Antisemitism on University Campuses

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will quickly soon turn to the topic of this vital debate, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, but I hope that noble Lords will indulge me if I make reference to our late colleague Lord Etherton, whose sad death at only 73 was announced today by the Lord Speaker.

Joshua Rozenberg reports that, when Lord Etherton gave a lecture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

“in confident, fluent Hebrew, he told the story of his grandparents, arriving in the East End of London from the pale of settlement in Russia during the early years of the 20th century only to find more antisemitism in Britain. ‘My paternal great-uncle persuaded his parents to change the family name,’ he said. ‘And so Schliama Borrenstein became Seddon Llewellyn Delroy Ryan Etherton.’”—

at least it was not Del Boy.

“His great-grandparents, he added, would have been dumbfounded to see him delivering a lecture in Israel as the second most senior judge of England and Wales”.

So we have had some great progress in our country and society, which actually makes it even more shocking that, following the horrendous terrorist attack on 7 October perpetrated against Israeli victims by Hamas, a dramatic further increase in antisemitic incidents was seen in the UK as well as elsewhere. We have heard the figures tonight given by the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, and others, recorded by the Union of Jewish Students, the Community Security Trust and the report today from StandWithUs UK—all of them very valuable.

Some of the antisemitic behaviour was associated with pro-Palestinian marches, with one of the most common forms of antisemitic harassment being students experiencing intimidation around protest events on campus. Expressions of support for Hamas and other proscribed terror organisations have been routine, with students being told, “Hamas had their reasons”, “If I was Palestinian, I would join Hamas”, and, “There is no space for Zionists on campus, not now, not ever”. Some were even told, “Your people should not be alive” —I think that by “your people” they did not mean Israelis but Jews.

There has been some criticism of the definition and examples of antisemitism produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The Jerusalem declaration was drafted in response, with the assertion that because the IHRA definition was

“unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism”.

That declaration, which has academics in UK universities as signatories, asserts that neither

“Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism”

nor supporting

“arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants ‘between the river and the sea’”,

are antisemitic. That is already arguable, but when marchers shout, “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”, this is not some calm academic dialogue about constitutional arrangements; it is an intimidating call for the destruction of the State of Israel.

The IHRA definition stresses that

“criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”,

giving ample scope for criticism of any current Government or their actions. The bottom line is that freedom of expression is not a justification for harassment and that all points of view should be able to be expressed even when there is strong political disagreement relating to Israel and the Middle East.

Can the Minister say whether her discussions with vice-chancellors will result in serious and determined action to eradicate antisemitism on campuses while championing academic freedom—including in discussing Israel, the Middle East and Gaza, which I believe is absolutely possible?

Sport: Supreme Court Ruling on Sex and Gender

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have said previously, the Supreme Court judgment provides us with some clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. The priority now is for all of us to go forward, through the Equality and Human Right Commission’s code of practice and through the way we deal with this issue, not in a spirit of looking backwards or recrimination but in a way that enables us to ensure that this judgment is properly administered and represented in the changes that are made and to ensure that everybody in this quite sensitive area is treated with decency and respect. Looking forward is important now.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking in other sectors to ensure the prompt implementation of the Supreme Court’s clear confirmation that sex in the Equality Act must mean biological sex, not gender identity? For instance, in policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council says

“we will not rush our response”,

which means in practice, police officers will still be allowed, or required, to strip search members of the public of the opposite sex to themselves. This does not require lots of practicality about implementation; this can change from one day to the next.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is right that a whole range of different organisations are currently considering their practice. The Supreme Court ruling brings clarity about the definition of sex, and it is on that basis that a whole range of organisations, including the police, should be considering what changes are necessary.

For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers: Interim Update

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I have been clear to this House, both today and last week, that the statutory code of practice that the EHRC is responsible for producing will be the legal basis on which there will be interpretation of the judgment. I welcome the noble Baroness the chair of the EHRC’s commitment to ensuring that there will be wide consultation on that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the EHRC has come under the most extraordinary and ill-informed abuse, as has its chair, personally. What more do the Government believe they can do to ensure that the independence and functions of the EHRC are properly understood?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope that I have demonstrated today that the Government does properly understand them. As I said last week, it is important that this whole debate is carried out in a spirit of understanding the complexities of the application of some of these provisions and recognition that all groups need to be able to access services, but with welcome clarity on the areas covered by the Supreme Court judgment.

“For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is clear in the Supreme Court’s judgment that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, where single-sex spaces are being provided, they will be provided on the basis of biological sex. That does not, of course, prevent the provision of inclusive services where there is clarity that those services are being provided on that basis.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad that all the main party leaders have accepted the Supreme Court judgment, including my own leader on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think it would be better if all leaders could express a welcome for the judgment itself, not just for the clarity it brings. I have two questions. How will the Government ensure not only that those single-sex facilities provided are kept single sex but also that service providers do not sidestep the provision of single-sex facilities by defaulting all the time to unisex provision? Secondly, do the Government agree that lessons need to be learned across the political spectrum about the need to safeguard all protected characteristics? If that of women—the majority of the population—can have been eroded in this way, what about all the other protected characteristics, including gender reassignment and sexual orientation, of course? How will all those be safeguarded?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s final point, as I outlined at the beginning, protecting the most vulnerable people and protecting people on the basis of their protected characteristics remain an important element of the Equality Act and an important element of this Government’s programme and ambitions.

On how the clarity that this ruling brings will be communicated to and represented by providers, this is where the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission—in particular, the updated statutory code of practice—will be enormously important. It will spell out the practical implications to ensure that the meaning and clarity of this judgment are delivered in practice, particularly, as the noble Baroness outlined, in relation to single-sex spaces and their protection. This does provide more clarity now on the provision of those single-sex spaces.

Universities: Free Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to universities following the fine imposed by the Office for Students on Sussex University for breach of free speech obligations.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the regulatory case report to which the noble Baroness referred underlines the importance of good governance and academic freedom in higher education. The Office for Students will shortly be writing to relevant providers on this important issue and offering support and advice. It will be publishing updated guidance for the higher education sector to support it to understand how to comply with its duties in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the robust backing that the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, has given to the Office for Students’ insistence, via a hefty fine, on respect for free speech at Sussex University—including for academics such as Kathleen Stock, whose expression of a revolutionary belief about the reality of biological sex got them hounded and abused. I note, though, that Sussex University is indicating defiance of the OfS ruling. Will Education Ministers, not just the OfS, ensure that universities are persuaded not only of their intellectual duty to respect free debate but of their obligation not to waste taxpayers’ money, especially when they are complaining about a shortage of funds?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that we have robustly defended academic freedom. We believe that universities are places where academics need to be able to express and research contested ideas, where individuals need to be able to express lawful speech, and where that freedom of speech needs to be respected. We will continue to ensure that that is the case. Universities are autonomous organisations, but I am sure that they will have heard the point made by the noble Baroness about spending their money.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 4th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

So I have not already been speaking for 13 minutes.

The justification for the Bill rests on the claim that there is a gap in law enforcement capability which requires primary legislation to create the power for UK police to arrest immediately if an individual is wanted by a trusted partner. We were told in a briefing session yesterday that there are possibly 20 to 30 persons at any one time from across the world in a police “wanted pot”, but that does not equate to the number of cases where police actually come into contact with someone—perhaps through a stop due to a traffic offence—discover that the person in front of them is wanted for a serious offence and fear that they may abscond before a judge’s warrant can be obtained unless arrested on the spot.

The impact assessment states that the policy is expected to result in six individuals entering the criminal justice system more quickly than would otherwise be the case. As the assessment period is 10 years, this is less than one person a year. In her speech, the Minister gave one example from 2016. It is important to get clear the real necessity for the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned, the provisional arrest powers under Sections 73 and 74 of the Extradition Act 2003 already adequately cover urgent arrests before a full extradition request is submitted from a category 2 territory, with the CPS able to request a provisional warrant from the court which can be made urgently out of hours.

In addition, the impression conveyed that the Bill will give an instantaneous power of arrest once a warrant is issued in a designated Part 2 country is not true. The warrant would still have to go through a review and certification process at the National Crime Agency and there would be a triage process to ensure that only alerts which conform to legislative intention are certified. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that all those three steps—triage, review and certification—will have to take place. Can she also confirm that the NCA would be able to filter out cases where it has reason to believe that one of the statutory bars to extradition, such as the human rights bar, will apply, and that a victim of a politically motivated request would be able to provide the NCA with advance notification why it should not be certified? Will the NCA also ensure that any requests comply with the human rights requirements under Interpol’s constitution and with any procedural or human rights requirements under the US-UK extradition treaty?

While, if all those filter mechanisms apply, it would provide some reassurance, it would also mean that the new process was not necessarily very speedy. It would require careful scrutiny, not an instant, heat-of-the-moment decision after a person is identified entering the country. While that is good from the point of view of the care to be taken in the process, it means that the new power is unlikely to save time, as well as applying only to a handful of people, which makes the power, as justified by the Minister, largely otiose. The new power permits someone to be arrested and their liberty restricted without judicial oversight—a potential interference with Article 5 of the ECHR. The justification is pretty vague. Bypassing the judicial warrant is premised in the impact assessment only on the rather vague aspiration of

“reducing the opportunity for the subject to escape and potentially commit further crime, which may lead to an economic and social impact upon society”,

but:

“It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the impact of the legislation as it is unclear how much re-offending will be prevented”.


That is hardly convincing in justifying the potential interference with convention rights. Although the Bill covers any international request for extradition, it seems clearly anticipated that an Interpol wanted person alert or a red notice against a person would be the primary trigger. It is crucial that the Bill is not taken as a stamp of approval for such red notices, as they are not trusted enough to be in themselves a basis for an arrest. Under the Bill, the NCA will have to assess the validity of such a notice and the degree to which it is based on evidence, rather than mere assertion, without any judicial, or even prosecutorial, oversight.

Like the UK, many countries do not allow warrantless arrests based on Interpol red notices. The US does not allow them because it does not view red notices as satisfying the probable cause standard required by the US constitution to arrest someone. It is well known that Interpol red notices have been misused for political purposes by a number of its member countries, targeting political opponents, journalists, peaceful protesters, refugees and human rights defenders. The UK should continue to push Interpol to introduce safeguards against abuse. Can the Minister tell us what action the Government have taken in that respect?

It is critical that the list of specified category 2 countries in the Bill is limited to those where there really is a basis of trust—not countries such as Russia, Turkey, Venezuela or Syria. What factors will the Government take into account when proposing to add countries to those covered by new Schedule A1? It is already of concern that the US is on the list. While the ability would still exist to seek assurances that a person would not be subject to the death penalty, there was a case in July 2018 when the Government did not exercise that option, which caused deep concern.

As I have said, the necessity for the new power seems pretty slim in the case of existing trustworthy Part 2 countries but, as other noble Lords have said, in paragraph 7 of the impact assessment we get to what must surely be the real reason for this Bill, even if the Minister demurred at her briefing session yesterday. It is worth reading it out:

“In a ‘no deal’ scenario or in the event of a Future Security Partnership which does not support the retention of EU Member States in Part 1 of the Extradition Act, the current capability gap would extend to EU Member States. 15,540 requests were made under the EAW process in 2018/19. In that same year, 1,412 arrests were related to EAWs”.


That is more than 150,000 EAWs over a 10-year period, compared to the six EAWs forecast for the new procedure under the Bill. I think we can gather what scenario the Bill is really planned for. Can the Minister give us an update on the prospects for future UK-EU criminal justice co-operation, including extradition? Although there are concerns about the operation of the EAW—six years ago, my last project as an MEP was a report calling for its reform; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his kind remarks—it is much better than the alternatives.

Both my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to the Commission declaration under Article 185 of the withdrawal agreement in which Germany, Austria and Slovenia may not extradite their own nationals—even during the transition period, let alone after December. This was expected but it is still discouraging. How will we get any reciprocity? If the Bill covers incoming extradition requests, what will happen to outgoing ones to EU and EEA countries?

Finally, how does yesterday’s categorical assertion of no alignment advance the prospect of the UK retaining something approaching the EAW without legal challenge if the minimum rights of defendants developed by the European Union are not respected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords across the House for their very good contributions to this debate. We should not forget that without this new power a potentially dangerous individual encountered by the police, whom they establish is a fugitive, might remain at liberty on UK streets, able to offend or abscond before they can be arrested. I can confirm that in both the cases I voiced today the individuals were encountered by chance; the police did not have the power to arrest them and had to let them go.

I am sure everyone in this House will agree that we should unite across parties to give the police the power they need to protect the public, while always ensuring that the appropriate safeguards are in place. My noble friend Lord King and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, described in great clarity not only the changing face of crime and the huge demands on the police but the international aspect of crime in all its forms.

Several noble Lords have voiced concerns that this Bill is an attempt by the Government to replicate the capability of the EAW. As I hope I have explained, this is not the case. The new power is about only how wanted individuals enter the court system, not how the courts will conduct their extradition proceedings. I emphasise that, with or without access to the EAW, UK police officers are unable immediately to arrest these fugitives wanted by countries outside the EU without first going to the court for a warrant.

The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, rightly raised the future of the EAW post transition period. The UK will approach the negotiations on these issues with practicality and pragmatism. The political declaration calls for practical operational co-operation, data-driven law enforcement and multilateral co-operation through EU agencies. The detail of this agreement will be a matter for negotiation, but it does not just apply to the EAW. It applies to several other instruments of the EU. I absolutely acknowledge his concern.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked whether the EAW would continue to be enforced during the transition period; they talked specifically about Germany, Slovenia and Austria. It applies during the transition period, but where a member state cannot for reasons related to the principles of their national law surrender an own national to the UK during the transition period, they will be expected—as they have been—to take over the trial or sentence of the person concerned. UK policing and courts have extensive experience of working with these countries to ensure that justice is carried out. By way of background, since 2009 five German nationals, one Austrian national and no Slovenian nationals have been extradited to the UK from those countries. We are well used to the situation. It is nothing to do with this Bill. The power of provisional arrest is for Part 2 non-EU countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about replacing other aspects of the EAW. He asked whether the power will replicate other aspects of capability from the EAW such as the expedited extradition process. It will not. This new power is similar to the EAW only in so far as it provides for an immediate power of arrest. It does not change the subsequent extradition proceedings or the role of the Home Secretary in extraditions, which are dealt with under Part 2 of the Extradition Act. The person who has been arrested must be brought before a judge within 24 hours of arrest—although I take the point of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Clark, that if it happens on a Saturday night it might be a bit more than that—and the subsequent extradition process remains as it exists now.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater asked two equal and opposite questions: why now, and why not before now? Interpol data is now routinely uploaded to UK systems to make it available to front-line law enforcement officers. This means that the UK police might encounter an individual who, by performing a simple database check, they can see is wanted for a serious crime abroad. That was not previously the case. As I said, within the current system, the police are unable to arrest the individual immediately. There is an obvious gap, we have responded to that with the Bill, and Interpol is now available to front-line police.

A couple of noble Lords asked about reciprocity. Why is the power being extended to cover countries that will not arrest on the basis of an Interpol notice issued in the UK? Why is there not a reciprocal arrangement? We need to be clear that under the Bill we are creating powers for the UK police, not obligations to the countries concerned. The Bill will enable UK police officers to protect the public more effectively. It is about ensuring that UK police officers have the power to remove dangerous individuals from our streets before they can abscond or offend, not about bringing more wanted individuals back to the UK from other countries. Were this new power restricted to operating on a reciprocal basis, police officers could be put in a situation of encountering a dangerous individual on the street but being unable to arrest them due to the legal provisions of another country, and that does not make any sense.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked what safeguards there are to show what steps the NCA has taken. It is a requirement of the Bill that the NCA issues a certificate setting out the category 2 territory, confirms that it is a valid request, certifies that it has reasonable grounds for believing that the offence is a serious extradition offence, and that the conduct is sufficiently serious that the certificate must be given to the arrested person as soon as is practicable after that arrest. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about sentences such as 10 years for theft. In fact, this not only applies to prison sentences of at least three years but, as I said, it applies to sufficiently serious offences. Offences such as stealing a bike or shoplifting would not satisfy that second point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about human rights considerations. It is right that noble Lords interrogate this point, but the Bill is purely about shifting the point at which the police can intervene and arrest a wanted person. It in no way reduces the safeguards that must apply to any subsequent extradition proceedings considered by the court or the Home Secretary. Judicial oversight will continue as it does now after any arrest. The courts will continue to assess extradition requests as they do now, to determine, for example, whether extradition would be compatible with the individual’s human rights or whether the person would receive a fair trial. If they would not do so, extradition would be barred. That would include things such as the prison conditions that they might face and of course the death penalty, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked about the triage process. First, it applies only to specified countries; countries with a poor human rights record are not in scope. The addition of any other country will require the consent of both Houses of Parliament. Secondly, it applies only to sufficiently serious offences; the power will be available only in relation to offences that would be criminal in the UK and for which an offender could receive a prison sentence of at least three years.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Clark of Calton, my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked whether we already have the power to get an emergency warrant in urgent cases under the current mechanism for provisional warrants—basically, do we not already have the correct provisions in place? Crucially, however, under the current mechanism the police must already be aware that the individual is in the UK. It is not relevant here, as this legislation is concerned with chance encounters. The Bill creates an additional, different mechanism, which deals with these chance cases.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Clark of Calton, my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, interrogated again the necessity for the Bill because of the numbers that might be involved. Obviously, it is a new power, so there is no accurate way to predict how many people it will apply to, and there is no quota, which makes this the right thing to do for security and public safety. It is about ensuring that UK police officers have the power to arrest dangerous individuals whenever they come across them on the street, to prevent them offending or absconding. However, I am clear today, as I was yesterday, that one dangerous fugitive on the streets of the UK whom we cannot arrest is one too many.

On some of the figures we have now, as of 31 December last year, over 4,000 Interpol alerts were in circulation from the countries specified in the Bill. Not all will be for fugitives in the UK, and not all will meet the seriousness criteria for this new arrest power. However, they include requests relating to terrorism, rape and murder, and if any of these wanted fugitives enter the UK or are encountered by police on UK streets, the police would not currently be able to arrest the individual. One dangerous fugitive is one too many.

The other question about necessity relates to the point made by my noble friend Lord King, which I echoed, on the international nature of crime now.

The number six in the impact assessment has been interrogated widely. It is not an indication of the number of dangerous individuals who would be arrested under this power; it is an analysis to assess the economic impact on the wider system. It is not a prediction of arrest numbers; that is to misunderstand the analysis. We cannot quantify how many opportunities to arrest dangerous fugitives have been missed because they have been missed. We can quantify the 4,000 Interpol alerts currently on the UK systems from specified countries; of course, the police would not have powers to arrest without the Bill.

[Baroness Ludford]

I put it to the noble Baroness that the statement in the impact assessment seems pretty clear. It says:

“The policy is expected to result in 6 individuals entering the CJS more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.”


That seems pretty simple. How can it mean anything but that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am clarifying why that is not the case but if I am not clear, I will write in further detail to noble Lords before Committee. I am aware that time is pressing and I have a few more points to cover.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Clark, mentioned the lack of judicial scrutiny. That will come after the 24-hour period through the courts.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, talked about abuse of Interpol channels. International organisations such as Interpol are critical to our vision of a global Britain and international law enforcement co-operation beyond the EU. Interpol provides a secure channel through which we exchange information on a police-to-police basis for action. The UK continues to work with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust. The former chief constable of Essex was recently made the executive director of policing services for Interpol—the most senior operational role in that organisation. Also, a UK Government lawyer was seconded to the Interpol legal service to work with it to ensure that Interpol rules are properly robust and adhered to by Interpol member states. I know the issue to which the noble Lord refers, but I hope that this gives him some comfort.

Facial Recognition Surveillance

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a very good point and I think I know to which cases he is referring. The police must be able to use the technology available for policing purposes, but within the framework I have just discussed.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the ICO statement of last Friday reiterated the call for the Government to introduce a statutory, binding code of practice, so there has been no change since October. Can the Minister tell us whether she believes the comment in the Statement, “The innocent should have nothing to fear”? Is she proud of that comment by the Government? It really is a complete red herring in terms of data protection and privacy rights.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No, I reiterate that statement.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I support both these amendments. I will begin with the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, from the end of our very long day yesterday:

“EU citizens in the United Kingdom are our neighbours, colleagues and workplace friends, and of course we value the contribution they make to the United Kingdom and wish them to remain here.”—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 552.]


I contrast that with a report from 10 October, when the Security Minister, Brandon Lewis, was quoted as saying that EU citizens who do not apply for settled status face deportation.

I ask your Lordships to put yourselves in the shoes of an affected citizen here in the UK, who may have come here quite recently or have been here for many decades, and think about which set of words you will have heard more clearly, which set of words will be affecting your sentiment and understanding of your place in the United Kingdom. I think everyone knows that what people will be hearing, worrying about and fearing are the words “threatened with deportation”. We are talking about up to 4 million people being affected. The latest figure I have seen is that 2.5 million people have applied for settled status. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, there are also the 1.4 million UK citizens across Europe, for whom reciprocity means that they will be affected by how we treat their fellows here in the UK.

My arguments for these amendments fit into two groups. First, there are the practical arguments. As many noble Lords have said, to have a physical document will be immensely useful in dealing with landlords and immigration—just knowing that it is in your wallet or purse. There is also the fact that to have a declaratory scheme is far easier and far less daunting. That is a practical benefit. Those are the practical advantages. But there is also the question of sentiment—sending a message of welcome to our EU and other friends who are part of our communities. I urge noble Lords to back these two amendments, to back the message which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, delivered last night and which the Government say they want to send to these citizens.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I too support these amendments, which were introduced by my noble friend Lord Oates and which are in his name and those of the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Kerslake.

I too was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, say last night that those with pre-settled status would

“receive an automatic reminder to apply for settled status before their leave expires.”—[Official Report, 13/1/20; col. 552.]

I may have lost track of this issue, but is that new? I do not remember it. I remember that we on the EU Justice Sub-Committee asked repeatedly for that to happen, as well as for physical proof of status. Perhaps it is not new, but I do not recall when I was on that sub-committee that that system had been set up by the Government, and I am pleased that it now exists. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether it is new.

Some of us worry about 40% of people getting pre-settled status. Have the Government been able to do any surveys or analysis of how many people genuinely do not have the five years’ residence they need for settled status, or of those who give up because they have not managed to provide the evidence that is required for five years, some of which might be a little challenging to provide?

In a different context, I read in the papers about people who have had real problems convincing HMRC—regarding the years they need to clock up for a state pension—that its records are wrong about national insurance contributions. People have talked about how it has taken a year’s effort to persuade HMRC that they did indeed make national insurance contributions in a particular year. So the part of the supplying of evidence that relies on HMRC and DWP records may or may not be accurate. Some people might be struggling.

Can the Minister tell us whether there is any analysis of how many people genuinely do not have five years’ residence, and of those who are having difficulty providing the necessary evidence? A lot of us are very concerned about this. I agree that the Home Office appears to be putting good effort into it—some of my colleagues went to Liverpool; I did not manage to do that. None the less, the consequences come June of next year of people not having settled status are so severe that we cannot afford to overlook any possible problem—of course, I support the proposal that we pursued on the EU Justice Sub-Committee that applicants should get physical proof. We never managed to get, to my satisfaction at least, a good answer from the Home Office on why it refused to countenance that. I am sure the Minister will give us that answer.

That tracks into the fact that, as my noble friend said, there are people with permanent residence who believe, wrongly, that they do not need to apply for settled status. That adds to the concern about people who may find themselves bereft in 18 months’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Data Protection Act protects all data whether written or digital. Therefore the argument is nonsensical.

[Baroness Ludford]

I think my noble friend is forgetting that immigration data is not protected under the Data Protection Act put through last year or the year before. I think there is litigation going on about that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The point I am making is that if you have a physical document which outlines everything, people have access to everything. When people go into banks, they do not necessarily know which documents to bring. Under the digital status, employers and landlords are entitled to see only the data which they need to see.

[Lord Warner]

Before the Minister moves on, sticking with this issue, I am totally confused—more than usual. The Minister said earlier that, if I have been sent my letter from the Home Office describing my status, I can then apply for another document of some kind that I can produce to other people who want the other document. That seems to be an alternative to the code. Will the Minister explain what is the difference between the letter and the other document that I can apply for, which apparently I can use to satisfy someone that I am entitled to something?

[Baroness Ludford]

Before the Minister gets up, I do not think I heard her answer the question about whether the settled status database is going to be available outside the Home Office, within government and to third-parties outside government. Will she answer that very precise point?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I shall start with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. The letter is confirmation that you have been successful. It is not evidence of your status, but it is there for anyone who wishes to have a physical document to say that they have been successful.

On the digital status—this comes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—if you want to rent, it could be accessed by the landlord. There is access to the data for people who need to see it for the purposes for which they need to see it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No. I am going to continue, and the noble Lord can speak when I have finished if he wishes.

I want to move on to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, made about the criminalisation of people who do not apply by the deadline. That is a very important point—made also, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. An EU citizen who fails to apply to the EU settlement scheme before the deadline will not be acting unlawfully in the same way as an illegal entrant or overstayer would be. They will not have knowingly entered the UK in breach of the Immigration Act or overstayed their leave. That is an important point to make. Once free movement has ended, they will need leave to remain in the UK—there is an important distinction there. We set up the EU settlement scheme to provide a quick and easy way to secure that leave, confirming their status in the UK.

We have been very clear that we will take a pragmatic approach, in line with the agreements, to provide those who have reasonable grounds for missing the deadline with a further opportunity to apply. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. He might want to intervene to ask what constitutes reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. We have deliberately not published a list of acceptable grounds for missing the deadline. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, requested, we will send reminders to those with pre-settled status six months before their leave expires so that they can apply for settled status. In the first instance, we want to continue to encourage people to apply. We do not want to provide an exhaustive list as we want to give ourselves the maximum possible flexibility when this situation arises. Examples of people in such a situation might include a child whose parents or guardian failed to apply on their behalf, people in abusive or controlling relationships who are prevented from applying or from obtaining the documents they need, or those who, as I said before, lacked the physical or mental capacity to apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pressed me again on the automatic reminder. I have previously confirmed that there will be an automatic reminder. In fact, in the EU Settlement Scheme: Statement of Intent, published in June 2018—quite some time ago—we committed to reminding people ahead of the expiry of their pre-settled status and it remains our intention to do so. That is not in place yet, as it will not be needed until five years after the first granting of pre-settled status, if that makes sense, so it will be September 2023 at the latest. The noble Baroness is looking puzzled. That is because March 2019 was day one, so it will not be needed for another five years.

[Baroness Ludford]

If they had already had two years, they would not need another five years.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I think that my last statement was wrong, but I shall confirm that to her in writing.

The noble Baroness talked about people struggling, and I think that I have outlined some of the ways in which we are trying to help people to make their application. She will have heard me say previously how we have put money into various centres around the country to help people.

The noble Baroness also asked whether we are still granting permanent residence. Yes, we are.

On the question of why settled status is better than permanent residence, you do not have to be exercising treaty rights to get settled status; there is a more generous right of return—so five years rather than two years permitted absence—and there is an automatic entitlement, as a UK national, to benefits for those with settled status. However, that does not stop people from applying for permanent residence, and they do.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, talked about UK nationals in the EU. I recall the discussion that we had about unilaterally guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens, but they asked about UK nationals in the EU. The withdrawal agreement that we have reached with the EU provides reciprocal protections and certainty on citizens’ rights. The agreement applies equally to EU citizens here and UK nationals in the EU, in their member state of residence, by the end of the implementation period. Ministers and officials have already engaged extensively with UK nationals across the EU and will continue to do so. I am very pleased to hear about the good experiences of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in Portugal.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with my noble friend; of course, that will be a matter for future negotiations. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Ludford]

I should correct myself. The Minister was kind enough to say that she would have another look at that reminder system. After all, people could have four years and 300 or whatever days, just not five years. That system needs to come in a lot sooner; they might need a reminder in the next few months. Also, I do not quite understand—it may just be that I do not understand immigration—why the Home Office is twin-tracking settled status and permanent residence. I take the point that for settled status you do not have to be exercising treaty rights and perhaps simply have to meet a tougher standard for permanent residence. However, I do not see the value, either to the applicant or to the aim of simplicity and understanding of the immigration system, to have these two systems running coterminously.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I ask the noble Baroness to understand that perhaps they might not be EU citizens.

Freedom of Movement

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in any scenario—deal or no deal—there will be a transitional period until the end of 2020 to give businesses time to adjust. In a deal scenario, free movement will continue during the implementation period, but in a no-deal scenario, the Government’s European temporary leave to remain scheme will enable EU workers to continue to come to the UK visa-free for three years. On the question of the Green Paper, in December last year, the Government published a White Paper setting out our proposals for the UK’s future skills-based immigration system after our exit from the EU, taking as a starting point the MAC’s recommendations.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, should we not also focus on the fact that this Government are stealing from British citizens the freedom to live, work, study or retire in another EU country? Can the Minister explain why the Prime Minister talks misleadingly about ending free movement as “taking back control of our borders”? She was perfectly capable three years ago of explaining that passport checks, which we can and will continue to impose as we are outside Schengen, sit compatibly alongside the freedom to move to work without red tape. They are not the same thing.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not sure what the question was there. As for stealing UK citizens’ rights, from a UK point of view we have made provision for EU citizens’ rights in the UK. It is clearly up to individual member states how they reciprocally deal with that.

Passports

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why not all newly issued passports have the words “European Union” printed on them.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, as part of the long-term operational arrangements to prepare for the UK leaving the EU, burgundy British passports that do not include “European Union” on the front cover were introduced as planned from 30 March. Whether their passport does or does not reference the European Union makes no difference to British citizens: both are equally valid for travel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, not only are we still in the European Union but, after tonight, we may be so for another nine months—perhaps even a year. During that time, the UK and the Government will enjoy all the rights and obligations of EU membership, including that of sincere co-operation. Why are the Government refusing to pass on those rights to their citizens, who want “European Union” on their passports? Why are they refusing to co-operate sincerely with their citizens or respect the will of those people?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

With respect to the noble Baroness, this has absolutely nothing to do with the will, or otherwise, of the British people, but everything to do with them voting to leave the European Union and the Home Office making preparations in changing passports. I really think that her point is not very good.