Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, as was mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not able to be here today, but I join in the tributes paid by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, about his excellent work on the Bill. He very much regrets that he is not able to be here.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has slipped out, but I felt the challenge “follow that”. I fully subscribe to the fantastic riposte that he gave to the Minister. I am afraid I will speak quite a few times today; that is how the cookie has crumbled for the parts of the Bill that I have got involved in—all my prizes are coming at once. I am afraid I do not apologise for that. In response to my noble friend Lord Newby last week, the Chief Whip complained about alleged repetition, including from these Benches. I may not be alone in having heard Dr Hannah White of the Institute for Government on the “Westminster Hour” on the radio last night. She said that, in the other place, the Bill had two days in Committee of the whole House—that is not an ideal process. She said that, normally, you would have expected two weeks in Committee in the past, under the normal processes—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Yes.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I hear the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who knows those processes. They would take evidence and scrutinise line by line, rather like how we are doing now. The Bill did not get that scrutiny in the other place, so it falls to us. Indeed, Dr White said—I hope I do not paraphrase her wrongly—that the Commons are getting used to kicking the scrutiny down to our Chamber. It seems that the Government are trying to squeeze scrutiny out of us and to bully us into not raising issues here. It comes to something when we poor, aged people—perhaps I had better not go on—are the ones who have to stay until 4.15 in the morning because the Government are trying to bully us out of raising essential issues. These included arbitrary detention powers last week—nothing could be more historic in terms of the dangers of executive overreach. So we have to go on a bit, I am afraid.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I almost dare not go down that line because it has been suggested that what I have been saying is not applicable to these amendments. I think it is applicable, and we have to talk about this principle if we are to discuss the Bill properly. On what the noble Lord rightly put forward, all this throws everything into doubt, and it is very un-Conservative. I have never known a Conservative proposal to throw aside all the interpretation that has grown up over the years, because that is exactly what life is about: learning through the years. Citing the fact that it happens to be interpretation of European Union laws is to ignore the history. We have been a member of the European Union, and we are no longer; I am sorry about that, but I am one of those who wants to draw a line underneath that and behave sensibly from now on. I do not want this appallingly reactionary approach, which says, “Because it’s got ‘EU’ on it, there’s something wrong with it”. Let us consider it properly and separately.

So if we are not going to get rid of the first point about motor vehicles and seat belts for children, let us therefore have a different way of doing it. Let us decide that we will have a reform of the laws in general and that we will bring before this House proposals for what those changes will be in a timetable which is sensible and which the House can deal with. Therefore, we would not do the last non-Conservative thing, which is so outrageous as to be almost inconceivable: taking the power over law from Parliament and giving it to Ministers. I can think of nothing less Conservative than that.

Let me put it like this: we are not even giving it to these Ministers; we are going to give it to whichever Ministers are there—and they may not be the same lot. All I want to say is that no Conservative in my knowledge of history has ever proposed that the decision on something as important as, for example, children wearing seat belts shall not be our job in this House and in the elected House, but the job of Ministers alone.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I support every word that he said. I too will react to the letter we got minutes before we started this Committee debate—if I am allowed to do so without an intervention from the Government Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Fox referred to how the letter says that the dashboard

“presents an authoritative catalogue of retained EU law, not a comprehensive list of retained EU law”.

So I hope that the Minister, in her response, can give us a precise explanation of the difference between “authoritative catalogue” and “comprehensive list”, because, for my part, I cannot really understand how it can be authoritative if it is not comprehensive.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I am sorry to remove my mask, but I am told in the Climate Change Committee, of which I am chairman, that we have to have a British ETS which is not aligned with the rest of Europe because that is what we want. Why does it apply to climate change but not to modern slavery? On both of those issues we are in advance and wish to continue to be in advance. I do not understand this alignment element.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Can I join the maskless crew? Surely international law, and certainly EU directives, are usually a minimum requirement, so if we wanted 45 days and a European instrument said 30, that is brilliant; it is better. It at least complies, so what is the problem?

Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I add to what my noble friend Lord Paddick said—it is the disjuncture and hypocrisy that upsets us. Of course, this is a one-way continuation of free movement. Many of us were extremely distressed when the Prime Minister cited the top reason for celebrating her ill-fated draft withdrawal agreement and political declaration last November; apparently, its top benefit was ending free movement. In fact, this is not happening—at least, not into the UK—and no consideration was given to the benefits of free movement for UK citizens in the rest of the EU. This instrument says nothing about those opportunities, which are being torn away from UK nationals. This will particularly affect young people and those of all ages who want to work or retire in the rest of the EU. It is the Government’s inconsistency which strikes such a difficult note.

Had I had the opportunity to ask my noble friends on the Front Bench, who know a great deal more about immigration law than I do, I may not have needed to ask this question, which concerns the difference between Articles 3 and 7, which I do not really understand. Article 3 is entitled:

“Grant of leave to EEA and Swiss nationals”.


Article 7 is entitled:

“Grant of leave by virtue of Appendix EU to the immigration rules”.


I simply do not understand the difference between those legal bases for extension of leave, as “EEA nationals” covers EU nationals as well. Perhaps the Minister could help me. That also spills over to the health charge, because Article 10, on exempting from the health charge, appears to apply only to those who acquire leave to enter or remain,

“by virtue of Appendix EU to the immigration rules”.

It does not appear to cover those who get leave under draft Article 3. As I say, it may just be that I do not understand how all this interacts, but perhaps the Minister can enlighten me.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the careful and charming way in which she introduced this SI. But we had better remind ourselves what “free movement” actually means. It means that people can move from one part of the European Union to another—but in fact, of course, at some stage they have to have a job. You can remove them from one country to another if they do not have one. That is part of the arrangement.

My worry about this is that we say that we are ending free movement, but actually we have not included the one thing that is a perfectly proper restriction on free movement that we have had up to now. So we are removing the one thing that most people would find unacceptable, which is the mechanism whereby you make sure that people move around the European Union with a purpose and do not become a burden on a particular country they have chosen to go to. I find that bit really very peculiar. No doubt the Government have thought that all through, so we will hear exactly how it works.

Although I shall say this as politely as I possibly can, I think that this is a load of old nonsense. I really do think that the idea that we will grant these opportunities for the rest of Europe but are putting ourselves into a position in which none of these opportunities might be granted to any of our citizens seems to be one of the best examples of the fact that Brexit is a mechanism for shooting ourselves in the foot. The reason we are doing this in a one-sided way is exactly the same as with every other SI we have had: the only things we can do with SIs are the things that affect us, rather than anything in the rest of Europe that affects our people. What better exemplar of the stupidity of leaving the European Union can there be?

My noble friend is of course bound to defend the Government’s policy—although I have to say that I am not really sure what the Government’s policy now is. Indeed, I have not really been sure for some long time, and today it seems even less clear than it was yesterday. No doubt tomorrow it will be more opaque still. But the reality is that this SI displays the fundamental problem that, during the referendum campaign, a lot of promises were made. One of them was, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, that we would “take back control”. So we are taking back control to allow other people to travel into our country, but removing our right to travel into their countries. As a piece of control taking back, that seems somewhat limited in its attraction.

I often ask myself how I would speak on a platform if I was asked a question about these SIs. Indeed, it is a way I think when I look at what we are proposing on the climate change committee. I say to myself, “How would I explain that on a platform?” It is a useful thing for a long-term politician. So I am standing on a platform and somebody says, “Can I go to the rest of Europe like I have always done?” The answer is, “We don’t know, because we haven’t done a deal on that”. “Can my aunt, who happens to be French, come to Britain even if she hasn’t got a job?” The answer to that is probably yes. “How do they make sure she’s here for only three months if she doesn’t have to show her passport or have it stamped?” The answer is that they probably cannot. “Well, will they look out for her?” “No, we’ve agreed that there’s not going to be any looking out for people; it’s not going to be like that at all”.

How does that draw that into the same position as somebody who comes from the United States? Of course, that is entirely different; they have to show a passport and make the arrangements. I do not mind that, because we do not have a mutual arrangement with the United States—but at least we do not have a one-sided arrangement with the United States. At least we do not say that Americans can come here and do all these things and we have no willingness to go there.

I really got up to say to my noble friend how sorry I am that she has had to defend this SI—because it is indefensible. It is a nonsense. It is quite wrong to give other people the rights to enter our nation and say that that is taking back control, and it is quite wrong to give those rights without having previously arranged that we should have the same rights in the rest of Europe. To hide it behind the use of the phrase “free movement” is, of course, the really serious thing, because free movement has always been restricted. If the Government have not used those restrictions effectively, that has been the fault not of the European Union but of United Kingdom Governments of all denominations and types. So I say to my noble friend: okay, no doubt the SI will be passed, but do not think that it does any honour to this Government—and it certainly does no honour to Britain. I am getting more and more embarrassed at the way the rest of the world is seeing us.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to be helpful to the Minister because I think Amendment 66, to which I have added my name, merely ensures that we do what the Government have said they want to do. I speak as chairman of the Committee on Climate Change because this amendment, as the noble Baroness mentioned, refers to international obligations beyond the European Union, one of which is the Convention on Climate Change.

I am particularly interested in this because for four years I was Secretary of State for the Environment at a time when the British did not have a great reputation for environmental action. I have to say to the Committee that I found the presence of EU law, particularly on bathing waters and water quality, extremely helpful. It was not always easy to convince my colleagues that we really did have less good drinking water than much of the rest of the European Union. They rather took my mother’s view, which was that the reason that people had bottled water in France was because their ordinary water was unacceptable. There was a general view, much promoted in the Daily Telegraph, that there was no need for improvement. I have to say that there was need. There was even more need, as Surfers Against Sewage made clear, to do something about our appalling bathing water standards. We were, after all, in much of the country pouring unreformed ordure—I do try very hard to use phrases that the Committee will not object to—into the sea. We were able to change that, not, I may say, without very considerable difficulty and arguments about the price and cost of doing it. It was within a context of EU law, and not just precise pieces of law but the context in which we accepted certain standards and values to which we could refer when it came to making our own legislation.

I have looked at this amendment very carefully, and I cannot find anything in it to which the Government could possibly object. If my noble friend is busy looking it up at the moment, no doubt he may find something, but I do not see anything to which the Government could object. There is nothing here which does not pass from EU law into our law, and that, after all, is the purpose of the withdrawal Bill. My noble friend has sometimes been somewhat sharp with me in suggesting that I am asking for something more, so I have not put my name to those things which have asked for something more—mind you, I might well come back and ask for that—but this amendment asks for nothing more than that which has been promised by the Prime Minister, by the Secretary of State for Defra and by other Ministers: namely, that our standards would be at least those of the European Union were we to leave the EU. This merely puts down that contention.

Frankly, I think that my noble friend, if he were to say that we cannot have this amendment—I very much hope that he is not going to say that—has to explain, first, what in it is additional to the mere passing of the law from the EU into our national law. Secondly, he must explain why it is unacceptable to the Government for this House to repeat what the Government have themselves said: not an unreasonable thing, I think, for it to do.

I said earlier that I rose to be helpful, and I meant it. There is very considerable concern throughout the country, not just from environmental organisations but from civic society generally, that the Government will not be bound in the future, were we to leave the European Union, in the same way as they are bound now within the European Union. There is widespread concern, felt not just by those who are opposed to our leaving the EU but also by people who voted to leave because they were promised that leaving would not make a difference, in any sense, to these things. I want to be helpful because, if we do not do this, very large numbers of people will vote with their feet because they will not trust any Government. I do not trust any Government on these issues. I do not just mean that I do not trust this Government: I have not trusted previous Governments. I have fought with all of them one way or another on these principles. That is why this amendment is so important.

The vital issue is that the environment needs to have a framework within which people can have confidence that their interests will in fact be met. In the past, we have had the framework of the European Union. The Government say we can have just as good a framework outside the European Union—well, this is the framework, and there is no reason why they should refuse it.

In the Pope’s encyclical Laudato Si’, he makes the absolutely fascinating statement that climate change is in fact to be seen as a symptom of the way human beings have dealt with each other and the planet upon which we live. He goes on to express his desire that we should learn again how we should behave not only to each other but also to the world. The very best series of explanations of how we should behave are to be found in this amendment. They have been honed and argued over the years in the European Union, and I spent a good number of years of my life debating them both in the Environment Council and in the Agriculture Council.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Deben, finishes, does he agree that one essential EU measure is the urban wastewater directive of 1991, without which we would not have built the Thames super-sewer? I am less reticent than the noble Lord because, on a weekly basis, untreated raw sewage flows into the Thames right outside this House. We are already nearly two decades overdue in implementing that directive, and without EU law we would not be doing so at all.

[Lord Deben]

I am very glad to acknowledge the noble Baroness’s point, but I have tried hard not to stray into other things because I want the Minister to accept this amendment. If he does not, I have a fundamental question to ask him, because I do not think the Government are serious about what they have promised. If they are, they cannot oppose this amendment, and if they do not oppose it, why on earth can they not accept it? If the Minister tells me that we do not need it because of this, that and the other, he will have to go through each item and explain how it is totally passed into our law without this amendment. He will also have to explain it in such a way that it can be understood by all those people outside this House who are worried and concerned about this change from our membership of the EU.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

Does my noble and learned friend agree that my noble friend Lady McIntosh has raised an issue that probably should not be answered in this way, but provides a difficulty for the Government that would be overcome if they said, when they had agreed and supported a particular decision, that they would then carry it out in whatever way they thought was the most sensible? That means that we can go on discussing and not be left in some sort of oblivion.

[Baroness Ludford]

Before the noble and learned Lord answers that point, I add a further complication. Whether we agree to a directive or not, if it was adopted by qualified majority voting it would still be adopted with an obligation for the UK to implement it. That does not quite solve the issue. What is raised is surely a very valid issue. It may not strictly come within the definitions in the Bill, but there is still a legal obligation if a directive has been adopted at EU level, whether we agree to it or not.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my declaration of interest and the fact that for many years I have helped businesses trying to combat modern slavery. I am a little less critical than the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of the changes being made, because I think that they are necessary, but I agree that it would have been better, had we had the time, to make them in a different way. But we have this opportunity and not to have made them would, I think, have been a grave mistake. I support the noble Lord’s suggestion that the Government give an undertaking that we will come back to this in a year’s time to make sure that these necessary changes have done what we hope they will do.

I want to draw the attention of the House to something that is very often forgotten. It is that when companies look at their supply chain and seek to see where there is modern slavery, they usually start in some distant country. They think about somewhere where the rule of law is not as we would expect it to be. The shock, to many, is how much is found in so-called civilised and advanced countries—not just in Britain and the European Union but in the United States. It is very valuable that we have moved from the narrow attitude that you get this only in agriculture or with gangmasters, or that you get it only a long way away, to an understanding that we actually get it in almost every place, in almost every country and in the most remarkable situations.

I will quote an experience of mine. While I was working very hard on what we should do in countries in the Indian subcontinent, the very first and worst case happened in Manchester. We have to recognise that the issues with which we are dealing here are almost universal and a terrible indictment of man’s inhumanity to man.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I want to ask about the information gateway provisions, and in particular Amendments 8 to 11. These are very substantial and intrusive new powers introduced at a very late stage of the Bill. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the justification for introducing them and why they were not thought of at an earlier stage of the Bill, even before Committee? They seem very wide, talking about the disclosure of information,

“for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the Director”.

Like my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I would be interested to know whether the Information Commissioner has given advice. If so, will the Minister share that advice and assessment with us? There is a need for safeguards to match the breadth and depth of the powers. It strikes me that, while mention is made of the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—which is not quite RIP—there is, of course, a new EU regulation on data protection that will be directly applicable and therefore will not have to be transposed into an Act of Parliament. Have these powers been health-checked against the new regulation, which may be somewhat tighter than the Data Protection Act in certain areas?

I want to ask specifically about medical confidentiality. In Amendment 9, which introduces a new clause after Clause 5, subsection (1) says:

“A disclosure of information … authorised by section (Information gateways) does not breach … an obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure”.

Since health bodies—NHS trusts, the Care Quality Commission and so on—are on the list for information sharing, this obviously raises the question of whether medical information is going to be covered, which is likely.

There do not seem to be any similar provisions to those in new subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the new clause in relation to intelligence information and information pertaining to HMRC, where there is an obligation not to disclose information,

“without authorisation from the appropriate service chief”,

or “from HMRC Commissioners”. There does not seem to be anything comparable for medical data. Clearly, these are sensitive personal data for which a higher level of stewardship is already required under the Data Protection Act, and even more so under the new EU regulation. I would like an assurance that these provisions have gone through the filter of the ICO and the new EU regulation.