THE UK Home Office will today argue that any racial discrimination caused by the controversial Right to Rent scheme – which forces landlords to carry out immigration status checks on their tenants – can be justified.
A hearing into the Government’s appeal against a December 2018 ruling starts today at the Court of Appeal and is expected to last until Friday.
The High Court previously ruled on the scheme, which requires landlords to carry out immigration checks on their tenants, with the threat of a fine or prison should they default.
Justice Spencer said this key component of the hostile environment, “does not merely provide the occasion or opportunity for private landlords to discriminate but causes them to do so where otherwise they would not”.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), which brought the case, said it was clear that the effect of the judgment meant the scheme itself could not be reformed and should have been dismantled.
READ MORE: Boris rejects indyref2 – what happens now?
However, the Home Office declared that it was “disappointed” with the verdict and launched an appeal.
The Government’s legal team will argue that any racial discrimination caused by Right to Rent against black and minority ethnic (BME) British citizens or foreign nationals who have every right to be in the UK, can be justified and that it should not be held responsible for discrimination by landlords caused by it.
JCWI’s barristers Phillippa Kaufmann QC, and Jamie Burton won the argument that the scheme caused discrimination on grounds of race, both nationality and ethnicity.
Now the charity will argue against all the Government’s grounds for appeal, particularly that the Government is plainly responsible for the discriminatory effects of the operation of the scheme, whether or not they are intended.
Chai Patel, legal policy director of the JCWI, said: “Everyone has a right to look for a home for themselves and their children without falling victim to racist immigration rules.
“Landlords faced with the risk caused by complex immigration checks, inevitably end up discriminating against people without a British passport, especially ethnic minorities.
READ MORE: COP26 security set to cost hundreds of millions of pounds
“It must be scrapped so that everyone has a fair shot at finding a flat, whatever the colour of their skin or their passport.”
Solicitor Rowan Smith, from the legal firm Leigh Day, added: “Since the Human Rights Act came into force nearly 20 years ago, the UK courts have only made 42 declarations of incompatibility, which is why this case is so important constitutionally and for those who would otherwise suffer racism in the housing market if the scheme is not overturned.
“It is also why JCWI plan to robustly defend the High Court’s ruling that the right to rent scheme is discriminatory, using recent human rights case-law to further undermine the Government’s appeal.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here