coming here or being here and going into labour and needing hospital care for childbirth. No woman going pregnant to a GP illegal or tourist will run up an NHS debt for prenatal care unless they are referred for anything other than emergency care at an A&E.

BUT again, it’s life and limb threatening so if a woman suffers birth injuries like the women from Mail did due to FGM and then got them repaired on the NHS then yes, she’d run up a debt getting the birth injuries repaired that are not life or limb threatening. I’m not talking a basic stitching, they’d not leave a gaping wound anywhere nor would they allow an infection to continue, I’m talking corrective surgery or solving incontinence or prolapse would run up a debt.

Numerous studies have shown that when you have an offender on convicted of the exact same offence under almost identical circumstances with almost identical consequences and the same criminal histories male offenders are far more likely to be handed a custodial sentence than are female offenders and even when female offenders are given a custodial sentence, they are on average much shorter. ]

This is untrue - in fact the opposite has been shown - eg. first hit on google.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gender-differences-sentencing-felony-offenders

TV License evasion disproportionately affecting women, and I would think the same applies to healthcare, is because women were home with the kids more, so likely to be the ones opening the door. For NHS care, there's the fact that women have a whole section of possible health requirements around pregnancy and childbirth that men don't and, obviously then, are more likely to be the ones caught for non-payment for a child's care.