Policing: Covid-19 Guidance and Legislation

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There are many questions in the noble Lord’s question. I would say that, in the enforcement of the new emergency regulations, there were definitely some initial inconsistencies among police forces. As I said in response to other noble Lords, that is because we are in an unprecedented situation and have all been operating at a fast pace to keep the public safe. We are now confident that the police are applying the new measures properly and proportionately. They are using the four-step escalation principles of engage, explain, encourage and then enforce. On the point about engagement with the guidance, the Government are engaging with the various stakeholders when drawing it up.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

In response to my noble friend Lord Beith, the Minister said that we should be mindful of the need not to confuse law and guidance. However, is it not a fact that government ministerial Statements and publications have elided and thus confused the two, which has often put the police in an invidious position? I see that while the Coronavirus Outbreak FAQs were revised on 1 May, they still seem to interchange between what you cannot do and what you should not do. Will the Government now clearly distinguish between the two to make life easier for the public and, indeed, for the police?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness’s noble friend Lord Beith helpfully distinguished between the two. The regulations are drafted in a way that draws a distinction between them and the guidance. The regulations are the law and the law is what applies. They set out the legal obligations and the guidance sets out best practice to assist in compliance with the law. While examples of inconsistencies have been reported in the press, given that 86% of the public are complying with the law and 70% support what the police are doing, I think that we are going in the right direction.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Ludford]

1: The Schedule, page 3, line 15, leave out from “judge” to end of line 19 and insert “as soon as practicable.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make the period within which a person must be brought before a judge consistent with other provisions of the Extradition Act 2003.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has led for the Liberal Democrat Benches until now, regrets that under the advice of the Government and the Lord Speaker she cannot be here today.

Amendment 1 addresses new Section 74A, which requires someone who is arrested to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of arrest. However, no account is taken of weekends and bank holidays in calculating 24 hours—so, for example, someone could be arrested without judicial involvement on the Friday afternoon before a bank holiday until the following Tuesday. Concerns were expressed about this on Second Reading, and in Committee on 5 March in debate on my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s then Amendment 3. We have now reworded the amendment so that this Amendment 1 would add that someone should be brought before a judge “as soon as practicable”. The Government claim that wording other than that in the Bill is operationally unworkable because the courts do not sit at the weekend, but in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who sadly also cannot be in his place today, said in support of changing the wording:

“Would you believe it, there is a judge on duty all weekend, every weekend, and all night”,


and that, if the provisional arrest happens over the weekend,

“it can be treated as urgent business.”

Both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Mackay, took issue with what the phrase “brought before” means in 2020, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointing out that:

“It is questionable whether the word ‘brought’ requires the physical presence of the judge and the particular person so that they should be facing each other directly. Nowadays we have all sorts of technology that enables people to encounter each other while not in one another’s physical presence.”


The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, said on behalf of the Government in Committee that it was

“the statutory intention that the person should be brought before a judge in person. It is an additional safeguard and a better situation for them to be seen in person before a judge.”

I am not really in a position to assess it, but I must admit that I am not convinced that is necessarily the case. We will of course see remote digital contacts in the justice system rolled out even more in present circumstances. In any case, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, responded:

“If that is the problem, we need to amend the legislation to make it clear that ‘brought before’ does not mean that there is a personal, direct, physical confrontation.”


He said he was very willing to talk to the Government about that.

On another angle, we were told in Committee that it was the Government’s

“intention to replicate the … provisions under the Extradition Act”,—[Official Report, 5/3/20; cols. GC 367-368.]

with the implication that new Section 74A did that. But the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, also explicitly acknowledged that the words in that Extradition Act 2003, in Sections 72(3) and 74(3) covering both an arrest under warrant and a provisional arrest in a Part 2 scenario, say:

“The person must be brought as soon as practicable before the appropriate judge.”


That is precisely the wording we want in Amendment 1. We on these Benches remain simply puzzled. If the Bill replicates or mirrors an existing provision—one we have not managed to find—can the Government explain precisely how? At the moment I cannot see how that is the case. In the absence of that explanation, we continue to believe that the Government need to change course. As far as we can see, it is Amendment 1, not the wording in the Bill, that mirrors that in the 2003 Act and aims for—and, we believe, achieves—clarity and consistency.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, highlights the need for caution over any period of detention before an individual is brought before the judge. From the points just made, I think the House can agree that it is unclear why these detention periods are inconsistent in different cases. The efforts to draw the House’s attention to this certainly have the support of this side of the House. I hope the Minister can offer the House an explanation as to the reason behind this inconsistency between urgent cases under the 2003 Act’s category 1 and category 2.

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

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her explanation and the noble Lord, Lord Wood. As noble Lords will know, the courts to which all extradition suspects must be taken, whether arrested under Part 1 or Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003—as currently or as amended by this Bill—are Westminster Magistrates’ Court for England and Wales, Edinburgh Sheriff Court for Scotland and Belfast magistrates’ court for Northern Ireland. Currently, the person arrested under the Act must generally be brought before the appropriate judge “as soon as practicable” following arrest. Under the new power of provisional arrest in this Bill, it must occur “within 24 hours”.

The reason the Bill was originally drafted in this way was to strike a balance between getting arrested individuals before a judge as quickly as possible—the point the noble Lord, Lord Wood, makes—and allowing the police sufficient time to gather supporting information. This mirrored, in a more stringent form, the approach to provisional arrest in Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, which requires an individual to be brought before an appropriate judge within 48 hours of arrest. But I am conscious that the drafting departs from the general requirement currently imposed on the police after they make arrests under other existing powers in the Extradition Act 2003—the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, makes.

I listened carefully at Second Reading and in Committee, and I have concluded that the new power of arrest in the Bill should be consistent in this respect with existing law and practice in relation to Part 2 of the 2003 Act and should therefore mirror the wording “as soon as practicable”. This will ensure that individuals are not detained for any longer than is strictly necessary. If, for example, an individual is arrested in central London, “as soon as practicable” would in all probability be within 24 hours. Our operational partners have already proved themselves effective at producing wanted persons before courts within strict timeframes, and the three UK extradition courts have proved strict arbiters of police actions under the “as soon as practicable” requirement.

Therefore, I intend to introduce a government amendment to this effect at Third Reading to address those concerns. The amendment will leave out the words “within 24 hours” and insert “as soon as practicable” in their place, as well as consequently deleting the express exclusion of weekends and bank holidays in the calculation of the 24-hour period. While the language will not explicitly rule out production on weekends or bank holidays, these factors will, of course, be relevant to the practicability of bringing an individual before an appropriate judge. If public holidays or court opening times were to change in future, the legislation would not need to be amended to take account of that. It remains the Government’s intention that the arrested person be brought before a judge sitting in court and so the concept of “as soon as practicable” will remain subject to court sitting times, which are determined by the judiciary. There may, of course, be a multitude of other factors which affect, in the individual case, the practicability of bringing an individual before a judge, such as distance, natural disasters or illness of the arrested individual. We continue to think it is right, therefore, that the judiciary is the arbiter, in the individual case, of whether this test of “as soon as practicable” is met, and it will be able to do so in determining any application for discharge under Section 74D(10).

I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are content with those intentions, which I will bring back at Third Reading and that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for having productively reflected on this. I can see the original attraction of a rigid time limit, and the Minister is right that there is inconsistency in the Extradition Act 2003, because there is a 48-hour limit for provisional arrest in Part 1. Perhaps that is what guided the drafting of the original Bill. As the Minister said, the experience of the relevant courts dealing with extradition in the different jurisdictions is that they are prompt and do not sit on these things. Therefore we can rely on the operations of the courts to make sure that “as soon as practicable” happens and that it is only some kind of force majeure that stops that being very soon, taking into account what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said at Second Reading and in Committee about the ability of a judge to be available, certainly in the Westminster court, on a Saturday. I am very grateful and look forward to the amendment that the Minister intends to bring back at Third Reading.

Forgive me if, in all the turmoil at the moment, my knowledge of procedure has gone slightly AWOL: I think I still need to move the amendment. No? Okay, then I shall withdraw it. I am obviously not very good at this—that is why we need my noble friend Lady Hamwee here. I end by saying that on the basis of the assurances and promises of the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Ludford]

2: The Schedule, page 4, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations made under subsection (7)(a) shall designate no more than one territory.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require regulations which add, vary or remove a reference to a territory under Schedule A1 to contain no more than one territory. This will allow Parliament to reject a particular territory.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, again I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It is the same as Amendment 9 in Committee, though with a slight drafting change to refer to “regulations” rather than “orders”. We are pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Kennedy, have added their names and we understand why they are not able to be here today. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would have added his name had there been space.

As my noble friend Lady Hamwee explained in Committee, it is essential to allow additions to the Schedule for only one territory at a time. We can envisage a scenario in which the Government wish to add a whole raft of states to the Schedule all at once. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that would consist of all EU and EEA states and that in the list there is a country that might be an EU associated country, such as Turkey, but one over which considerable human rights concerns exist. I seem to be quoting a lot from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but he always says very wise things. In Committee, he said:

“We all know that there are countries in the world that do not respect the rule of law. I will not set about trying to give your Lordships a list because the list itself changes. Countries that respected the rule of law no longer do. Weimar Germany did; Hitler’s Germany did not. This is a moveable feast.”—[Official Report, 5/3/20; col. 378GC.]


That is a very good point. Turkey was making very good progress in democracy and human rights a decade ago, but it regressed, regrettably.

There is great concern that the Government want to give themselves wide powers for the Secretary of State to add countries to the list en bloc. I think it was in Committee that the Minister said that the Government had no intention of specifying countries likely to abuse the system to political ends. I utterly believe what she said, but I again quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who raised at Second Reading the fear that

“in the real world we are surely not going to be so naive as to believe that all sorts of motives—a possible trade deal, a plea just to be good friends with us, political beliefs, sympathy with a tyrannical regime—may not lead”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1731.]

to an addition to the list in the Schedule, although he certainly excused our present Minister from falling prey to such motivation.

The non-governmental organisation Fair Trials International, for which I have been pleased to work for 20 years and of which I am a patron, has done excellent work on the abuse of Interpol red notices where countries use them against political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists living in exile. The journalist Bill Browder was famously the victim of one from Russia and wrote a book called Red Notice. There are numerous examples of such countries and one would not expect them to be added to the list—Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Egypt and many others where Interpol red notices have been used in a very questionable way. I do not think that the argument the Minister used in Committee—essentially that “one at a time is not how we do things”—is quite good enough. She said

“it is common practice to allow for multiple territories to be specified together for similar legislation.”—[Official Report, 5/3/20; col. 382GC.]

But I am not convinced that it needs to be invariable practice. It may have been common practice up to now, but we are not obliged to follow that. It is perfectly simple to do it one country at a time. This will not cause Whitehall to collapse in shock.

Our amendment could actually help the Government, as it would avoid Parliament rejecting the inclusion of a list that had good states as well as a bad state. We would not have to reject them all because of the inclusion of a single bad state, if I can use that shorthand. It would allow for the sensible, responsible outcome of bringing the respectable states into the provisional arrest arrangement while excluding a state that did not respect the rule of law and human rights.

Accepting this amendment would not lead to any delay as two or more sets of regulations, each relating to a single territory, could be tabled at the same time. We would not lose time. Ministers have been keen to stress that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill QC, supports the Bill, but I as I read his letter, he was supporting the general proposition, which is fair enough, but he was not commenting on this sort of detail, so will the Minister have a another look at this? We on these Benches would be happy to have a meeting to discuss it. We are keen to understand whether there is any substantive reason for rejecting the amendment, which, to be honest, we do not see at present.

In normal circumstances, we would be keen to test the opinion of the House on this, but since these are not normal times, will the Minister let us return to this matter at Third Reading, in the way that she has so helpfully promised that we could do on Amendment 1? We are firm on the substance of Amendment 2, in the same way as on Amendment 1, but we are flexible on the timing, so I hope that the Minister can respond in that vein. I beg to move.

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

I will speak to Amendment 2, and Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, who is unable to be here today. As we have just heard, Amendment 2 would require regulations that add, vary or remove a reference to a territory to contain no more than one territory. Allowing Parliament to reject a single territory would a create a valuable scrutiny mechanism for when either House has concerns to raise over a specific individual country that the Government intend to add because there will be occasions when the merits of adding individual territories are disputed. The amendment would create an important safeguard to exercise scrutiny in such circumstances and we support it.

In recognition of the powers in this Bill to add, remove or vary territories, Amendment 3 would create conditions for when the Government choose to exercise these powers. To this end, the amendment seeks to create a new process that means that the Government must take three further steps before adding and removing territories. The first condition for the Government to meet is to consult with the devolved Administrations and non-governmental organisations—the devolved Administrations because there will be certain powers relating to justice, policing and prisons that are devolved, and the non-governmental organisations to understand better any issues that arise from individual territories relating, for example, to the human rights records of the countries concerned.

The second condition is that the Government must produce an assessment of the risks of each change, which would put on record the Government’s rationale for signing the agreement, and allow for parliamentary scrutiny. The final condition is that if a new country is added, the Government must confirm that the country does not abuse the Interpol red notice system. That would make it clear that the Secretary of State responsible must not sign agreements with countries that have questionable records on human rights.

Although we fully accept the need to add further territories as treaties are negotiated, the Government must add only those that comply with our values. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with that. While we fully accept that it may be necessary to remove or vary territories, it is important that the Government are transparent about their rationale and offer themselves to the scrutiny of Parliament. Will the Minister allay our concerns about the rationale and availability of scrutiny and about consulting with the devolved Administrations and NGOs by confirming that the Government already intend to consult and open themselves to scrutiny when they add or remove further territories?

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, we on these Benches support Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We hope that the Government will confirm the involvement of the devolved Administrations and believe that there is a strong case to be made for consulting NGOs that have experience of the country concerned, however knowledgeable the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may be.

On the “risks” mentioned in paragraph (b) of the amendment, I imagine that the noble Lord means that he expects the Government to make an assessment of balance and proportionality in whatever conclusion they reach on the suitability of a country to be included.

Of course, we totally support his reference in paragraph (c) to the need to avoid the abuse of Interpol red notices, to which I referred in moving Amendment 1. I have said that I am a patron of Fair Trials International and I want to give it a plug: it has done sterling work on this issue in the past few years and can, I believe, take considerable credit for the reforms that have been made to Interpol red notices so far. They do not go far enough but reference has been made in previous stages of the Bill to the fact that some reform is going on at Interpol; that needs to improve because there is still the problem of abuse. Perhaps one day there will not be and we can look again, but, for the moment, Amendment 3 is very appropriate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken. I was looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, slightly strangely because it is unusual to speak twice on the same group of amendments. It really does not matter because these are very unusual times, so it is not a precedent.

I do not know whether noble Lords want me to go through the full arguments today or whether they want to return to them at Third Reading; I sense that that is the mood of the House. Noble Lords have made their arguments. For the reason that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is not here and would like a further crack at this whip, I suggest that we let this lie for the moment and return to it at Third Reading, if that is okay with noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Windrush Lessons Learned Review

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the Commons. There is, of course, a marked disparity between the speed with which this review has been published and the lack of speed with which the report on—for example —Russian interference in elections has appeared, a marked disparity for which there is no obvious explanation.

We cannot overstate how damning this review has been of the Government’s

“institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race”.

The way in which individuals and families were wrongly deported and deprived of their livelihoods caused enormous suffering. Now it can only be right that the Government pave the way for a complete change in how the Home Office operates, but apparently the Government cannot say that the recommendations of the review will be delivered in full in the most appropriate timeframe possible. That seemed to be the message of the Statement. There would at least be some satisfaction if we could say that the Government had attempted effectively to make amends.

However, I believe I am right in saying that last month, new migration statistics showed that fewer than one in 20 Windrush compensation claimants had received compensation. From that, it would seem clear that the Government are still failing the Windrush victims, at least in that regard, both in terms of the number of people the compensation is reaching and the level of payouts for lives disrupted or destroyed. Can the Government say how they will ensure that further victims receive the compensation they deserve, and receive it speedily?

On the wider issue of the hostile environment, can the Government today mark a change in direction and agree to put an end to this policy, beginning by ending deportation flights for foreign national offenders who have lived here since childhood, committing that the historic case review will include those who have committed offences, and keeping open the compensation scheme for as long as necessary?

One of the more damning lines of the report was that the scandal was “foreseeable and avoidable”. Scandals which will further arise if the Government continue with the hostile environment policy are also foreseeable and avoidable. Renaming the policy, which the Government have sought to do, does not bring about the necessary culture change. Even the executive summary of the report—I am sure that the Minister will not be entirely surprised if I say that I have not read all 275 pages of it—says that

“the Home Office … must change its culture to recognise that migration and wider Home Office policy is about people and, whatever its objective, should be rooted in humanity.”

It is a fairly damning statement on the present state of affairs for that to appear as a part of this review.

We do not want similar issues arising over citizenship rights in the light of our withdrawal from the EU, and neither will a future immigration policy based on devaluing the value and skills of many people help the situation, particularly when some of those so-called low-skilled and insufficiently paid personnel are now deemed to be vital key workers in the present crisis when it comes to continuing school provision for their children.

I hope that the Government will take very seriously the recommendations in this report and the three elements into which they have been broken down in the last paragraph of the executive summary. It is disappointing that we may well have to wait some time to hear what the Government’s response is. However, clearly there needs to be a significant change in culture, and it needs to come quickly if we are to avoid further scandals—I use that word—of the kind we have seen over the Windrush generation.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the fact that this report has now been published is of course welcome, and I thank Wendy Williams; the timing is however less than optimal. I also thank the journalist Amelia Gentlemen, without whose brilliant and dogged investigative work the report would not have happened.

In the Government’s response, which is promised within six months, we on these Benches want the assurance of a thorough overhaul of the culture of disbelief and carelessness in the Home Office, so that its attitudes, assumptions and processes around immigration are, in the words of the report, “rooted in humanity”, which is not the case at the moment. The Home Secretary surely cannot have needed this review to become aware of what the report calls the

“ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation within the department, which are consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism.”

That sounds like a very carefully negotiated sentence.

Surprisingly, the Statement says that

“we were all shocked to discover”

the insensitive treatment of the Windrush generation. That is not credible. The whole point of the hostile environment was to be brutal and send a harsh, intolerant message. As the report says, the consequences were foreseeable and avoidable, and warning signs were not heeded by officials or Ministers. It was a profound institutional failure. The scandal and the blighting of lives are not just down to staff mistakes and poor decisions, because the tone was set from the top. However, if retraining is needed then we need to hear what is happening on that front.

The Home Secretary failed to give my colleague in the other place, Wendy Chamberlain, the guarantee she sought that for the sake of public health during the coronavirus crisis no data would be passed from the NHS to the Home Office for immigration purposes, otherwise migrants with uncertain status could be deterred from seeking care or treatment. I now ask for clarity on such a guarantee. Will the Government also commit to scrapping the right-to-rent law, which, as has been shown by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, causes landlords to discriminate against people from the BAME communities and/or who do not have a British passport?

To avoid a budding new Windrush scandal, will the Government now commit to automatically guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens to stay? Something that the report highlighted was the lack of documentary evidence that the Windrush generation had. We have persistently and consistently asked that EU citizens should at least get documentary proof.

Lastly, my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who very much wishes she could have been here today, tells me that last week when she visited a school to talk to sixth-formers about Parliament and her work, they wanted to discuss immigration issues. She was critical of Home Office culture. A teacher who was sitting in out of interest could not contain herself: she told my noble friend and the students that, as a Canadian, it had taken her 10 years to get the right to be here and that the way she had been treated by the Home Office, especially at Lunar House, was the worst experience of her life.

I really hope that the Home Office will have a thorough transformation of its culture, so that it acts as a welcome to migrants who we wish to make part of our society, as well as exercising firm and fair immigration control.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for the points that they have made. Both of them questioned the timing. It is absolutely right to say that because of COVID-19 we are in very strange times. I think that the Home Secretary was absolutely right to publish the report within a day of receiving it; both Houses have been clamouring for this report to be published and she has done just that.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the recommendations being delivered in full. One thing that comes out of this thoughtful report are the words of Wendy Williams herself, who says:

“It is, in my view, extremely important that the department undertakes a period of profound reflection on the areas identified in this report … to identify what they think needs to change, and how.”


For the Home Secretary to take a view on that the following day in a knee-jerk way would be wrong. She is perfectly right to reflect on it and to respond in a considered way.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about one in 20 claimants receiving compensation. One thing that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said today is that not only will people receive full compensation but there will not be a cap on compensation. We are trying to process the claims as quickly as possible, and payments are being made. We are trying to reach out to people. I talked about the community events that have been taking place, and the communications campaign that my right honourable friend and I talked about today will be going on. We are making interim payments on some claims where we can resolve parts of the claim much more quickly than other parts to ensure that claimants receive their awards as quickly as possible. Some cases are more complex than others, and it is right that we take the time to ensure that they are settled properly. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about further victims receiving compensation. We will absolutely be reaching out to those people. We want everybody who deserves compensation to receive it.

The noble Lord also touched upon further deportations. Of course, deportations are referenced in this, and they go far wider than Windrush, but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated today that no Windrush people were deported on the recent flight about which there was debate in this House and the other place. On deportations generally, the Home Secretary would breach her obligations under the UK Borders Act 2007 were she not to deport people eligible for deportation.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about keeping the compensation scheme open for longer. As I said in my Statement, the Home Secretary said earlier that it will be open until April 2023, so that is another three years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked why we cannot make the EU settlement scheme declaratory. It is precisely because the Windrush people were almost under that declaratory system that they could not prove that they had the right to be here, and it was when people were having to prove their right of settled status that things began to unravel. Of course, digital status now means that that status is on the record for ever.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 15th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said so far. I am pleased to support my noble friend’s Bill, on the basis of certain principles, the first of which is continuity and comparability with our existing EU responsibilities, or at least the essence of them; the second, reasons of humanity; and the third, rationality.

I turn first to continuity with the principles of EU law in comparable situations requiring the examination of family reunion. The free movement directive, 2004/38, which is on all our lips these days, refers to the spouse, a registered partner,

“direct descendants who are under the age of 21”,

and,

“the dependent direct relatives in the ascending line”.

That is reflected in the citizens’ rights provision of the divorce agreement reached last Friday, which I hope will be endorsed by the European Council today. My noble friend referred to the Dublin regulation, known in the jargon as Dublin III and shortly to become Dublin IV. That is a different situation, of course, because it is about grouping a family for the examination of asylum application, so it is not about residence or settlement, but it is a parallel situation. That regulation puts great stress on the best interests of the child; it should be a primary consideration. It stresses that children should not be separated from family members, including brothers or sisters. Member states even have an obligation to trace family members, including siblings and other relatives, residing in the European Union in order to bring the asylum applications together.

On Tuesday this week in the other place, the Conservative Member Tim Loughton sought, with cross-party support from Tim Farron and Yvette Cooper in particular, to persuade the Government to continue, if we Brexit, the essence of the Dublin regulation which, as he said,

“allows unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to be reunited with their adult siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, as well as their parents”.

He highlighted how for children who have lost their parents they are,

“the last vestiges of family connection. Quite often, those connections were with siblings, or uncles and aunts. For those young people, it was the only available bit of stability and continuity with their previous existence in places such as Syria”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/17; col. 250.]

The family reunification directive, which of course the UK Government did not opt into in 2003, also has a much wider definition of family reunification than that in the Immigration Rules. It is worth noting that although Ireland did not opt into the directive, it has enshrined in its own domestic law the right of unaccompanied child refugees to act as sponsors for the purposes of refugee family reunion.

The second principle is humanity. One of the guiding principles of the Dublin regulation is that when the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the presence of a family member or relative on the territory of a member state who can take care of him or her should be a binding responsibility criterion. That is how seriously the issue of family support is taken. In assessing the best interests of the child, member states should take due account inter alia of family reunification possibilities, the minor’s well-being and social development along with safety and security, particularly where there is a risk of the minor being a victim of human trafficking. It also mentions that the views of the minor should be taken into account. A recital to the 2004 free movement directive cites the criteria of “freedom and dignity” as an inspiration to the family unity provisions. This is not just an administrative issue; the recital talks about maintaining,

“the unity of the family in a broader sense”.

My noble friend, in referring to our moral obligations and the recognition of the importance of family in our culture, placed that idea centre stage. It has become a cliché that politicians of a certain persuasion, often of the governing party, routinely invoke family values; my noble friend Lord Paddick cited the Conservative Party manifesto. It is time to apply those values.

My third principle is rationality. It makes sense on grounds of public policy. Being reunited with close family is a way to ensure the welfare and safety of child refugees, as well as improve their chances of integration and recovery. Integration promotes economic and social cohesion, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Splitting up families and relationships is costly for our society and economy, if we look at it from that level; it is also terribly costly for the people concerned, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Alderdice. Last week, there was a Guardian article about a teenager from Afghanistan whose asylum application was initially refused because it was not believed that he was under 18 or from Afghanistan. He won his appeal, but he still has no contact with his mother or two brothers. He is trying to get to college. He could thrive much better in our society—and, given the resourcefulness of refugees, contribute to it, as noble Lords have mentioned, including the noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

In 2016, the Home Office published updated guidance. However, as mentioned by my noble friend, such cases of discretion will be “rare”. Without legal aid, making an application outside the rules is very difficult due to the complex rules. Separation of families can have a devastating impact on people’s lives, their rehabilitation from experiences of trauma and their ability to integrate in and adapt to our country. As has already been mentioned, the report from the Home Affairs Committee in the other place stressed the bureaucratic difficulty of family reunion and the current sponsorship and visa system. The Government should be doing all they can to help people in these circumstances rather than hindering their chance to reach safety. The report also recommended that the Government amend Immigration Rules to allow refugee children to act as sponsors for their close family.

On the grounds of all those principles, especially the last one, leaving families divided makes no sense and is costly in social and economic terms for us. Such people will be in the best position to start a life in and contribute to the UK, as so many have already done magnificently, if they have the support of their family.

Brexit: Acquired Rights (EUC Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I concur with the praise for our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who does a splendid job, not least in steering and shepherding us to this report.

I can try to answer the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Like others, I have had the very useful briefing from British in Europe, a coalition of UK citizens in Europe which has joined with the 3million, representing EU citizens here, to produce a response to the Government’s paper. Both groups feel very let down. They maintain, rightly, that their acquired rights are being retrospectively taken away. This is because there is a mismatch between the EU and UK offers. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, said, the EU approach is a mutual guarantee of status and rights derived under Union law, with an overarching principle of equal treatment for EU citizens here and British citizens in the rest of the EU. The UK paper does not respond to that offer. It is not an affirmation or incorporation of such acquired rights but a proposal for a different offer: a new status under UK immigration law, called settled status, which has to be applied for and appears to be essentially indefinite leave to remain—perhaps the Minister could explain how it is different from ILR. This is a significant reduction in protection, despite paragraph 3 of the paper claiming that there is no “unravelling” of “previous commitments”. There is some misunderstanding in the paper, in that paragraph 14 talks about how, after we leave the EU:

“Free movement rights will come to an end and therefore cannot be carried forward, as an EU legal right, into the post-exit UK legal regime”.


This conflates and therefore confuses the new acquisition of free movement rights in the future, after we have left the EU—unless we stay, let us hope, in the EEA—with the retention of rights acquired while we were in the EU. That is a pretty fatal confusion.

The two offers do not legally correspond and cannot be fitted into a framework of reciprocity aimed at mutual guarantees—a vital framework of reciprocity. As I heard the Italian ambassador to the UK say this morning on the “Today” programme, it is not only inaccurate but patronising to people who have made a huge contribution to this country, and done so under their EU law rights, to call the UK offer a “generous” one. On perhaps the true spectrum of criteria, from “fair” to “unfair”, I would say that the Government’s proposals are found wanting.

I do not know what has been gained by having to wait until now to come up with this not-so-generous offer. The offer—or rather an affirmation of acquired rights—should have been proposed immediately after the referendum. It would have provided certainty for individuals and families and avoided all the anxiety they have suffered. It would have avoided the haemorrhage of skilled personnel—I read in the Financial Times that some enterprising Polish carbon credits trader has set up a website called Expat Exit. The report describes him as arguing that,

“Britain’s Brexit vote has created a market for highly qualified workers who have burnished their skills in the UK but are now returning to the continent”—

ouch.

If the government offer had been made a year ago, it could have avoided putting people through the hassle, expense and waste of time of applying for permanent residence—the new procedure that was invented last July. They must feel rather mocked, having done this in good faith and now been told that it is essentially worthless. It is good that the Government are now saying that there is no need for private health insurance, which is their translation of comprehensive sickness insurance, although that of course has been the subject of legal difference with the European Commission. So why did they put people through all that bother, expense and worry of having to get private health insurance? Could the Minister perhaps also explain whether the lack of need for private health insurance applies to the future as well as to the past? Could the Government not at least make some amends to those people who went the permanent residence route by giving them settled status automatically, not just offering some kind of streamlined procedure for those who already have the permanent residence document that they did not need but they felt they needed to get in the absence of anything else in the past year?

Why can the Government not now say what the cut-off date is? Surely it should be the date of leaving the EU. After all, the Government’s paper confirms, as the Government themselves have done many times, that, while the UK remains a member of the EU, EU citizens resident here continue to enjoy rights that they have under EU treaties. So why can that not be followed through by saying that the cut-off date will be when we actually leave the EU?

I share with colleagues other questions that have been asked tonight. Will the rights be for life? Will family members have their rights protected for life in the case of death or divorce? Will there be votes, at least for local elections? Will there be recognition of qualifications and the diplomas and certificates relating to them? What will the fees be? I gather that the current cost of an ILR application is £2,297, a huge amount for a family. Will a minimum income threshold be applied to people who want to stay? How light-touch will the application process be? What evidence will need to be provided? In what way will it be simpler than ILR? What does the phrase “The Government seek to protect healthcare rights” mean in practice? The word “guarantee” is absent from the paper. Will there be free access to the NHS or will people have to pay an NHS surcharge? I would welcome answers on that.

It is proposed to make deportation easier, but what will the precise criteria be? It is said that those criteria will include “serious or persistent” criminals. What kind of crime does it need to be to qualify as persistent—dropping litter in the street? How will the European Convention on Human Rights apply to those deportation criteria? Will there be a right of appeal against a refusal of settled status or temporary leave and, if so, within what parameters? What about EEA and Swiss nationals, and vice versa? Are they included under the proposals?

Lastly on my list of questions: the residence document that is proposed will be a de facto ID card. I hope the Government can assure us that this is not a back door to an ID card scheme for British citizens as well. Is the proposal that there should be evidence of biometric information designed to mean fingerprints? If so, or even if it does not, is the proposal for a residence card, which presumably will be backed up by a residence database, compliant with the CJEU judgment on the German residence database in the case of Huber?

The proposal that family reunion would be in line with British nationals, not on the basis of EU free movement law, is a diminution of current rights. The British rules have recently been adjudged the least family-friendly of 38 developed countries. If settled status is in reality ILR, how are the Government going to avoid the ILR rule that a two-year absence automatically means a loss of status? The document talks about having strong ties here being a safeguard in these circumstances. How will that work? What do “strong ties” mean? The fear is that this vagueness will deter people from taking up jobs that involve overseas postings if they do not know whether an absence of more than two years is going to mean that they cannot come back.

Other noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, have talked about enforcement, which is a key issue. If these rights are enshrined only in UK law, the fear would be a future amendment, abrogation or repeal, perhaps in response to public pressure about too many foreigners. The document makes no mention of how any breaches of the rules agreed, or any enforcement, are to be ordered. Can the Minister fill that gap in our knowledge? This is key because the enforcement issue cuts both ways. There is no clear explanation of how the Government expect to protect the rights of British citizens in the rest of the EU. The national approach that they have taken regarding EU citizens here is not going to help UK citizens in the rest of the EU because it is not an EU law approach. There is no dimension of European citizenship or recognition of EU legal jurisdiction. It appears to the groups representing UK citizens that they are essentially being abandoned.

Although the paper is better than no paper, it leaves many questions unanswered; it is too little, too late, because what is in it could have been said a year ago, to be a catalyst for reciprocity. I remind the noble Baroness that her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said to us in the Committee last year that a unilateral recognition of the rights of EU citizens here would undoubtedly have triggered a reciprocal guarantee of the rights of British citizens in the rest of the EU. So this bargaining chip approach has been both unnecessary and unproductive. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Can I write to the noble Baroness on that as well as I do not want to give her duff information either?

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about the income threshold to qualify for settled status. EU nationals will not have to meet the income threshold. Further details on the eligibility criteria will be set out in due course, but the policy document sets out what the essential conditions will be—an applicant who arrived before the cut-off date and has been resident for five years and has had an assessment of conduct and criminality. That goes to my point, which I will clarify with the noble Lord, about refusal of settled status.

[Baroness Ludford]

I apologise for another interruption, but can the noble Baroness also address another of my questions? Will there be a system of appeal against refusal of settled status in whatever application of the criteria there are? I take it the noble Baroness will circulate all the letters to all of us.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will circulate letters to all noble Lords and place copies in the Library. I do not know the answer to the question about appeals and will write to the noble Baroness. I have just been told that I am running out of time, so I hope that I do not have to take too many more interventions.

Perhaps I may address the point about ECJ jurisdiction. It has been suggested by noble Lords that EU citizens should depend on the CJEU to defend their continued rights in the UK. Once the UK has left the EU, the EU courts should no longer have jurisdiction in the UK. However, we remain wholly committed to ensuring that EU citizens’ rights are respected and believe that our world-class judicial system, some of whose members are represented here, is the right and appropriate place to enforce that.

The noble Baroness also asked whether we would comply with our ECHR obligations. We will of course comply with our obligations under the ECHR and, as the Government set out, we will remain signatories to it for the duration of the next Parliament. It is also why we have been clear that we want to see agreement with the EU on citizens’ rights included in the withdrawal treaty—a point raised by, I think, the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. That will ensure that our obligations to EU citizens in the UK, and vice versa, are binding upon the EU 27 under EU law and upon the UK as a matter of international law.

This country has always been compassionate in dealing with people, irrespective of whether they are from the EU or outside it. These principles define us as a nation and are reflected in the offer that we have put forward to the other member states. There is already much common ground between the positions of the UK and the EU, and we are confident that we can reach an agreement on this early on in the negotiations. EU citizens can have our full and unreserved reassurance that we will put citizens first in our exit negotiations. We will do all we can to provide reassurance to the EU citizens who have made the UK their home—and likewise for UK nationals who have done the same in countries across the EU.

Again, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who secured the debate. I will of course write to your Lordships on some of the matters of detail that I dare not declare at the Dispatch Box in case what I say is wrong.

Brexit: UK-EU Security (EUC Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Maclennan reminded us, as does the report, that the Prime Minister, when Home Secretary, said that it was vital that we stayed in the 35 policing and justice measures. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, with whom I worked for 15 years in the European Parliament, strongly backed this up. He and I did not always agree during those 15 years but I am glad to say that we do now. The report stresses that the measures we are talking about are part of a complex and interconnected network of agreements and arrangements that are difficult to compartmentalise, and of course they have been through a filter, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, reminded us. Just two years ago these were boiled down from 130 measures to 35 that the Government regarded as vital. How can they be reduced any further?

However excellent our police are, anything short of full participation is going to be less effective, more cumbersome and more long-winded and will therefore hamper our police and prosecutors in apprehending criminals and terrorists, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, reminded us. Indeed, we could, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, fall off a cliff edge in this area, which would be unacceptable. Of course, we were blessed with not one but two former Met commissioners in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, has just stressed that the UK has been a key player in EU co-operation. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, listed almost all the Brits in top positions. We have also had several—two at least—presidents of Eurojust.

Other noble Lords have picked out adjectives in the report in order to stress the key importance of participating in all these measures. I will not repeat them. Europol is a “critical priority”. Of course, it is only as a full member of Europol that we get the full rights of direct access to intelligence and information, and the ability to share those. On Eurojust, the Crown Prosecution Service said that,

“they were heavy users of Eurojust, listing it among their top priorities for any forthcoming negotiation”,

and that bilateral arrangements such as liaison prosecutors cannot,

“do what Eurojust does, which is to facilitate the multi-national co-ordination that is so important”.

The European arrest warrant is dear to my heart. My last work in the European Parliament was to write a report on the reforms that the European arrest warrant needed. This has not been pursued by the European Commission, to my regret. It could be improved but we need to work with what exists. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—we were also blessed with a former Supreme Court Justice—said that it was impossible to overstate the importance of the European arrest warrant to securing justice. The report says that it is,

“a critical component of the UK’s law enforcement capabilities”.

The report also says that it would be,

“an abrupt shock to UK policing … posing a risk to the safety of the public”,

if we were not involved in the data-sharing arrangements. The National Crime Agency was,

“emphatic about the operational significance of access to SIS II”.

It said that being in SIS was one of its “top three priorities” and,

“an absolute game-changer for the UK”.

One could go on.

The case is so powerful and has been made so strongly tonight that we must stay in these measures. What is stopping us? Essentially, the Government are putting their objections to the European Court of Justice above national security. One thing that we will need to comply with are the data-protection arrangements, as enforced by the European Court of Justice. The report says that this is going to be,

“a necessary pre-condition for exchanging data for law enforcement purposes”.

The outgoing Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, said:

“It should not be assumed that Brexit will relieve the UK from the need for compliance with standards of privacy and data protection set out in EU legislation”,


or by the European Court of Justice.

We must also expect greater scrutiny of our surveillance practices, which perhaps we have not had to the same extent as has the United States while we have been a member of the EU. I think we can expect the content of the Investigatory Powers Act to come under close scrutiny when we are seeking an arrangement with the EU without being a member, particularly if we are trying to avoid oversight by the European Court of Justice. The Government claim that security is a top priority but they simply cannot deliver the same level of functionality if we are outside the EU framework because they are not in fact making security a top priority; they are making the political red line that suits the Conservative Party—rejection of the ECJ—the top priority. There was an astonishing response which the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, gave to a member of the other place. I confess I had not picked it up but I looked it up online. He said that yes, we would have to pull out of Prüm—I think he was referring to other measures—because we had to avoid the jurisdiction of the ECJ. That is a very peculiar turnaround of priorities.

The report reminds us that there is this tension between the maintenance of strong security co-operation and refusing oversight arrangements—perhaps not only those of the court but those of the European Parliament as well. We know that our police will do their best but it would be a dereliction of duty to fail to give them the support they need to work with their counterparts in other member states because of what I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to as a doctrinal objection.

The Government will seek bespoke adjudication arrangements. We must hope that they will succeed however they can in keeping us close to practical EU co-operation, but there will be real problems in trying to step aside from the ECJ. The EU can act only in compliance with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the court is the ultimate arbiter of that. It is impossible for the EU to sign an agreement with the UK that conflicts with either the charter or ECJ case law.

The agreement will have to be policed and enforced. If the UK acted in ways that breached the terms of our agreement, it might be open to an EU citizen to take a case to the ECJ and get the decision including the UK agreement annulled. That is what happened to the safe harbour arrangements with the US when an Austrian student, Max Schrems, went to the court because of concerns about US intelligence agencies. We need to think through what could actually happen. We will have to keep up with legal developments in the rest of the EU, a point that has been made this evening, because if we diverge from EU law a gap will open up and we will leave ourselves open to the potential of the agreement being annulled. It remains to be seen whether our EU partners will agree to set aside the ECJ in favour of a bespoke dispute resolution mechanism. But we do not seek just to stay in one measure, whether that is Europol, SIS, the EAW or whatever. We want to remain in the whole package and there is no precedent for the EU agreeing to sideline the ECJ with such a large agreement as we would seek.

I conclude that it would be truly extraordinary if the mantra of taking back control, interpreted by this Government as avoiding ECJ jurisdiction, ended up handing control over to the criminals and terrorists. When you have the experience that we have listened to this evening on the police and judicial side urging the Government to put safety first and back our police and prosecutors, it would surely be an unpatriotic neglect of national security to put political prejudice first and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to demonise the court. That would involve being soft on crime, and I am sure the Government do not wish to do that.

Brexit: Residence Rights

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what preparations the Home Office has made to process applications from European Union nationals resident in the United Kingdom for confirmation of a right to permanent residence or for British Citizenship.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the answer paper.

[Noble Lords]

Order Paper.

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

My Lords, I will now give the Answer on my answer paper. We continue to make the application process quicker and easier. In October 2016, the facility for single EEA applicants to apply for documents certifying permanent residence status online was launched. We are currently working to expand this service further. In addition, the date on which applicants are deemed to have acquired permanent residence status is clearly notified to them so they are clear on when they can pursue an application for British citizenship.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, recuperating myself, I am most grateful for that Answer. I am gratified if there have indeed been improvements, because given the Prime Minister’s claim about making the country fairer, I wonder how it is fair to make EU nationals—who have an automatic right to permanent residence after five years, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, confirmed in a debate last week—go through what many have said is a horrendous process to get a document from the Home Office attesting to that right. I have been told by the BMA that people cannot even fill out the 85-page document online. Can the Minister assure me that accounts of people being asked for reams of documentation, or receiving letters wrongly telling them that they have to leave immediately, are at an end?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I say to the noble Baroness, the system has been vastly improved. Having acquired permanent residence under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, an individual must have 12 months free from immigration restrictions before pursuing an application for British citizenship. The inclusion of the date on which an applicant is deemed to have acquired permanent residence helps to inform applicants about the point at which they are eligible to apply for British citizenship. That removes the uncertainty surrounding the process and the cost to the applicant of submitting an application that might be refused on the basis that they have not been free of immigration restrictions for the required time.

European Union: Freedom of Movement

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think I did answer the noble Lord’s question. Each member state implements the free movement directive through their respective domestic legislation, all of which have different nuances within them.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that confirmation that EU law on free movement is sound and not a charter for layabouts or benefit scroungers and that, if the strict conditions for eligibility are not enforced, that is a failure not of Brussels but of the UK Government and notably the Home Office, which the Prime Minister presided over for six years. Will the Minister offer the further reassurance that EU free movers contribute enormously to our economy, to the Treasury and to our society, and that it is a two-way street, with millions of UK citizens having taken advantage of EU free movement rights?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not disagree at all that the EU free movers contribute to the economy. We were talking yesterday about doctors, nurses and various other people who contribute to the public sector. I cannot remember the first part of the question, but I think I answered it previously. Each country enshrines the free movement directive in its own legislation.

Brexit: Immigration Policy

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thought I had explained it quite clearly.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Do the Minister and the Government accept that there is cross-party support for the Government to give a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals? We just heard the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, saying publicly on her Benches that that would give that stability and is the morally right thing to do. By setting an example, it would give us the good will and make it impossible for the 27 countries not to reciprocate for British nationals in their countries. It would cut the Gordian knot and it is the right thing to do.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think I have just explained why that might be a foolish position.

Brexit: EU Citizens

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, people are not bargaining chips, but the whole negotiating process has to be taken in the round. I absolutely acknowledge when the noble Lord says—because I hope I might be included as one of them—that EU nationals have made a great contribution with their skills and what they have done for this country.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, is false reassurance being given to EU nationals who have been here for five years? They are told that they are fine, but my understanding is that their rights are under EU law and, presumably, would not persist beyond our exit, so they would have to translate that into domestic law through something like indefinite leave to remain. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, again I cannot comment on what will be the subject of negotiations. However, I can confirm that EU nationals who have been continuously and lawfully resident in the UK for five years automatically acquire a permanent right of residence under EU law. This will not change, as long as the UK remains in the EU.