Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Not surprisingly, there is nothing I could add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said. We shall certainly be supporting this amendment if it ends up being put to a vote.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I told the noble and learned Lord that we will be supporting him. He said that that was the right answer.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the short point that my noble friend Lord Paddick wanted to make, as he generally does, in leaving out Clause 74(3) is that, again, this seems to conflate immigration and terrorism. It extends powers to question people about involvement in terrorism at the border and applies the powers to people being detained under a provision of the immigration Acts, and so on. The objection runs like a thread through the Bill, to so many points. Immigration and terrorism are not the same. Not all terrorists are immigrants. Terrorists who have succeeded in the UK have been British, and if the Government allow, in legislation, the bias implied by the conflation of these two, no wonder others display the same bias. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

This clause would extend the use of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act to people who have been detained under the immigration Acts and transported outside of a port or border area. Schedule 7 can be an important tool in the prevention of terrorism, but it has had a chequered past at times. It has been improved in recent years by the work of independent reviewers of terrorism legislation, two of whom we are now fortunate to have as Members of this House.

I have three or four questions for the Government on the provisions of Clause 74. Have the Government consulted on the extension of the power? Has the change been requested and, if so, by whom or by what body? Can the Minister give more detail on the scale of the problem this is designed to address? How many individuals are officers unable to stop and question under the current arrangements? How was the period of five days arrived at? For those who travel through conventional routes, does not the power have to be used pretty much immediately, in which case five days is a considerable extension? Finally, the powers apply provided an officer “believes” that the person arrived at sea, was apprehended within 24 hours of arrival, and it has been no more than five days since they were apprehended. What will that “belief” that the officer is required to have be based on? It would be helpful if the Government could give some responses to those questions.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank both Members of the Committee for their remarks. Schedule 7 examinations have been instrumental in securing evidence to convict terrorists, yielding intelligence to detect terrorist threats and supporting the disruption or deterrence of terrorist activity. Currently, officers may exercise Schedule 7 powers only when an individual is located within a port or border area as defined in the Act. Clause 74 will provide an added layer of protection to the existing processes in place for dealing with those who arrive irregularly by sea in the UK. I think that goes some way to answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—they are arriving irregularly outside of ports. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, has stated:

“In principle, people arriving irregularly in the United Kingdom should be liable to counter-terrorism examination as much as those arriving at sea ports and airports.”


This clause ensures that, for those arriving irregularly by sea, such as via illegal channel crossings, this will continue be the case.

There are several reasons why those who engage in illegal channel crossings can be moved to a different location from their place of arrival very quickly after arriving. They can range from weight of numbers to the need to move the vulnerable or those in need of medical attention to more appropriate facilities. It is impractical and inhumane to keep large groups of people port side in order to give counterterrorism police an appropriate opportunity to exercise their current powers under Schedule 7.

I reassure noble Lords who tabled the amendment that this is by no means an attempt to treat all migrants arriving in this manner as terrorists, or to stop and examine large numbers of people away from ports and borders. Schedule 7 is not designed and cannot be used as a universal screening mechanism, and Clause 74 has been deliberately drawn to provide an appropriate time window for counterterrorism police to exercise their powers under Schedule 7.

To remove the effect of Clause 74 would impact our ability to determine whether those who are entering the UK in this way are involved in terrorism, impacting our national security. It would continue a scenario where those who arrive in the UK by conventional means are subject to powers to determine involvement in terrorist activity, whereas those who have arrived irregularly by sea, and about whom we have very little documented information, may not be.

I cannot answer precisely who has been consulted on this, other than the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and obviously the counterterrorism police will have a keen interest in how this debate develops. To answer on the numbers, this concerns those arriving irregularly by sea, outside established ports, under the existing rules. I could not tell you how many there are. The other questions impinge on operational matters, on which I am not qualified to comment. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, of course, we do not intend to oppose the government amendments —the devolution settlement is to be respected. However, I have some questions, the answer to which at least one of which I can work out from the Minister’s introduction to the amendment. She has had my notes, so I will go through the points that occurred to me.

First, can the Government say anything about their assessment of the impact of what the Minister has just explained? In Committee, she referred to minimising the “immediate operational impact”. It appears to be acknowledged, therefore, that there is some impact. What happens if Scotland legislates differently? The Minister’s letter to noble Lords of 13 January explains one of the issues, which I take to be the major issue, about which the Scottish Government was concerned: an amendment to the limits to conduct that can be authorised; that is, whether specific listed crimes should be excluded. The House has debated that point and I am not seeking to reopen the matter.

In Committee, the Minister reminded us that national security and economic well-being are reserved, not devolved; she has just repeated that. In that case, could there be challenges—it seems to me that there could be—as to whether certain conduct is merely, if that is the right word, a crime? It is not merely a crime, but the House will understand that I am referring to a crime that does not fall within the other categories. The Minister also said that public authorities will continue to rely, in the immediate term, on the existing basis for an authorisation—which, I take it from what she said, is the non-statutory basis.

How, then, does Clause 8 work? That clause says that the Bill extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland, save that Acts of the Scottish Parliament are not amended. The Minister has introduced Amendment 7 —as well as Amendment 8—which amends Schedule 2, the list of consequential amendments. This provides that there may not be a criminal conduct authorisation if

“all or some of the conduct … is likely to take place in Scotland.”

If some of the conduct is in Scotland and the rest in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, does that mean there have to be parallel authorisations, one statutory and one non-statutory? Or do I understand from what the Minister said that the Government in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will proceed on the non-statutory basis so it will be aligned with the authorisation in Scotland? A criminal conduct authorisation prompted by an ordinary crime, if I can call it that, cannot extend across the border but, of course, the crime may well do so.

Finally, the Minister may or may not be able to say whether the issue is wider than the Bill. We will be in Committee next week on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill and I gather from government amendments that there is an issue there—but is it an even wider issue on legislation? I hope the Minister can help with my questions, which I have tabled in order to understand how the Bill will operate in this circumstance.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose of these government amendments and for her letter of 13 January explaining the position in the light of the confirmation from the Scottish Government that they are unable to recommend consent for devolved provisions within the Bill. We understand why the Government have brought forward these amendments today and accept the need for them. Our key concern is whether the situation that has now been reached will have any adverse impact at all on national security and economic well-being, UK-wide, and it would be helpful if the Government could confirm, as I think the Minister has sought to indicate, that there will be no such adverse impact.

The letter from the Minister of 13 January states that the Scottish Government

“require further amendment to the Bill in relation to limits to the conduct which can be authorised under the Bill.”

As this House has now added those limits to the Bill, are the Government minded to change their stance on that issue and accept the amendment concerned?

Finally—I appreciate that this is a matter to which the Minister has also made reference—will the Government say what the impact will be, first in Scotland, to which she referred, and also in the UK as a whole, if the present legal basis for authorising criminal conduct changes, based on the outcome of the current, ongoing court case?

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord decided to probe these two provisions. I have seen the correspondence published by the three committees. I was struck when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, in responding to the previous group, referred to the code of practice having the force of law. I do not dispute that, but it is of course law that can be changed by government Ministers without coming to Parliament.

The point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about forum shopping is interesting. As he said, I have asked for assistance on the meaning of some terms during the passage of the Bill. I questioned what is envisaged by the terms “conduct” and “requirements”. I read both to restrict, rather than expand, the scope of what may be done. I would be grateful to have that confirmed or, if not, to understand why not. In short, we should not be expanding opportunities for criminal conduct authorisations without, at the very least, understanding exactly what we are doing.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

First, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, well in his campaign against skeleton Bills, as that issue is getting worse, not better.

The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may, by order, prohibit the authorisation of certain conduct and impose extra requirements that must be satisfied before an authorisation can be given. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, Amendments 57 and 74, in his name, would remove those provisions and, as he confirmed, their purpose is to probe the extent to which the operation of criminal conduct authorisations can be amended by regulation.

Earlier in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, stated that the order-making provisions in the Bill

“allow for additional requirements to be imposed before a criminal conduct authorisation may be granted, or for the authorisation of certain conduct to be prohibited.”

He continued:

“I assure the Committee that they can only be used to further strengthen the safeguards that are attached to the use of criminal conduct authorisations. They could not be used to remove any of the existing safeguards ... The requirements that can be imposed under these powers concern matters of practicality and detail, and therefore it is appropriate that they are contained in secondary legislation.”—[Official Report, 1/12/20; col. 676.]


When the noble and learned Lord said that the order-making powers could not be used to remove any of the existing safeguards, did the Government mean that the wording in the Bill would make it contrary to law to do that, or did they mean only that the intention was not to use the order-making powers to remove any of the existing safeguards? That, of course, is a very different thing, as intentions can change.

No doubt in their response the Government will address that point and give specific examples of the purposes or intentions for which these order-making powers to prohibit the authorisation of certain conduct and impose extra requirements that must be satisfied before an authorisation can be given would—and, equally, would not—be used by the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the horse will be out of the stable again in January: refreshed, I hope. I am sure that the Minister will welcome the pause after the marathon she has had to undergo. I am not for a moment suggesting she is anything like a horse—I am sorry, perhaps I should not have followed that simile.

My noble friend Lord Paddick recently spoke to Amendment 79, and it is clear that several noble Lords have concerns in this area, so we will come back to it. Noble Lords clearly agree on the importance of evaluating what goes on and of transparency, as has already been mentioned. However, I cannot help thinking in the context of the precise formulation of this amendment of what the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, talked about a week or two ago, to which my noble friend referred: the problem of the extent to which one can report in detail without endangering those who are protecting us and whom we, in turn, do not wish to endanger. I cannot help thinking that if a lot of the material listed in Amendment 75C were to be published, an awful lot of it might be redacted. However, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in spirit, and I think that his last point about material damage or civilian harm is an important one that we must not lose sight of. We still need to explore how best and to what extent we can achieve what is obviously troubling a number of us.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The purpose of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is described as being to probe the adequacy of information provided to Parliament on criminal conduct authorisations and to probe the efficacy of the authorisations.

I think that this comes back to the issue of transparency. To be a little more particular, will we be told in advance, during the passage of the Bill, precisely what kind of information about criminal conduct authorisations will be provided to us and to the public by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in the annual report or other reports? At the moment, I am not clear about what information will be provided and what it will cover, and whether it will give us a feel for what is happening over criminal conduct authorisations or whether we will be told that the information provided will be limited and that, on grounds of security, it cannot be disclosed.

I hope that, at least in their response either to this amendment or on Report, the Government will be prepared to spell out what information will and will not be provided so that we all know where we stand on this issue.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and our amendment, are directed to the same issue; I can only think that I may have drafted ours before I had seen hers. RIPA allows for the use of CHIS outside the UK, and the noble Baroness, with her very particular perspective, must not be ignored. As has been said, that experience should inform all of what we are discussing.

Quite apart from the propriety and ethics, how would extraterritorial jurisdiction work in this case? We cannot legislate for what other countries regard as a crime or how decisions about whether to prosecute are taken. My noble friend Lord Thomas listed the offences where there is extraterritorial jurisdiction and where prosecutions can take place here. It struck me as I was listening to him reading them that they are very close to the crimes that noble Lords are seeking to take out of the scope of criminal authorisations, which we will come to later—except that I was interested to hear the reference to domestic abuse.

I had wondered whether minds in the Government had been directed to the military and intelligence services outside the UK on this issue; my noble friend also mentioned the Baha Mousa case. But this is not the Bill for that. As he said, we have other legislation that we will come to soon, when we will also no doubt be considering the issue of rendition. But to leave open any suggestion that anyone should have free rein anywhere in the world because they are acting on behalf of the state is certainly something we want to see quashed.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Amendment 7 in this group would ensure that criminal conduct authorisations are not covered by the provisions of Section 27(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which provides that:

“The conduct that may be authorised under this Part includes conduct outside the United Kingdom.”


Amendment 9 in this group specifies that conduct outside of the United Kingdom may not be authorised under this Act and amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to similar effect as Amendment 7.

As far as I can see, the code of—[Inaudible]—covert operations occurring in UK embassies, military bases and detention facilities where the subject of investigation is a UK national or is likely to become the subject of criminal or civil proceedings in the UK, or if the operation is likely to affect a UK national or give rise to material likely to be used in evidence before a UK court.

The noble—[Inaudible.]

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, safe routes are needed now. We know that people will not and cannot wait. And who can blame them?

I want to question the Minister about the review, particularly to seek an assurance about one aspect. Proposed new subsection (1) in the amendment refers to the review of ways in which protection claimants can enter the UK lawfully. This suggests that the review is to be limited to considering existing ways, when what is needed are proposals to enable safe mechanisms for family reunion without the current hurdles and restrictions. Siblings must be able to reunite and close family members—not only parents—able to sponsor entry without having to find fees or demonstrate that they have the means to look after the child.

I am concerned that there is no stated objective for the review; that seems to be missing. Also missing, as the right reverend Prelate has said, is a timetable for the completion of the review. The three months mentioned is the period within which the Government are to give further details. Can the Minister help us with the wider timetable and consultation, which surely needs to be wider than just unaccompanied children?

Reference has been made to the use of guidance. Can guidance achieve what is proposed? It cannot override the rules. I endorse and support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the importance of seeing drafts both of rules and guidance. Parliamentarians can then have input and amendments can be gently suggested, if not formally proposed. We cannot do this with unamendable rules.

It is beyond me that what is necessary now is to show

“serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable”,

in the words of the rules. Putting it that way round, rather than the converse, has always seemed perverse to me. So, too, is the policy that an application under Article 8 of the European convention, on the right to family life, will not succeed unless there are “exceptional circumstances” with refusal resulting in “unjustifiably harsh consequences”.

On the timetable again, one of the government amendments refers to two months from the date of commencement, which is beyond the end of the year. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no lacuna as a result and that work on plugging the gap, as it were, will start immediately and apply notwithstanding the commencement date? If there needs to be a change, can it be made in the Commons? I appreciate that that would require the Bill to go back to the Commons.

In practice, it is very difficult to show that a child is in an unsafe environment. Other current problems that need to be considered are getting a child to a visa application centre to make an application under the rules, and the fees which, under one of the paragraphs of the rules, are well over £3,000. I make these perhaps slightly random points because, alone, they show the importance of consultation on the whole situation.

The Minister in the Commons referred to

“dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/20; col. 182.]

I stress “unnecessary”. Would the crossings be made if they were? And was it appropriate to refer to lives lost and profit made by criminals as if they were of equal weight?

The noble Baroness referred to bilaterals. If she can give us an update, it would be welcome, but I appreciate that it may be difficult to refer to negotiations with the EU at the moment. Bilaterals would have to come after the end of the year, but we should not depend on them being in place for some time yet.

I realise that I am not taking my cue from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as I should, who always succeeds in using the most moderate language. He started by welcoming Amendment 4C, so I will end by confirming that these Benches are pleased that he has again pointed the way forward. We support him. If he decides to divide, we will certainly go with him. In any event, like him, we will continue to seek a much more satisfactory arrangement for asylum seekers, who want the most natural thing in the world: to be with their family.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

We welcome the government amendment providing for a review of legal routes to the UK, including for family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and for a report on the outcome of the review to be published and laid before Parliament—which I hope will be within a matter of months, rather than years.

The concern that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dubs seeks to address is what will apply in the interim, between the end of the transition period—and thus the end of the Dublin regulations—and the introduction of any revised or amended arrangements on legal routes to the UK, following the outcome of the review. In other words, there needs to be provision for those, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, who would have come in successfully under the Dublin regulations—had they still been in existence after the end of this year—still to have an equally accessible and achievable safe and legal route in that interim period, which would continue to enable them to come to the UK.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 21st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, at every stage, tributes have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—rightly so, but I imagine he must sometimes be shouting at his screen, while on mute, “Forget the tributes, just accept the amendment.”

The Commons reason is that leave to enter to make an asylum claim, and a strategy to ensure that an unaccompanied child can be relocated in the UK if it is in the child’s best interests, would be, in their words, as the noble Lord said, a “charge on public funds”. Like him, I appreciate that this is a standard response, but it in no way reflects the debate. They trust that we will regard it as sufficient; it is not a sufficient reason.

We were told that it would not be right to undermine negotiations with the EU, with which, it must be said, agreement on this issue shows no sign of life at all. Domestic legislation must be the least threat in this context. It is still not too late to do the right thing.

Our Immigration Rules are inadequate, and applications outside them rarely successful. The Government have announced that they are looking at safe and legal routes for those seeking sanctuary next year. We on these Benches will not subscribe to the notion that this is an issue for next year. The routes are unsafe now, and we could make them considerably safer. We support the amendment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Currently, the only legal way to reach this country from the EU in order to claim asylum, including for unaccompanied children, is through the Dublin III regulation on family reunion. That route, as we know, will cease to be available at the end of the transition period in a few weeks’ time. The Government have no comparable proposals to replace Dublin III, since their alternative removes the mandatory requirement to facilitate family reunion, removes a child’s right to appeal against refusal and further narrows the definition of “family”, since a child or teenager would no longer be able to join, for example, an aunt, an older sister or someone who could look after them when they have been separated from their parents

Safe Passage, to which reference has already been made, which supports child refugees, has said, I believe, that more than 90% of the young people and children it has supported through the Dublin III legal pathway would be unlikely to qualify under the Government’s alternative system. The numbers involved are not large and are very small indeed compared with the numbers of those from outside the EU whom the Government, by choice, each year, have enabled to come to this country. Before the mandatory Dublin III provisions came into effect, about 10 or 11 children per year came to this country under the scheme. Since 2016, when it became mandatory, the average number of children per year has been just over 500.

We support the amendment in lieu, Amendment D1, moved by my indefatigable noble friend Lord Dubs, which represents the guaranteed continuation of a decent and humane approach, particularly to children and young people in real need, including in real need of a safe and legal route to safety.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Along with my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I thank the Minister and congratulate her on her stamina and patience throughout consideration of the Bill, if not, perhaps, on the number of government concessions. We also thank her for her typical willingness to meet and discuss matters relating to the Bill; that is much appreciated. We appreciate, as well, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the work of the Bill team. In addition, perhaps I may be permitted to thank Grace Wright in our office for all her work and invaluable advice on the Bill.

This Bill has of course had its own unique incidents, not least the temporary hiccup over the voting arrangements. Let us hope that that remains unique to it.

As the Minister said, the Bill now goes back to the Commons—in my view, certainly a better Bill than when it left the other place. All that we can now do is wait to see what the Commons make of the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House.

I reiterate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark and myself our thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the Bill team, and indeed to all noble Lords who have participated in the lengthy and interesting debates during the passage of the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, the Bill is about ending free movement. From these Benches, we are no more enthusiastic about that than when the Bill started; if anything, perhaps less so, particularly because the debates have vividly demonstrated the impact on UK citizens resident in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK.

In our view, it is not surprising that the opportunity has been taken to pursue issues relating to the ending of free movement that have a wider context—a rather softer way of describing the various amendments that all sailed through the Public Bill Office, which is particularly careful in that regard. All the amendments have been very people-focused, which shows that there is a view of a fair and firm asylum system that is very different from the Government’s.

This is not the moment for long speeches, nor to rehearse the arguments on the amendments that were agreed by our House with such notable support. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, bore with good humour all that was thrown at them, although I do not know whether they took it out on the cat when they got home.

I express my thanks to our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere in the House; to the Bill team for all their work; and, since the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has paved the way, to Elizabeth Plummer in our whips’ office, whose assistance on the Bill has been magnificent.

We would like to think that we will not be discussing the various amendments again but I realise that we may well do so. In the meantime, with the obvious caveats, we support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, in replying to this and the other amendment on no recourse to public funds in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, according to Hansard, that Home Office analysts were looking at the data to determine what figures could be “reduced”. I would like to think that that might have been about reducing the numbers of people with no recourse, but I suspect that it was a misprint for “produced”. The noble Baroness is nodding.

Almost all the speakers have lit on the issue of lack of data. It occurs to me that a lack of data indicates something of a shortfall in interest among the policy makers on the impact of the policy that they are making. Like much that relates to the immigration system, this amendment is about humanity and common sense: common sense because of the important public health argument about ensuring that people are not prone to disease that can be prevented and that children are fed well enough to be educated and to grow into good citizens, and humanity for obvious reasons.

Hard cases are not to be excluded when we think about policy; they have to be considered to bring attention to bad law. I do not think that the taxpayer is a single cohesive figure. Taxpayers have a wide range of views and there are quite a lot among us who would like to see our taxes spent differently and better. If that means more tax being raised, that is a price that we understand we have to pay.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would prevent regulations being made under Clause 4 until the Secretary of State had provided legislative measures to ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals in the UK are not subject to no recourse to public funds. This includes repealing or amending relevant no recourse to public funds provisions in the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I assume this means any regulations under Clause 4 and not just regulations relating to no recourse to public funds.

We had an amendment in Committee that would have had the effect of not applying the no recourse to public funds rules during the current Covid-19 pandemic, and then until such time as Parliament decides. To keep the amendment within the scope of the Bill it applied only to EEA and Swiss nationals. We have been calling since April for no recourse to public funds to be suspended for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. We asked the Government to lift no recourse to public funds as a condition on a person’s migration status to ensure that nobody was left behind in the public health effort undertaken in the fight against the coronavirus. In June, the Home Affairs and Work and Pensions Select Committees recommended that the Government should “immediately suspend NRPF” for the duration of the pandemic on public health grounds. The Work and Pensions Committee said:

“As a result of the no recourse to public funds condition, many hardworking and law-abiding people are being left without a social safety net and at risk of destitution and homelessness.”


Our amendment found no favour with the Government —as, indeed, may prove to be the case with every amendment on this Bill, with the exception of perhaps just one. As set out in Hansard, I asked—as did my noble friend Lady Lister—for some numbers in relation to no recourse to public funds. The Minister said they were not part of published statistics, but that Home Office analysts were looking at the data to determine what figures could be produced. As has been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it said “reduced” in Hansard, but it has now been confirmed that it should have said “produced”. Whatever the situation, it would be very helpful if the Minister could say exactly when the Home Office analysts expect to complete the exercise that they are undertaking in relation to figures, information and data available.

This amendment goes further than our amendment in Committee on no longer applying NRPF, in that it does not relate only to the period of the pandemic and does not leave it for Parliament to decide if and when its terms are no longer to apply. Like the noble Baroness, I await the Government’s response.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I put my name to the amendment on behalf of these Benches. To be saying at this stage—three months from the end of the transition period and very close to the practicable end date of the negotiations—that our draft agreement is still on the table, as was said at the previous stage, feels like a denial of reality, and I follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in that comment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I will be interested to know the up-to-date position.

Certainly a prudent Government would look for a mechanism to plug the gap, as the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, said, in case the draft slips off the table or is just not picked up—and this is the mechanism. I am very glad to support it, as I did in Committee when I too had an amendment on family reunion. At that stage, the Minister said that the Government had acted in good faith and that she hoped that the EU would do the same. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I cannot say that I regard the draft agreement as adequate. The principal obligations are not obligations—they are discretionary—but, whoever should take the blame for the stalemate, we must not let asylum seekers be the losers by being caught in the middle. They are not illegal, not unless and until their claim is refused.

This is likely not to be the first time that I will be taking a different view from the Minister about pull factors, especially when the push factors are so significant.

Of course we agree on the importance of safe and legal routes. That is the most important thing. Our view is that what is safest is to provide legal routes and deprive criminals of the opportunity to exploit people. It may be that our routes to that differ somewhat—perhaps they are not the means that the Home Secretary is considering—but that is not really for today. As has been said, our current rules are inadequate. The Government refer to that well-known paragraph 319X of the rules as providing the route that allows children to join relatives recognised as refugees, but the scope is very narrow, there are many restrictions and substantial fees are payable. As I understand it, the data does not separate out the categories or the basis of application, and those who take that route are included in the Home Office’s figures with other routes. Including all those routes, there were only 30 successful applications in 2018 and 54 in 2019. It is certainly not an adequate substitute for a successfully negotiated agreement on family reunion or a change in the UK’s rules, at least until an agreement or agreements are negotiated, as the amendment provides.

Working with the UNHCR and resettling people from the Middle East is not something we want to see replaced. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others referred to the numbers in this plight across the world. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, we cannot take everyone but we can play our part. It seems to us that it is a policy decision for the Government whether to make it an “and” rather than an alternative.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, unless action is taken now, the arrival of 2021 will see child refugees in Europe lose safe and legal routes to the UK since neither a right to family reunion nor access to the Dubs scheme, under which lone children had a legal route to sanctuary in the UK, will then be available. Family reunion under Dublin III regulations is currently the only available legal pathway to reach the UK from the EU for the purposes of claiming asylum. That pathway will no longer exist after the end of the Brexit transition period in three months’ time.

The Government gave assurances to Parliament at the beginning of this year that they would protect family reunion for unaccompanied children. The Government have since removed any mandatory requirement to facilitate family reunions, making it simply discretionary. Including the terms of Amendment 15 in the Bill will ensure that routes to safety through family reunion and relocation remain, which means that families can reunite and children can reach safety.

Between 2009 and 2014, before mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK, for both children and adults, were carried out at an average rate of 11 people annually. Between 2016 and 2018, after mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK were carried out at an average rate of just under 550 people annually, which strongly indicates that families remain separated without mandatory requirements on government to facilitate family reunions. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, the figures also suggest that the numbers involved under a mandatory requirement are very small, certainly compared with the hundreds of thousands of people whom this Government, without any free movement requirement to do so, do not have any issues with freely allowing to come to this country each year from outside the EU.

As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said, research has shown that of the 12,000 unaccompanied children granted asylum by the UK over the past decade, some 10,000 came to the UK by dangerous routes on lorries and small boats, probably via people smugglers, because they could not access a legal route. That lack of access to a legal route is going to become absolute from the end of this year for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the consequences, in respect of risks to their safety, for those seeking to join their families and for unaccompanied children, are simply going to get even worse. Action is needed now to address the situation that is imminent. If it is put to a vote, we will support Amendment 15.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

To follow the previous speech, this may be the first time we are taking this particular car round the track but I do not think it will be the last, because this amendment is aiming

“to clarify the rights … available to EEA citizens during the ‘grace period’ under”

the recently published SI. It is about the period to the end of June 2021. I say it aims to clarify the issues but it is more about putting some issues on the table. The Minister will be able to say that the amendment is not necessary because we have already done it. I thank her or possibly him—I am peering at a computer screen—for that and for what I saw being called the “bounty” of the recently published draft SIs. I think that was a reference to their length and complexity.

The instrument in question is the draft citizens’ rights (application deadline and temporary protection) (EU exit) regulations 2020. However, I am afraid that the debate now will not be the end of it. After this debate, as well as before it, stakeholders will be grappling with the detail of it and the other published SIs. I do not regard myself as having the knowledge required to appreciate the significance of the modifications to all the provisions listed across the 14 pages of this instrument.

My first question is about the status of the draft, which has been referred to throughout as an “illustrative draft”. What does illustrative mean? Is this simply because draft statutory instruments have a formal status, while this publication has not reached that status?

Exactly who is protected by the grace period provisions? Is it only those exercising treaty rights by the end of 2020, while, for instance, people who are self-sufficient and without comprehensive sickness insurance—what might better be called in this country private health insurance—are not covered? When the 2020 withdrawal Act was going through Parliament, there were clear assurances that everyone eligible for status via the EU settled status scheme would be protected during the grace period. The Minister will appreciate the importance of the issue: protection is not to be withdrawn from those currently eligible otherwise than through treaty rights who have not applied by the end of the year. In previous debates, I raised the importance of information being not just available but actively provided to those who are affected, in the context of who will be applying after next June. If this SI is to restrict applications, the matter is really very urgent.

The Minister, Kevin Foster, said that the regulations would be

“debated and made in good time prior to their entry into force at the end of the transition period.”—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, 16/6/20; col. 191.]

I am sure noble Lords will understand that what is “in good time” for the Home Office could be very last minute for the individuals affected.

Will the Minister comment on one of the draft illustrative regulations? Regulation 7 in Schedule 1 to the 2016 regulations, which this modifies, acknowledges the discretion of member states

“acting within parameters set by the EU Treaties”

in taking a decision conducive to the public good. This discretion will become:

“acting within parameters set by the law, to define its own standards of public policy and public security, for purposes tailored to its individual context from time to time.”

I will not go down the route of saying that this is quite topical, given both the political and politico-legal debate that is going on, but I am sure the Minister will understand that there is a worry about moving the goalposts.

Will the Minister agree to meet parliamentarians if necessary—I understand there is a similar concern in the Commons—and for officials to be able to meet stakeholders, and the legal experts who are advising them, who are considering this draft and the other draft published at the same time? They are concerned, and they need the time. I ask that knowing that there is the opportunity for the Government to withdraw a published draft and reissue it, but it is always much easier, because of how human beings behave—they do not like to be thought to be backing down, and so on—to have the conversations before the final form is published, when it will be that much more difficult to withdraw.

My amendment provides the opportunity to make those requests for what I am sure could be productive discussions with people who are not in the Chamber at the moment and who will have other points they could usefully make. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We had a short debate on this issue when we debated Amendment 52, and I raised one or two questions about the draft SI, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, is called the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. One of the questions I raised, to which I do not think I had an answer, related to Regulation 13, which states:

“Where any question arises as to whether a person is or was lawfully resident in the United Kingdom at a particular point in time … it is for the individual in question to prove that they were”.


I asked in what situation the Government expect that people would have to prove their ongoing status; how they envisage people will do this, in the sense of what documentation they might need, for example; and, crucially, what support there would be for a person who found themselves in this situation and who might well in fact be perfectly lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.

I share the view that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, expressed, that we need an opportunity for discussion of the provisions of the draft SI, and that it is a fairly complex process. At this stage, I have two further questions. First, are there any EEA citizens, and their families, resident in the UK by the end of the transition period whose full existing rights are not going to be protected during the grace period through secondary legislation made under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020? Secondly, will the Minister spell out precisely whose full existing rights are protected by the draft SI?

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 14th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have my name to this amendment on behalf of our Benches. The subject matter of this amendment, and that of later Amendment 62, are very close. Amendment 62 is about family reunion, and the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, in particular, referred to that. It will not escape the Committee that there is a particularly persuasive factor to Amendment 48, and that it is led by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose track record in leading the House on issues relating to refugees, particularly child refugees, is second to none.

I do not want to repeat points that have been made about push and pull factors, or about children’s experiences. I am very clear about the moral issues that have been referred to. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has rightly reminded the House, the Government has not done nothing. It will, however, be hearing the call to do more.

I want to make some technical points. Ministers tell us they are working hard—I do not mean to impugn anything there—to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are looked after in the best possible way after we leave the Dublin regulations. As we have heard, they have referred to the draft negotiating document, the draft working text for an agreement between the EU and the UK on the transfer of these children, but there are two problems. First, there is nothing firm about that text: member states “may” make a request to transfer a child, and the UK “may” make a request to member states. Secondly, the EU has no mandate to negotiate on behalf of member states on this. To deal with the latter first, the Security and Justice Sub-Committee of the House’s Select Committee on the European Union took evidence on the text in July from witnesses, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and Professor Elspeth Guild, who explained the position to us. In the political declaration of last October, which is the basis for the commission’s negotiations—it has been given a mandate to negotiate on that basis—there was only one section on what is called illegal migration, which in turn is the basis for a draft agreement. That provides for co-operation to cover only three subject areas which do not include this issue.

When I first read the political declaration I wondered whether illegal migration covered refugees at all because they are not illegal, but since one of the three issues is tackling problems upstream, that suggests that refugees come within it. However, I will not challenge a professor of law with posts at two prestigious institutions, and I follow her argument. The EU has no mandate in negotiations, but that is not the end of it. The UK cannot negotiate an agreement member state by member state, because this is, counter-intuitively in view of what I have said, a fully exercised competence of the EU, so it is not open to member states to negotiate with the UK. It is counter-intuitive and a Catch-22 situation. Professor Guild said:

“The idea that we would be able to negotiate with each member state an equivalent of Article 6 of the Dublin regulations seems to me … astonishingly naive.”


It would need a lot of political will on all sides to sort this out through the UK-EU negotiations. We are all aware that matters are somewhat tense—would that be the right description? I, like others, am not optimistic about a positive outcome.

In January 2019, when the House was considering this issue, the Minister wrote to noble Lords that:

“negotiations ahead can be carried out with full flexibility and in an appropriate manner across all policy areas”,

referring to

“the traditional division between Government and Parliament”.

Given what we all know, or maybe do not know but suspect, about what is going on, is it wise to rely on the possibility of negotiation?

Apart from the principle, there are some shortcomings in the draft text of the provisions: the “may”, not “must”. It also says that no rights can be directly invoked in the domestic legal systems of the parties. That alone would make it hard to go along with the text. However, we can sort this out in domestic law, hence the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has been as persuasive as ever. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has been clear about channel crossings. I will not go on; I agree with pretty much everything—possibly everything—that has been said. Immigration Bills come along quite frequently, but we should not wait for the next one. The amendment is not a big ask; its objective, in proposed new subsection (5), is clear, but it requires strategy and clarity about reaching that objective. Crucially, it refers to the “child’s best interests”. We should take this opportunity to provide this safe and legal route for children.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 48 provides that the only existing legal route, which is under the Dublin III convention, for asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children, to join family in the UK would remain operational after the end of the transition period. It also requires the Secretary of State to lay a strategy before Parliament to ensure that unaccompanied children continue to be relocated to the UK if it is in the child’s best interest. Family reunion under the Dublin III convention will no longer apply after the end of the transition period, in just over three months’ time. That means that vulnerable child refugees seeking to join relatives in the UK will no longer have this, or any other, safe route to our country, unless—which looks increasingly unlikely—there is a deal with the EU before the end of the transition period, which incorporates an alternative family reunion arrangement.

The Government have previously given assurances that they would protect family reunion for unaccompanied children. However, the UK’s draft proposal for a replacement to family reunion no longer includes mandatory requirements on the Government to facilitate such reunions. Instead, it makes a child’s right to join their relatives discretionary and, on top of that, abolishes a child’s right to appeal against a refusal. Vulnerable refugees, including accompanied children and adults, would lose access to family reunion entirely. The evidence indicates that, without a mandatory requirement, family reunions will, to all intents and purposes, end, which may be the intention behind the Government’s draft proposal.

For the five years before mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, from 2009 to 2014, family reunions of children and adults to the UK averaged just 11 people annually. After mandatory provisions were introduced by Dublin III, family reunions to the UK averaged nearly 550 people annually. Significantly more than 11, but not a significant number in itself, compared with the overall net migration figure of some 200,000 plus. Without a mandatory requirement, children are likely to remain stranded in Europe indefinitely; alternatively, some may risk the more hazardous routes, involving crossing the Channel in small boats or a lorry in an attempt to reach family members.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, some years ago I chaired some work on the minimum income requirement affecting British people who, as has been said, never thought that they would be affected by their own country’s immigration laws.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned someone from south Wales. I encountered someone from south Wales, David, whose second wife was a teacher from Canada—I do not think that you can get more respectable than being a teacher from Canada. By his first marriage he had a disabled daughter. Had he been able to bring his wife to the UK to share the care of his daughter, that, among other things, would have saved the state a lot of money. Instead, he had to limit the amount of work and the kind of work that he did and so did not meet the minimum income requirement. She was appallingly treated. I do not believe people in British society would support this, were they to know about it. Many do not until they are brought up against it personally. I have long thought that the answer to all this will be found only when a son or daughter of a Cabinet Minister finds himself or herself in this situation.

The focus at that time was largely on spouse visas and what can be taken into account in calculating incomes. That has been changed somewhat, but the issue remains. The rules about leave to enter for an individual’s parents are so harsh that they really amount to saying, “You need to be so much in need of care and support that you probably would not be fit to travel.”

The reality of this is striking home, as noble Lords have said. One of my noble friends received a letter, which she passed on to me at the weekend, from a UK citizen who has found herself in this situation. I shall read some short extracts: “As someone who married a non-UK EU national in the UK but then moved to his country to live as his parents were already elderly, never was it in my worst nightmares that I would not be able to do the same and I might be forced to choose between caring for him and caring for my mother. When I left, returning was always an option, as I work remotely, to be able to return to care for my parents. My parents are now on the brink of their eighth decade. My mother has lung issues. My father has prostate cancer. It is inevitable that I will want and need to return at some point. What child does not want to care for their parents themselves?”

She goes on: “I and many of the more than 1 million UK citizens living in the EU will not have that right. If we do not return before the end of 2022, our fate will become income-dependent. How is it conceivable that the British Government’s approach involves discrimination against its own citizens? Surely, the family is as sacrosanct in the UK as in the rest of Europe.” I am pleased, from our Benches, to support this amendment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare a family interest in the issue raised by the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, the wording in the Bill means that British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA while we were a member will lose their right to return to this country—their country of birth—with a non-British partner or children unless they can satisfy financial conditions that many may well find difficult or impossible to meet. Amendment 23, to which I am a signatory, seeks to address this situation.

I do not wish to repeat the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, in moving this amendment. I agree with everything that he said. I hope that as well as responding to the arguments that he made, the Minister will also comment on his point that the change is, in effect, retrospective, since it is our country and our Government who are changing the rules that apply to our citizens on this issue. When they made their personal decisions to move to the EU or EEA, the rules, as they currently apply, may well have been a factor in making that decision; it is our Government who are now apparently seeking to change those rules.

No doubt the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will also comment on a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. He said that it appears that the new UK rules that will apply to British citizens in the situation that we are talking about will be much tougher in their terms than those that apply to EU citizens with settled status in respect of their ability to bring their dependants to join them in the UK. No doubt the Minister will confirm, in the Government’s reply, whether that is the case.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 7th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we on these Benches—I am on them virtually—make no bones about how much we oppose the ending of free movement. That includes both welcoming EEA citizens—the collective term which includes the Swiss for this purpose—and their families to live and work in the UK, and the equal and opposite right for British citizens in the EU. For myself, it offends my politics, my emotions, my values, my logic and, you might say, my whole outlook on life. However, I will endeavour to keep my remarks within the scope of the Bill and not to seek to reopen what has irreversibly been decided—although “irreversible” may have gained a new definition overnight—nor do I want to make a Second Reading speech.

What is relevant is that the Bill does not set out what will be in place of the current arrangements. Like the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding the importance of the integrity of the system. We might want different systems, but what we have should be robust.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord spoke in terms of enforcement—a term used in the amendment. I prefer to talk in more inclusive rather than exclusive terms. She talked about so many of the issues that we are addressing now, or failing to address. One must use the opportunity to say that the best way to address them is to create safe and legal routes to the UK. I do not want to divert on to the wider question of those who seek sanctuary, but I have to disagree with her approach and some of the language that she used.

By no means all of the new, much-heralded immigration system which will apply to EU citizens is yet in the public domain. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to UK citizens in the EU; he may see that Amendment 23, which we will come to later, may give us more of an opportunity to discuss their position. When the system is in the public domain, however, we will not be able to rely on it in the same way as we can rely on primary legislation because of the flexibility—would that be a polite word?—provided by the Bill. So much of our system is contained in rules which Parliament cannot realistically amend, and indeed often it takes an awful lot of background knowledge and experience, application and concentration to understand those rules. It is no wonder that the Government had some years ago to require a particular level of expertise to advise on immigration. The rules are difficult for most of us—other noble Lords may say that they waltz through them with no difficulty; I do not—and they are often impenetrable to those directly affected. I have too often heard Ministers say, “It is on GOV.UK.” That is not everyone’s bedtime reading. Indeed, however detailed the rules and however much they flesh out the Bill, it remains a skeleton.

My noble friend Lady Ludford and I have three amendments in this group, all to Schedule 1. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the coy but comatose draftsman—I may use that term on other occasions—and my noble friend Lord Beith asked an important question about what instructions had been given to the draftsmen and draftswomen. After all, the responsibility lies with Ministers.

Amendments 4 and 5 take out some of the most offensive words in Schedule 1, which I do not think I need to read into the record again, as others have referred to them. They are wide and imprecise; there are references to “application or operation of” provisions, and

“otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration.”

If any of your Lordships on Opposition Benches were to produce amendments using that sort of terminology, we would quite rapidly be shot down, and rightly so, by the Government Front Bench.

A lot of functions are connected with immigration, and we will come on later to employment, renting property —the rest of the hostile environment. There are also all sorts of functions which I would accept are necessary but which I would not want brought within the repeal of

“rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures”,

to which Section 1 applies.

Amendment 6 in our names would add words to the schedule by not applying it to rights which do not arise under an EU directive. Directives which do not relate to immigration include, in our view: the protection for victims of trafficking in the anti-trafficking directive—there is an amendment specifically on that—the protection for asylum seekers in the reception conditions directive 2013/33, and the protection for victims of crime in the EU victims’ rights directive 2012/29. We do not suggest that we believe that these protections are at risk, but we do not know. If the Bill remains as it is when it becomes an Act, the only way to know for certain is to test the matter in the courts. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was critical in the context of removals from this country of applications to the courts. However, that is what they are there for, and they are applying law that has been made by Parliament, or by Ministers subject to the rather inadequate scrutiny that parliamentarians are able to give them.

On Amendment 6—this is something that has been identified by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned the comments on the Bill by its chair, Adrian Berry—the protections are potentially at risk as what the association describes as “collateral damage”. We hope that they do not fall within the scope of the Bill, but I think it is a matter for the Government to explain what the position is. This is all about the lack of clarity, the bad rule-making, to which other noble Lords have referred, all offensive to the rule of law.

To return to the first amendment in this group, I welcome reports to Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny. I am hesitant to criticise or comment on the wording of the clause, having learned from the noble Baroness that the clerks were involved in crafting it, but I am not sure that the provisions of Schedule 1 are correctly described as enforceable. A provision within six months would take us beyond the end of the year. However, I should not carp about that sort of detail because, whatever the language, I understand that the supporters of Amendment 1 are seeking to ensure that free movement ends and that Parliament is told how. We have made our views about the first part of that very clear.

Before I finish, I want to mention the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I thought the points made by noble Lords were very telling regarding the reference to soft power. I was reminded of listening to the European Union Youth Orchestra a couple of years ago in Edinburgh. That was a very special experience and it rather goes to why we are so distressed by what we are having to go along with in the Bill.

I think I have said enough not to have to refer specifically to our opposition to Amendment 1.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to address the issue of the lack of clarity in the Bill, not least in Schedule 1. I am sure we have reached the stage now where noble Lords want to hear the Government’s response. I wish to comment briefly on three of the amendments in this group, although all of them raise issues of significance, as my noble friend Lord Adonis has said. That has become clear from noble Lords’ contributions, even though noble Lords have not all been coming from the same direction.

Three days ago, we were sent a letter from the Government sharing illustrative drafts of regulations that they propose to make under the powers in Clause 4 of the Bill. One wonders why at least some of the terms of these draft regulations could not now be or already have been incorporated in the Bill and thus be open to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Schedule 1 revokes Article 1 of the EU workers regulation, which provides freedom-of-movement rights. Paragraph 4(2) of that schedule provides that other parts of the workers regulation cease to apply so far as they are

“inconsistent with any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts”

or

“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any such provision”.

This is a very broad drafting. Amendment 3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke with his usual considerable authority, would remove paragraph 4(2), as it is so broad and lacks clarity. We share the concern that that amendment seeks to address.

No doubt the Minister, in giving the Government’s reply, will be giving a pretty comprehensive list of examples of how and why, in the Government’s view, other parts of the workers regulation might credibly become, first, inconsistent with provisions made by the Immigration Acts and, secondly, capable of affecting provisions made by or under the Immigration Acts.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The Windrush scandal is a national cause of shame, and the Wendy Williams review exposed the callousness and incompetence that caused such deep injustice. The Windrush generation and their families have made an enormous contribution to every aspect of our national life since the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” 72 years ago. However, many faced appalling racism, extending beyond abuse to a lack of fair access to the basic necessities of life, including housing and jobs. The Williams review has brought home the extent to which these issues, and the associated deep injustice, remain; injustices that have been highlighted by Black Lives Matter.

The Home Secretary has said that the Government are accepting all 30 recommendations in the Williams review, but we will have to wait until nearer the Summer Recess to find out how, and over what timescale, the Government intend to implement them. At the moment we are still at the stage of words, not actions, from the Government, which still have other reports, including the David Lammy review, on which they have so far failed to act. This Government are quick to set up reviews and working groups, but slow to act on findings and slow to right the wrongs identified.

In her Statement, the Home Secretary informs us that she has established another cross-government working group to address the challenges faced by the Windrush generation and their descendants. How does this further working group relate to the

“expanded cross-government Windrush working group, which will take a strategic view of a range of issues relating to Windrush and wider race inequalities”—[Official Report, 6/5/20; col. 551.]

announced by the Home Secretary on 19 March this year, to which the Minister made reference during our debate on the Windrush compensation scheme on 6 May?

On 6 May, the Minister, on behalf of the Government, said that the Home Office estimate was that the Windrush compensation scheme would cost between £90 million and £250 million, based on 11,500 eligible claims. At £250 million, that works out at just below £22,000 per head, and at £90 million, it works at below £8,000 per head. Is that still the Government’s estimate of the number of eligible claims, and is that still the Government’s estimate of the cost of the scheme? If it is, do the Government believe that an average compensation settlement, on the Government’s figures, of somewhere between less than £8,000 and just below £22,000 represents a fair figure in the light of Wendy Williams’s words that:

“The many stories of injustice and hardship are heartbreaking, with jobs lost, lives uprooted and untold damage done to so many individuals and families … They had no reason to doubt their status, or that they belonged in the UK”?


The impact assessment for the Windrush compensation scheme says:

“The Government will also mitigate the risk of litigation and associated legal costs, which is likely to be more expensive than compensation through the scheme.”


In other words, the Government also regard the Windrush compensation scheme as likely to save them money. Could the Minister clarify whether accepting an offer of compensation under the scheme also means that the claimant can no longer take legal proceedings against the Government on this issue?

There is provision for an independent review by an HMRC adjudicator where a claimant is not satisfied with the outcome of their claim. Can the Minister confirm what appears to be the case—namely, that the Home Office can choose to reject the recommendation of an independent review?

The Government also said in the debate on the Windrush compensation scheme last month that

“the award levels take into account existing precedents and ombudsman-recommended payments.”—[Official Report, 6/5/20; col. 548.]

What are the existing precedents, bearing in mind the way the Windrush generation were treated over so many years and the damning findings and words of Wendy Williams? Also, which ombudsman’s recommended payments were being referred to?

The progress in dealing with claims to date has been painfully slow. Apparently just 60 people were granted compensation in the first year of the scheme’s operation. The Home Secretary declines to apologise for the delay, but rather accepts it and simply implies that the pace is now increasing. Can the Minister say how many staff are involved in processing claims, expressed in full-time equivalents, and whether any of this work has been outsourced? The number of those who have received payment is small compared with the Government’s estimate of eligible claims. Does the Minister think that the number of claims to date reflects a lack of confidence in a Home Office that Wendy Williams said showed “a lack of empathy”?

Can the Minister say what the average compensation payment to date has been? How many claimants have referred their claim to an independent reviewer? In how many cases has as an independent reviewer recommended a change to the original decision? Have such recommendations all been accepted in full by the Home Office?

The Home Secretary has said that she will come back to Parliament before the Summer Recess to provide an update on how the Government will implement all the Williams review’s recommendations. That will be an opportunity for the Government to show that they recognise that the time for action is now. Not to do that would be to fail the Windrush generation yet again. I accept that I have asked a number of specific questions in response to the Statement. I would appreciate being given the information I seek and will be happy to accept a written response to the specific questions that cannot be responded to today.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, one of the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ review is that the Home Office

“devise, implement and review a comprehensive learning and development programme which makes sure all its existing and new staff learn about the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world, including Britain’s colonial history, the history of inward and outward migration and the history of black Britons.”

I was struck by that when I read the review and three months on it has even greater resonance. I readily acknowledge that I am someone with gaping holes in her education that need to be filled. I, for one, need to learn what I need to learn, in the widest sense. It is not only Home Office staff who need that learning.

We all know the importance of leadership. The Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary are reviewing Home Office leadership and culture. Can the Minister tell the House whether this has external facilitation? Does it cover the whole of the Home Office?

The Home Secretary says in her Statement:

“I have apologised for the appalling treatment suffered”.


A sincere apology is not something made and then done with; it must be constant and its sincerity demonstrated by action. The Statement later refers to the challenges faced by the Windrush generation and their descendants. It is wider than that. As Wendy Williams wrote in her first recommendation:

“The sincerity of this apology will be determined by how far the Home Office demonstrates a commitment to learn from its mistakes by making fundamental changes to its culture and way of working, that are both systemic and sustainable.”


Her seventh recommendation, which follows seamlessly, is for

“a full review … of the hostile/compliant environment policy and measures—individually and cumulatively.”

It should be scrupulous,

“designed in partnership with external experts and published in a timely way.”

That policy, whatever it is called—the hostile or compliant environment policy—is far-reaching and callous. It is racist.

The National Audit Office, in December 2018, commented on the department still showing a lack of curiosity about individuals who may have been affected and who are not of Caribbean heritage, on the basis that this would be a “disproportionate effort”. “In the circumstances”, the NAO reported, “we find this surprising”.

We all need to exercise our imagination and put ourselves in other people’s shoes when we consider what actions we may take, so I am pleased to hear that the Home Secretary will be accepting Wendy Williams’ 30 recommendations in full. I do not know whether there is any significance in the future tense “will be accepting”. We look forward to their implementation and to tangible outcomes.

When we first debated the report, I acknowledged that not all the implementation could be immediate. I also acknowledge that claims made to the compensation scheme must be considered and assessed. After all, some claimants may be claiming too little. But that does not mean that every “i” must be dotted and every “t” crossed before any payment is made.

The Statement refers to the urgent and exceptional payments scheme. I will resist going down the road of exploring whether the whole situation, and the claims, are exceptional, and whether they are urgent, given the age and current situation of many if not most of the claimants, brought about by their experiences, but I will ask the Minister whether the 35 payments totalling over £46,000 made to the end of March are the same as the

“many interim and exceptional payments”

that

“have been made to make sure that people have access … to the funds they need now”.

The figures seem woefully small. Does the Minister have more up-to-date figures? We are used to reporting by government on a three-monthly basis and reasonably so, but I would have thought in this case that Ministers would have wanted to see how payments are going month by month, in respect of every category of payment.

I will also ask the Minister about further offers. I cannot make the amounts mentioned add up to anywhere near “over £1 million”. Can she break that figure down? Can she explain “offered”? That suggests conditionality. Are claimants expected to agree that an offer is accepted in full and final settlement? If so, what advice can they access before doing so, and is this in the spirit of the apology?

The Home Secretary said she

“simply will not call for targets.”

I agree that these are “personal” and “individual” cases, as she said—or, indeed personal and individual people—to be treated with care and respect. However, I have asked in a Question for Written Answer—it was only last week, so I am not accusing the Minister of being slow in responding—what the Government’s targets are for the number of claims settled in full and the number of interim awards made within different periods after the commencement of the scheme. Sometimes there is a place for targets, and stretch targets at that. To aim high in paying what must for many must be much-needed cash is, in my view, one of those targets.

Finally, the Home Secretary is committed to ensuring that the Home Office delivers

“for each part of the community it serves”.

That is all of us, not only those with whom it has direct contact, but those on whose behalf it acts. We would all like to feel it acted in our name.

Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing our thanks to our Border Force staff for their tremendous work, which is sometimes overlooked, in keeping our country safe. Regulations were laid yesterday to bring in the measures announced in the Home Secretary’s Statement in respect of the 14-day self-isolation period for people coming into this country, as from next Monday. There is no impact assessment with the regulations, which is due, we are told, to the rush with which they are being introduced. This is despite the fact that the Prime Minister gave notice of these quarantine measures nearly four weeks ago in his televised address to the nation. Surely the Government are not bringing in such a significant measure without providing some meaningful information on both the expected and presumably favourable impact they will have on the number of new Covid-19 cases coming into this country and their expected economic impact on the airline, travel, tourism and hospitality sectors, including on jobs. Can the Government now provide the meaningful information they have on these two aspects that led them to the conclusion that introducing these particular measures was imperative?

In the Statement, the Home Secretary said:

“Some have suggested that public health measures at the border should have been introduced when the virus was at its peak. However, at that time, the scientific advice was clear that such measures would have made little difference when domestic transmission was widespread.”


Actually, people like myself were not suggesting that sensible screening measures at the borders should have been introduced when the virus was at its peak, as the Home Secretary claimed and when no doubt the scientific advice was that that was a bit late. What was being called for was for such measures to be taken before the virus had really taken hold and the figures were low, yet when we were well aware of the extent of the problems already building up elsewhere in other countries, including in Europe. We did a limited amount of quarantining at first, but then it stopped. Now we are told that it is necessary. Given that, why was it stopped when large numbers of people continued to enter this country, certainly prior to our lockdown? Why is it necessary now, when other countries are beginning to ease their restrictions, if it was not necessary much earlier?

There was always one significant way that the virus was going to get into our country, and that was from people, or goods, arriving from or who had been to destinations that already had it. There must be a strong suspicion that, as with PPE and with testing and tracing, the measures were not in place when they should have been because the Government were caught unprepared and were too slow. As a result, the capacity to introduce and apply appropriate measures was just not there when it was really needed.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary was asked by the shadow Home Secretary to make available the scientific evidence on which the measures announced in the Statement was based. I am now asking the Minister to give that commitment on behalf of the Government when she responds. It is not enough to say that scientific advice will be published in due course. Information and evidence must be available already, otherwise how could the Government’s decision to introduce the self-isolation measures from next Monday have been based on scientific advice? I assume that these measures now have the wholehearted approval of SAGE, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.

The regulations have a sunset provision after 12 months and will be reviewed by the Secretary of State at least once every 21 days, with the first review on 29 June. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Government, give a commitment that they will now come back to Parliament before the end of that initial three-week window on 29 June to outline the Government’s proposed exit strategy from these measures and provide a comprehensive plan of support for all the jobs that are now even more at risk? Will she also give a commitment, on behalf of the Government, that there will be an Oral Statement to Parliament on each review date of the requirements in the regulations, so that the Government can advise Parliament of the outcome of the Secretary of State’s reviews and Parliament can question the reasons for any decisions made or not made?

Turning to the Explanatory Memorandum that relates to the SI affecting passengers arriving in England, paragraph 6.12 states:

“People who temporarily cross over the border from Wales or Scotland into England for a reason falling within these exceptions do not have to self-isolate … This is not applicable in relation to Northern Ireland which does not share a land border with England.”


Will the Minister spell out in a bit more detail precisely what this means in practice for Northern Ireland compared with Wales or Scotland? Why, if it is the case that Northern Ireland is being treated differently under these regulations from Wales or Scotland, is this necessary and unavoidable?

Finally, where does responsibility for the implementation of these regulations lie? I ask because the Home Secretary made the Statement in the Commons yesterday and our Home Office Minister in the Lords is responding today. However, the regulations implementing these measures are in the name of the Health Secretary. I know the Government are very keen to tell us that everything is dealt with on a cross-government basis, but where does responsibility lie for the implementation and operation of these measures? Is it with the Home Secretary, the Health Secretary, another Cabinet Minister—perhaps the Transport Secretary—or the Prime Minister? If things go right with these measures, and it is in the interests of the country that they do, we do not want to watch everyone in government trying to claim credit. If things go wrong, we do not want to witness an unseemly exercise in buck-passing.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I would prefer to look forward, but I cannot avoid putting this measure into the context of current public attitudes. This is not just about quarantine; it is about how much confidence the public have in what the Government say and in what they tell us to do. There is a widespread view that these quarantine measures are unenforceable, and an even wider view that the Government have lost touch with reality. Today, the Prime Minister, in the vaccine summit, is urging the world to act collaboratively. Has it not occurred to the Government that, given our high rates of infection compared with many—probably most —of the countries to which people from the UK wish to travel, and to which they will therefore return, the risks to those countries are greater than to the UK? Last Friday, the UK had more deaths than the whole of the EU and EEA in total. Sir Patrick Vallance yesterday summed up what the public are thinking.

We have had monitoring and triaging at the border. Will that apply to those exempt from quarantine? I am interested to know from the Minister when the Government will publish in full the advice they have received, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just referred, and the extent of consultation with stakeholders, including those who can reliably advise on the availability of tracking, tracing and testing.

Regarding enforcement, what discretion will there be on the level of fine and how will it be enforced when the recipient has returned abroad? We have just heard the Statement on the aviation industry, so I am not glossing over the issues with that by making just two points. Is progress being made in thinking about moves towards reducing damage to the environment by frequent flying? And, more immediately, how will the—presumably socially distanced—queues at the border be handled? We have seen images of Tuesday’s queues of MPs unencumbered by luggage, although possibly encumbered by baggage. Can the Government tell noble Lords the level of holiday bookings in place through to September? They must have talked to the industry.

It is not open to many people to take a holiday and then a period of isolation, so people must be cancelling. Many will have travel insurance. What do the insurers have to say about meeting claims on that basis? I hope that the Minister will not say that this depends on the detail of each policy. It is a wider point. I say that because I know that, in a different sector, there has been resistance to paying out when the insured thought that they had all the right cover.

I particularly want to ask about business travel. I had seen no comment on this until Mrs May’s observation yesterday that

“international air travel is necessary for trade; without it, there is no global Britain.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/20; col. 850.]

There must be many people who, as part of their work, come and go between the UK, France, Belgium and further afield on a frequent basis. Of course, there is also travel for family reasons. There are people who work in the UK in large or small microbusinesses but whose home is in France, and vice versa, or who work in both countries but not on a regular basis of at least once a week, as the statutory instrument envisages. Why not have an exemption for people who travel irregularly and less frequently? Would that not actually give more of a chance for an infection to show itself? We heard in the previous Statement that there is no minimum period for a stay abroad, even if it is a couple of hours.

Is there any exemption for people who need to travel for international humanitarian purposes? I do not mean health workers coming to the UK. I did find it ironic to read that services to ensure the continued operation of the aviation industry are exempt. What estimate is there—I particularly want the Minister to share this with noble Lords—of the numbers of people exempted through the 12 pages of categories scheduled to the SI? What guidance will be published on matters such as travel to and from airports, or, given the restrictions on the hospitality industry, finding a hotel in which to self-isolate? The Home Secretary said yesterday that this would be in advance of 8 June; well, it would have to be. What assessment has been made of the likely transmission from those who are exempt, as compared with the extent of transmission if there were no restriction?

People need to plan ahead as far as they can in uncertain times. The quarantine measures are to be reviewed in three weeks. I end specifically by urging the Government to reconsider that period and to apply a serious—not tick-box—weekly review, and, generally, by urging clarity and coherence.

Immigration: Points-based System

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made yesterday in the House of Commons. In their separate policy statement, the Government said that the points system set out in the Statement the Minister has just repeated will reduce overall levels of migration, without telling us what reduction is expected. That leads one to suspect that this policy statement is a continuation of the Government’s policy of talking big, in their eyes, about reducing migration to satisfy their own anti-immigration constituency, when the reality is the exact opposite.

Over the last decade, we have been told by the Government of their determination to reduce net migration. For many years, their objective was to bring it down to the tens of thousands. Net migration actually went up under Conservative Governments over the last decade, even though the Government had control over non-EU migration which, in each and every year since 2010, has been in excess of net migration from EU countries. In 2018 non-EU net migration, over which the Government have control, was in fact three times the rate of net migration from the EU.

Are the Government now telling us that EU net migration—which I believe was about 75,000 in 2018—was made up of large numbers of people who we really do not need in this country? How many people are the Government now saying came into this country in 2018 and 2019 who they now want to stop coming in, first from EU states and secondly from non-EU states, and who will no longer be allowed in under the points system referred to in the Statement?

We have been told that a distinction will be drawn between skilled and low-skilled workers, and that points will be awarded only if a laid-down salary level, skill level and level of ability in speaking English are achieved. The idea is apparently to keep out those whom the Government deem to be low-skilled workers, who appear to include most of those working in care services, retail and hospitality, construction and agriculture, for example. What percentage of jobs in the UK do the Government consider fall into the low-skilled category referred to in the policy statement? Perhaps the Government could tell us in their response.

The Government do not really believe that the jobs they deem to be low-skilled can be filled from people already in the UK, particularly since their claim that 20% of people aged between 18 and 65, who are not in full-time work, are currently available to do these jobs has been somewhat demolished by the facts. Presumably this is why in the Statement there are significant loopholes, such as declaring shortage occupations, to get around the criteria referred to for when the Government inevitably find that labour shortages are damaging the economy and they still need those so-called low-skilled workers, just as we have up to now.

The Statement is less than clear on, for example, the detailed application of the salary thresholds, the position of the families of those coming into the country, the position of those who wish to be self-employed and the criteria for acceptance of degrees under the points system. Presumably, these are issues on which the Government intend to say more later. What is clear, though, is that this points system does not have as its primary objective bringing into the country the people needed to fill the vacancies and shortages that we need to address, as should be the case. Instead, in order to draw this distinction between skilled and low-skilled, an elaborate admissions system will be created in a short time to be administered by a resource-stripped Home Office—a recipe for error, confusion and unfairness, while many people feel somewhat dismayed by the Government’s view of the lack of importance or necessity of the much-needed jobs that they currently undertake.

I suspect the Government will soon learn that posturing with their changed immigration policy will no more work than their earlier posturing over getting net migration down to the tens of thousands. Even this Government will eventually have to recognise that the economic and social needs of the country must take priority in immigration policy. It is for that reason that the evidence suggests that a declared objective of reducing net migration by amounts as yet unstated and unknown will not be achieved by the Government’s intended points-based immigration system, any more than was the commitment to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. Only a reduction in the necessity of recruiting people from outside the UK will do that—something that I have no doubt the Government, in their heart of hearts, already know.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which included the claim that the points-based system will provide “simple and flexible arrangements”. Can they be both? To me, “flexible” suggests some sort of discretion. Or is that about the tradability of points—something on which I for one reserve judgment?

We may understand just how workable this will be when we have details, so I would like to check with the Minister whether the new arrangements will be incorporated in primary legislation, or will they be part of rules? In other words, will Parliament be able to have a good say on them? Indeed, will it mean primary legislation with wide ministerial powers to make changes? I am just checking; your Lordships understand.

Yesterday in the Commons, the Home Secretary said the Government

“will look at the labour market as a whole across key sectors.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/20; col. 44.]

Was that not done before arriving at the points-based system?

What assumptions have been made about emigration? Can the Minister confirm that there is not a pool of economically inactive people available to take up the low-skilled jobs, about which there has been much discussion? Employers have been told they will have to adjust how they operate. How have they responded?

Much has been and will be said about carers. One of those who have spoken is my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, who is in hospital at the moment but emailed me this morning saying that she is “absolutely incandescent”, so I said I would quote her email. She says:

“I am absolutely incandescent about the stupid lack of flexibility for care workers … What may not be realised is the extent to which refugee families settled here (for example from war-torn Somalia) have family members scattered all over Europe who now can travel freely here. They are hard-working carers and often regard those they care for as part of their own family. It is just so shaming that we are turning our back on such caring people, labelling them as ‘low-skilled’.”


I am sure she could have gone on, and I am sure other noble Lords can and will.

It is not possible, obviously, to mention today all the sectors that will be affected, but I want to mention the creative industries—performers and so on—because we are told there will be no change to existing routes. However, many agents and promoters have previously engaged EU performers only. They will need to get into the bureaucratic world of certificates, sponsorship and so on, and they are asking: what will be the “right talent”? I put that term in quotes, as it is the term the Government use and want to encourage. All this and more is very relevant to our economy. How easy will it be for UK creatives to work elsewhere? It will be quite reasonable for there to be reciprocity between nations; if we are negative about people coming in, it will not be surprising if others are too.

There has been much discussion about the lack of time to get the new arrangements in place. Is there any confidence, outside Government, that the changes can be coped with by the end of the year?

Finally, the Migration Advisory Committee has been very forceful about the need for good data. Its recent report says:

“Good data and evaluation are vital to ensure that effective monitoring is in place and necessary adjustments are made in a timely fashion. Without it, there is a danger that the UK, unable to learn from the past, continues to lurch between an overly open and overly closed work migration policy without ever being able to steer a steady path.”


Can the Minister comment? Good evaluation is certainly needed if the Government are to begin to counter the criticisms of what I saw yesterday in the press described as the Government’s

“self-defeating tunnel-vision, exceptionalism and xenophobia.”