Port Examination Codes of Practice and National Security Determinations Guidance Regulations 2020

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Friday 10th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Schedule 7 power is enormously controversial in conferring extensive powers to stop, examine and search persons at ports without any need for evidence or reasonable suspicion. A 2012 review and the work of successive Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who is speaking today, and his successor, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has led to the introduction of some reforms.

The new code introduces further welcome improvements to the training of officers and the rights of persons stopped. One of these, which reflects fears of a threat to journalism such as that highlighted in the David Miranda case in 2013, is the ban on compelling a person to disclose the identity of a source of journalistic information without judicial authorisation, although that can be after the event.

Race, ethnicity and religion are barred as criteria for selection,

“except to the extent that they are used in association with considerations that relate to the threat from terrorism”,

which is a troubling criterion. There are fears that Schedule 7 stops are based on religious and racial profiling. Can the Government publish statistics on the religious affiliation of those stopped under Schedule 7, to address the accusation that it is being used predominantly and deliberately against the Muslim community?

I realise that Schedule 3 powers are not terrorism-related, but it is unfortunate that, while the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation oversees Schedule 7, it is the Investigatory Powers Commissioner who oversees Schedule 3. Is there scope for co-ordinating the reviewing? That would be helpful.

Lastly, the conditions for retention of biometrics under an NSD are too wide. The revised guidance says that chief officers should consider making an NSD for less than the maximum period of five years if they are not satisfied that retention for the full period would be necessary and proportionate. A cynic would doubt how often that will happen. Will the Government report back on the relevant statistics?

Reading Terrorist Attack

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, I cannot make any comment on the individual from Sunday’s tragic events. She is absolutely right that enough resource must be given to prisons to put in place programmes—often multiagency programmes—to rehabilitate individuals and provide theological teachings to correct some of the more warped teachings they may have learned. On the ISC, I do not know the answer to that, so I will not pretend to know. I do not know when it is next due to meet, but I can certainly take that back.

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Home Secretary said yesterday in the other place:

“There is always more work to do, and I am sure there is more that can be done in the future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/20; col. 1087.]


I think we all take the point made by my noble friend Lord Paddick that it is neither possible nor proportionate to keep everyone of concern to MI5 under surveillance. When the Intelligence and Security Committee is up and running, which I too hope is very soon, can the noble Baroness and her ministerial colleagues encourage it to assess whether there need to be changes in the resourcing, operations or focus of the security and intelligence services and counterterrorist police to enable them better to keep track of people already on their radar?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have already gone through the figures for CT policing and for policing in general. I am sure the noble Baroness will have heard them. I am confident that our security and intelligence services have the resources they need. I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about keeping people under surveillance. Not everything can be solved by legislation, but intelligence-led information is incredibly important. It will be at the heart of how we go forward so that people who are a danger to themselves and to others do not slip through the net.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock [V]]

I am very happy to support this excellent amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. I hope that if the Government do not accept it, he will press it to a Division.

The first aspect of the amendment is, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy has just spoken about, consultation with the devolved Administrations, an issue that I will come to in a moment, but also, rightly, with NGOs, as my friend also said. I had a lot of dealings with human rights NGOs and those involved with press freedom when I was general rapporteur on media freedom and the safety of journalists for the Council of Europe, and I found them very helpful for knowing up-to-date information about each country that we dealt with.

As far as the devolved Administrations are concerned, there is—with no disrespect to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—an awful lot of talk of consultation but very little real, meaningful consultation with the devolved authorities. For example, on Covid recently, the Prime Minister talks about consulting but for a month now he has not chaired a meeting of COBRA in which the First Ministers have been involved. That is not the consultation that could be taking place, so we have to write it into legislation. The Joint Ministerial Councils, which ought to be working, are not working effectively, while the European arrest warrant was abandoned by this Government in spite of objections from the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations. Consultation must be written into this.

The second reason I strongly support my noble friend Lord Kennedy’s amendment relates to the red notice system. I want to mention the terribly tragic death of Harry Dunn at the age of 19, with his whole adult life ahead of him, in a hit-and-run accident. It was really terrible. The driver of the car, Anne Sacoolas, an American citizen, the wife of a diplomat, escaped justice by fleeing from the UK back to America. That was disgraceful. Her diplomatic immunity itself was very doubtful. Can the Minister confirm that an Interpol red notice has been issued in relation to Ms Sacoolas? I think the Prime Minister has said that she should return, but what are the Government doing to insist on that and take action?

For those two reasons, I strongly support the amendment. As I say, I hope my noble friend will take real courage in his hands and call a Division on this matter if the Government refuse to accept his very strong and persuasive arguments.

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in Committee on 5 March the Minister said:

“The Government have no intention of specifying countries likely to abuse the system to political ends”—


that is, the Interpol system. Obviously, that was an important pledge, but it does not conflict with the need for Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with an assessment of the risks and a statement confirming that the territory does not abuse Interpol red notices.

I also agree that devolved Governments and NGOs should be consulted. Fair Trials International, of which I have been a patron for two decades, has long campaigned to ensure that Interpol does better at filtering out abuses of its system before information is sent out to police forces across the globe. When abusive “wanted person” alerts slip through the net, victims should have redress through an open and impartial process. There is no court in which to pursue an appeal. Fair Trials has highlighted shocking cases of injustice and the devastating impact that these alerts can have on those affected. Bill Browder has said that your life as a human being is over.

Fair Trials has helped dozens of people who have been subject to abusive Interpol alerts from countries including Russia, Belarus, Turkey, Venezuela, Egypt, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. FTI has also worked constructively with Interpol to develop realistic reform proposals. It held a positive meeting with Interpol’s secretary-general, Jürgen Stock, to discuss reforming the red notice system.

In the context of mounting political pressure for reform, changes were introduced in 2015, when Interpol announced that it had taken the first steps towards implementing reforms, including the introduction of a new refugee policy. Then, in 2017, Interpol introduced a number of further reforms, including greater independence, influence and expertise of the supervisory authority, the CCF; better transparency and respect for equality of arms; reasoned and public decisions on individual cases; and a working group to review red notice operations.

The Minister said, again on 5 March, that

“the UK is currently working with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. 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. A UK government lawyer has also been 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.”—[Official Report, 5/3/20; col. 364GC.]

Can she tell us any more about what further changes and reforms have been introduced since 2017 to prevent abuse? Although that is essential, I still hope that she can tell us that she will accept Amendment 2.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot imagine that the Minister is going to tell us anything other than that the Government would consult the appropriate authorities before exercising the power under paragraph 7 of the Schedule, so the obvious question is: if the Government are committed to consulting, why will they not put it in the Bill, given the extent of the concerns that have been raised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee [V]]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has added his name to Amendment 3, as the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Anderson, did to a similar amendment at an earlier stage. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ludford, who dealt with the matter on our behalf on Report, when, with the leave of the Minister, it was agreed that it be taken at Third Reading.

We often hear from the mover of an amendment: “This is a simple amendment.” Often, it is not quite that simple, but I believe this one is straightforward. When the Secretary of State lays regulations under new Section 74B(7)

“to add, vary or remove a reference to a territory”—

it is the addition that is the issue here—those regulations should apply only to a single territory. What I hope makes this simple to noble Lords is that there is nothing to prevent several instruments, each relating to one territory, being laid at the same time so that several territories can be specified within a matter of minutes of each other. But the crux is that Parliament should be able to reject one territory while happily accepting others.

In Committee, I used the examples of the Netherlands, a country which we respect, and Turkey, whose human rights record has regressed. I will use another pair today. I couple them only to distinguish between them: Sweden is a country we admire; Venezuela is one we do not, in this regard. If Parliament is presented with the choice of rejecting Sweden from the system because it wants to reject Venezuela, or accepting Venezuela because it wants to accept Sweden, how can Parliament possibly do the job we are all here to do when faced with an SI which is not amendable? The Minister has said previously that she would not present an SI that includes a country whose extradition requests we could not have confidence in due to their human rights record and would risk Parliament refusing extradition arrangements with a country that respects the rule of law. What the noble Baroness as an individual Minister might do is not the issue. I do not for a moment challenge her as an individual. This is a matter of system and procedure, not for an individual.

The previous amendment, which has just been agreed, referred to political motivation, and we must all be aware of the different criteria that different countries apply to the decisions they take as a state. Given the issues around relationships with countries regarding arms sales, for instance, is it any wonder that noble Lords are concerned about extradition to a country whose values, including valuing human life, are not our values?

The shortcomings and difficulties in procedures for dealing with secondary legislation are not a new point, but the fact that no amendments are possible is the most relevant one today. But, for once, we have a solution, which is to deal with these proposals one country at a time. I cannot understand an objection which seems to amount to no more than “It wasn’t invented here” or “not common practice”, to use the phrase used in Committee.

I need say no more, as I know that other noble Lords will contribute to the debate. Unless the Minister concedes, which I do not expect, I will test the opinion of the House, but for the moment I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford [V]]

My noble friend Lady Hamwee has covered the strong case for this amendment and, to be quite frank, I cannot see on what grounds the Government can resist it. There is no good argument on administrative, parliamentary or human rights grounds not to have one territory per SI, so that Parliament can carefully discriminate between those territories where we are happy to have a law enforcement relationship and those that are, quite honestly, unreliable.

The way that the Government have resisted this improvement throughout the passage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House raises some concerns. Those are not linked, as my noble friend said, to the person of the Minister, but to any and every Government. We know that there will be pressures on this country, which has chosen—wrongly, in my opinion—to exit from the EU and make itself vulnerable to pressures in the context of seeking trade agreements. Those pressures are being discussed in a lively way, as they were last Wednesday in our Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill, when we discussed chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and so on, and one can foresee similar kinds of pressures when countries seek favours from the United Kingdom in order to give us a trade concession. It would be all too tempting for a current or future Government to throw in a favour in a completely different area, such as law enforcement co-operation, in order to win a point for one economic sector or another in a trade deal.

In order to stop any such development in its tracks, it is completely reasonable to ask the Government simply to let Parliament decide on a country-by-country basis whether we want to add them to this system of provisional arrest. The onus is really on the Government to convince this House why it is reasonable to lump them together and not allow us to decide territory by territory, which is the obvious way to proceed.

Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I absolutely give that commitment to my noble friend. The sooner that these measures are lifted the better, because it means that the virus will have been completely suppressed, the country will be opening up again and the economy will be moving. Manchester Airport, which I visited just before lockdown started—it was absolutely ghostly at the time, and I do not think any planes have flown out of there in the last few weeks—is my local airport, and I absolutely look forward to it being up and running again.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it is widely commented that this is a three-week window-dressing exercise that is political rather than led by the science, in order to save certain faces. Can the Minister answer with a yes or no the question that was asked yesterday in the other place and earlier in this House by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Reid: was SAGE consulted on, and did it recommend, the measures in the new regulations? Yes or no?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, my Lords, the Government are led by the science. It is up to SAGE if it wants to publish papers but it is absolutely not compelled to do so. It has published its minutes up to 1 May. As I said before, SAGE advises the Government and it is up to the Government to make decisions based on that advice.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, in her response to Wendy Williams’ Windrush review, the Home Secretary said:

“we were all shocked to discover that they and their families were subject to such insensitive treatment by the very country they called home.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/20; col. 1154.]

Sadly, insensitive treatment is regarded by many as the Home Office’s stock-in-trade. It took a commendable series of articles and a book by journalist Amelia Gentleman—as she rightly remarked:

“The ability to feel outrage is a powerful tool.”—


to bring that to a wider public.

The Windrush scandal was not a mistake or some unfortunate one-off bureaucratic error. It was a direct result of a pledging war between the two main parties to cut the numbers of immigrants—in particular, Tory political promises to reduce net migration to an arbitrary target of tens of thousands and

“to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for illegal migration.”

The effect of the hostile environment policy was clearly racially discriminatory, but Ministers refused to listen to the chorus of warnings. Although stopping short of a full finding of institutional racism, Wendy Williams found

“an institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation”.

The scandal also displayed all the worst aspects of bureaucracy: complex laws that very few understood, coupled with historical amnesia; a “culture of disbelief” and refusal to listen to what people were saying; the distorting effect that targets can have; a cruel lack of humanity; misinformation, doublespeak and inaccessibility; the lumping together of different categories, in this case legal with illegal residents; sheer incompetence, such as in destroying vital files, poor record-keeping, absence of corporate memory and poor-quality decision-making; and resistance to legitimate criticism. Will we see not only compensation but real change? There is some hope that the frenzy of Brexit-fuelled anti-immigrant hysteria has waned, and there are indications of public appreciation of the positive value of immigration, not least in the NHS and care services.

One key test of the Government’s attitude will be the treatment of the 3 million EU nationals, but, like the Windrush generation, many of them have been asked for an unreasonable level of proof. In a welcome change of tune, Michael Gove told our EU committee yesterday that a physical status document might be considered. An appeal to the Home Office to change its habits of a lifetime might get little traction on the basis of sheer humanity and sensitivity, but in a world in which the UK will be competing for workers of all levels of skill it would be wise for it to ensure that its reputation for nastiness and incompetence does not continue to harm the national interest.

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.