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

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just explained, the amendment would ensure that children in care were entitled to remain in the United Kingdom.

When the same amendment was debated in Committee, several of your Lordships emphasised that post Brexit it is both logical and necessary for children who are already in care, along with those entitled to care, to be able to stay in the United Kingdom, for otherwise where would these children go?

Nor, of course, can it be in the child’s best interest to be removed from care in the United Kingdom simply because we are leaving the European Union. Equally, under our own law and that of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we are obliged to look after the child’s best interest in all respects. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister affirmed that this is what we will do.

However, the Government are concerned that post Brexit an automatic right to remain in care in the United Kingdom would encourage local authorities not to apply for leave to remain for each child currently in their care.

Yet surely local authorities providing care to EEA and Swiss children ought not to have to face the additional administrative burden and red tape implied—to have to make an application for leave to remain for each and every child before the given deadline.

Would it not be much better and far less time consuming if, rather than dealing with the majority of cases, local authorities instead had to deal with only very few of them? Those are the cases where it might not be in the child’s best interest to remain in the United Kingdom. For the latter cases, an administrative act could easily be made before the given deadline in order to avoid the automatic or de jure leave to remain after having left the European Union.

Therefore, without the amendment, local authorities would have to shoulder an unnecessary burden just at a moment when they had many other pressing tasks to perform.

Yet, at the same time, acceptance of the amendment means that children currently in care would no longer be uncertain about their future care if, for whatever reason, local authorities should not be able to meet the deadline for an application for leave to remain.

Worse still, without the amendment there is also a risk that, after the given deadline will have passed, some children might then be deported.

For these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, proposes.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which seeks, of course, to offer security to EEA children in care in the UK and those entitled to care-leaving support. The noble Lord and his colleagues have set out the case for the amendment very clearly and I certainly do not want to repeat their comments, but I want to add my support as someone who worked in mental health services for many years—decades, actually—originally on the front line. My recollections of the vulnerability of those children remain with me even after what is perhaps four decades.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her helpful letter explaining the Government’s position. I welcome her assurance that protecting the rights of EEA citizens who are resident in the UK has been the priority since the outcome of the EU referendum, and that the Government have been working with local authorities and others to ensure that vulnerable children obtain immigration status. It seems that the Government agree with the sponsors of this amendment that it is essential that children in care and care leavers have secure UK status.

The Government may have identified a weakness in our amendment—that it would not in fact provide these children and young people with the clear status we all want them to have—although I was very much reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I hope the Minister can clarify this point, because it really is of fundamental importance.

If needed, I hope the Government will table their own amendment at Third Reading to make sure that the Bill fulfils what are not only our objectives, but theirs. I think the Minister would welcome the fact that the amendment places a duty on local authorities to identify which children in their care are at risk of losing their status when the UK leaves the EU, and therefore which children need support to get through the hoops to achieve settled status. This is so important, because local authorities do not routinely collect nationality data on children in their care. They may assume that none of their children are from the EEA and will not take any action on this important issue. It is easy to anticipate that, through no fault of their own, these children could end up undocumented.

The evidential burden for settled status is another problem, particularly when people are up against a deadline. By reducing the evidential burden, many of these vulnerable children will be rescued from having undocumented status after the transition period. The Home Office has previously stated:

“Children who do not apply because their parent or guardian did not submit an application on their behalf can submit a late application. This includes children in care and care leavers”.


If the Home Office is committed to the principle of late applications for these vulnerable children, why not support that principle through this amendment? Or does the Home Office have in mind that these children be given pre-settled or temporary status? If so, Ministers will know that this only defers the problem of lack of documentation when they come to apply for permanent status. I would be really grateful if the Minister clarified this point.

Finally, the numbers of children involved are perfectly manageable: 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers across the whole of the UK would need to apply to the EU settlement scheme. My preference would be for a government amendment, if necessary, meeting the precise objectives of this amendment, to be tabled at Third Reading. If, however, the Minister is unable to agree to work with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others to generate the right amendment for Third Reading, if necessary, I hope that he will press this amendment to a vote, and I will certainly support it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I can be brief, because this amendment has cross-party support, but I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I did not read the amendment as declaratory. My reading was that looked-after children should be given settled status. I assume from the Minister’s letter of earlier today and the comments on the declaratory scheme that the problem with Amendment 14 lies in proposed new sub-paragraph (1):

“is deemed to have and be granted indefinite leave to remain”.

Perhaps “is deemed to have” suggests that that person will not have any documentary evidence.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested, if that is indeed what the Minister understands by the declaratory nature of the amendment, it would be helpful if the Minister considered a rephrasing in a government amendment that would have the import of granting settled status to looked-after children and care leavers. Then, they would have settled status and documentary evidence, since the only reason that such people would end up in a Windrush-style situation is if the Government left them there.

Brexit: Refugee Protection and Asylum Policy (EUC Report)

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the EU Committee, whose report is comprehensive, clear and informative; it is really quite excellent. I want to put a number of questions to the Minister. No doubt her wind-up speech will respond quite automatically to some of them but, in so far as that is not possible, I wonder whether the officials might respond to some of the unanswered questions today.

As the report says, a UK withdrawal from the Dublin system after Brexit would result in,

“the loss of a safe, legal route for the reunification of separated refugee families in Europe”,

as my noble friend Lord Jay quoted. In a no-deal scenario, the impact on refugees really could be appalling. Can the Minister give an assurance that a temporary extension of the current arrangements will be put in place in the event of no deal until a satisfactory alternative system can be generated? It does not seem a lot to ask.

Very concerning is the fact that the UK does not participate in the family reunification directive, under which the participating EU countries have common rules governing the exercise of the right to family reunification by their country nationals, including special rules for refugees. The report points out that:

“The Government has indicated its intention to establish a new strategic relationship on asylum and migration with the EU—replicating some of the key principles of Dublin”.


I emphasise “some”. Can the Minister indicate which principles the Government do not plan to include in their new strategy, and why not?

I share the concern of the committee about a potential reduction in the reunion rights of vulnerable unaccompanied children; a number of noble Lords have already referred to this incredibly upsetting issue. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will actually increase the protection against disruption to family reunion afforded by the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and can she spell out what the additional protections will be? Future UK-EU asylum co-operation should include a framework for the speedy resolution of refugee family reunion cases, ideally based on continued UK access to the Eurodac database. Can she give the House any information about these issues?

Can the Minister comment on the conclusions of David Bolt, the UK Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration? He said—I thought very tellingly—that

“the Department had handled family reunion applications as if they were visit visa applications”,

and that the Home Office had been

“too ready to refuse family reunion applications on the basis of insufficient evidence”,

instead of giving the applicant more time to produce more evidence, which might result in a much fairer and more efficient outcome. Bolt made the point that the readiness to refuse came from seeing these applications as “the wrong thing”. I do not fully understand all that, but it certainly sounds deeply worrying. Despite an improvement following the Bolt report, evidence from other witnesses shows that stakeholders continue to have significant concerns over the process for reuniting refugee families in the UK.

Probably the most upsetting aspect of the refugee tragedy is the fact that unaccompanied children are not allowed to sponsor their parents to come to the UK. The Refugee Council said that these restrictions condemned some of those children never to see their family members again. I find that shocking. Can we really continue with such a policy? I think not.

Not quite as bad as the position of unaccompanied children, but nevertheless also unacceptable, is the rule that family reunification does not allow so-called non-dependent children to be reunified with their families in the UK. What this means in practice is, of course, that the family has to leave behind an 18 year-old or so daughter or son, and we know that, in a number of countries, a daughter on her own with no family protection at all could be in serious jeopardy. Again, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that this will be dealt with.

The report rightly refers to the Home Office’s failures to assess the evidence available and its tendency to apply an

“excessively high standard of proof”

in family reunion cases. It also states that the Home Office regularly exceeds the time limit to conclude these cases under the Dublin regulation, and the time taken is, as we all know, no small matter. Delays can have long-lasting and serious impacts on the mental and physical health of vulnerable child refugees, who have already suffered enough before they arrive here.

An anomaly that should surely be sorted out when we leave the EU is that local authorities receive £25,000 over five years to support a child with a family who arrive through a resettlement scheme, but nothing to support an unaccompanied child and help with the costs of the care system. How can that be justified? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

Finally, lengthy periods of detention for asylum seekers need to be thought about. The Refugee Council noted that the UK was the only country in Europe that did not have a maximum time limit for immigration detention. As noble Lords know perfectly well, thousands of people are detained each year for long periods, costing £100 million annually and affecting the health and well-being of the detainees—and, of course, many of those are children. Again, do the Government plan to right this wrong? I sincerely hope so.

After all that, I suppose that I need to say something positive. I understand that the UK has a good record on implementing the refugee resettlement programmes. Indeed, I understand that the UK can claim to be a global leader in resettlement, so we are able to do things properly. I congratulate the Government on that success and hope that they can extend that good practice to the other areas that I have mentioned.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, has withdrawn from these proceedings, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

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

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

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

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 22 is the first in a group that also includes Amendments 24, 29 and 31, all relating to asylum seekers’ right to work. On the first day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on a very different amendment, talked about the purposes of work. I noted them down as being to earn money, for self-actualisation and as a matter of reputation. These all apply not just to you and me but to asylum seekers.

All the amendments in this group are variations on a theme. Our Amendment 22 would give an asylum seeker the right to work after three months if there has been no decision on his or her case. It will not escape noble Lords that the “if there has been no decision” is an important part of this.

The amendments are expressed to relate to EEA and Swiss nationals, to bring them within the scope of the Bill, but it is not beyond the scope of one’s imagination to think that there may be people seeking asylum in the UK from EU countries—Poland and Hungary might spring to mind—so it is not irrelevant. This is not just straining to debate a matter that I know has concerned many noble Lords for a long time.

The Minister may tell us that we will soon see a Bill about asylum, which the Home Office is currently reviewing. That is, it is reviewing the issue of asylum rather than a particular Bill. The Committee will be glad of any news not just about the Bill but about the consultation that the Home Office is undertaking with stakeholders about these issues. There are many stakeholders.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has moved to the position from which he will respond—at least it looks that way; I am looking at him on a rather small screen—and I hope he will be able to give some assurances about consultation with stakeholders with regard to the changes in our asylum provisions.

The great majority of asylum seekers are keen to work. Persistence is probably part of the make-up of many of them by definition, their having managed to get to this country. They want to pay tax and to contribute to their new society. They are often very skilled; that will be the subject of the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 31.

It is very harsh not only to provide such a low daily allowance—I know the noble Lord would be required to disagree with that—but to take a long time in determining claims. In a way, that is the real issue. We picked three months because that gives time for an individual to settle. An asylum seeker may need longer to become comfortable with the English language if he is not already an English speaker, though I am constantly impressed by people’s facility with English. It puts me to shame.

There is also the issue of preventing working. I referred to self-actualisation and reputation, the terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. We all know the value of work to each of us as individuals: the sense of self-worth and of achievement with a job well done, or at least attempted. We know what it does for our well-being and for good mental health, and how important it is to be able to support one’s family.

I know the Committee will be interested in the right reverend Prelate’s proposal for the displaced talent visa, which recognises the skills that refugees bring with them, but Amendment 31 is not an alternative to the other amendments in this group. It is about a visa and about refugees, not asylum seekers whose status is not yet recognised. It is imaginative, and the Government may consider it something to be pursued. I am sure the right reverend Prelate would be the first to agree that his amendment should not be a sop to distract us from the other issues to which I have referred. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that asylum seekers from the EEA and Switzerland will be granted permission to take a job from six months of their application for asylum if a decision at first instance has not yet been taken at that point. It is fairly obvious that I support the three-month amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which is a little more radical than this one, and hope the Government may accept it.

The Minister will be aware that people often wait months, if not years, for a decision. These individuals, having escaped fear of torture or death, are left to live on a pittance of £5.66 per day. As I considered what to say today, I found myself thinking that, of course, six months in this situation is far too long. What are we as a nation doing impoverishing people in our community? Frankly, £5.66 is a disgrace.

The plea for the right to work after six months is endorsed by no fewer than 200 non-profit organisations. This is a very modest and widely supported proposal. Even Sajid Javid recognised in 2019 that it is time for reform. The coalition of these 200 organisations wants the six-month reform combined with the ending of the restriction on asylum seekers from applying for jobs not on the incredibly narrow and restrictive list of highly skilled professions on the Government’s shortage occupations list. I strongly support the abolition of this restriction, which was introduced only in 2010. That is telling; we seemed to manage pretty well before that.

Now, in effect, asylum seekers are rarely enabled to work. Does the Minister really believe that this is morally right and economically sensible? As Sajid Javid recognised, reform should no longer be delayed. Reform would enable asylum seekers to begin to integrate, to support themselves and live with dignity, to support their children to lead healthy, productive lives and, very importantly, to avoid the very real risk of exploitation and modern slavery.

We would all benefit too. The coalition of 200 organisations calculates that taxpayers would save £97.8 million if asylum seekers were enabled to work from six months. In 2019 it polled over 1,000 businesses for their view on whether asylum seekers should have the right to work. Some 67% of those employers agreed that they should, and a similar number believed it would ease the UK’s skills shortages. There is also huge public support for the right to work after six months. The Government would really have a great political benefit if they would only accept this amendment.

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

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

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

We cannot put our heads in the sand and think that unemployment will miraculously and rapidly create a workforce of skilled, low-paid carers to look after those with complex needs, and that vacancies will evaporate. They will not. I believe that we will be coming back to these issues at Report, and dividing the House.

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 47, to which I added my name, but I also strongly support other amendments in the group, particularly that of my noble friend Lord Patel, who spoke powerfully in favour of making sure that we do not create barriers preventing health and social care staff coming to this country. I do not want to duplicate what others have said, so I will speak briefly about the difficulties we have in recruiting staff over here, which others have certainly emphasised.

The NHS employs half a million staff and has 100,000 vacancies reported by trusts, many of them among low-paid workers. This figure is projected to rise over the coming years, rather than diminish. Our problems will become pretty well impossible to manage unless we do something about it.

We want more support staff employed in primary care. This has been a policy goal for a long time and the NHS long-term plan continues to reflect this ambition, but the number of support staff working in community services has continued to fall, and I expect it to continue to do so. GP surgeries are desperate to appoint support staff but cannot do so. As others have said strongly, a similar picture applies to the social care sector, where we have 8,632 vacancies, according to the latest available data—surely unsustainable, as the number of elderly people needing care rises relentlessly, not to mention, as others have, the many people with disabilities and a range of problems.

The NHS Long Term Plan acknowledges that international recruitment will continue to be vital in the short to medium term if we are to deal with our staff shortages. This is being constrained, says a report by the Health Foundation, by immigration policies. Surely the Government need to pay attention to that, and I hope the Minister will respond to that point. Immigration policies are really causing problems for our health and social care services. Instead of imposing barriers to EEA and Swiss entrants, would it not be better for Ministers to concentrate on reducing barriers to well-qualified migrants with good English from the rest of the world? Amendment 47 is key, as are the other amendments in this group, if we are to improve our health and social care staffing or to avoid a serious drop in the quality and availability of these crucial services. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I have added my name to Amendments 47 and 66, but the intentions and sentiments already expressed so well by many noble Lords are ones that I fully endorse. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Masham, and other noble Lords for the excellent way in which they have explained the urgent need for measures in the Bill that specifically address the shortage of social care staff. I implore my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I know cares about this issue as much as so many of us around the House, to take back to the department the strength of feeling across the House on this matter and address some of these issues before Report.

We are talking here about the biggest failure of social policy in modern times. The inadequacy of our social care provision is already well documented and well known, and the Government are already committed to addressing this issue as soon as possible. We cannot move forward and improve the quality of social care without staff. We cannot mechanise this. Care workers may be low paid, but that does not mean they are low skilled. They are essential to enabling increasing numbers of people to live decent lives. We are not talking about bringing in low-paid shelf stackers; we are talking about the emotional, physical and mental well-being of some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Given that the Government are the main funders of social care and have not yet funded adequately social care providers who employ staff who might generally earn above the £25,000 cut-off, that imposes on the Government a duty to ensure that our immigration policy does not deter those who might be willing to work for less than that figure—most of the people who work in social care already do so—from coming to this country when, as we have already heard, around one in five of our social care staff is already from overseas.

I know my noble friend responded to these concerns at Second Reading by saying that the Government hope that Britons will fill the shortfall, but hopes are not good enough. It takes time to try to find any UK nationals, train them in the right skills and raise the standards of pay. What are these elderly and disabled people supposed to do in the meantime? They need care. I therefore hope my noble friend might still consider the implications of these amendments, or at the very least agree to a transitional, temporary social care visa, perhaps for five or 10 years, that specifically enables social care providers and individuals who need to employ somebody to care for them in their own home to find those overseas workers who are willing to come here and fill the gaps we currently have, rather than having an immigration system that rules out being able to bring them in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to support Amendment 32, which is an important amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As she indicated, this amendment bears directly on the anomaly that lies at the heart of the Bill. It purports to deal with aspects of our withdrawal from the EU, so one would expect it to deal with the consequences for citizens of the EU and the EEA only. However, in its report of 2 September the Constitution Committee stressed that this Bill effectively changes significant areas of immigration law from primary to secondary legislation.

I expect the Government to argue that changes to Immigration Rules have long been dealt with by a process similar to that for statutory instruments, but to introduce an entirely new system in this way is a very different matter. Furthermore, in its report of 25 August, the Delegated Powers Committee, from which we will hear very shortly, pointed out that the “made affirmative” procedure that the Government have chosen will mean that the new regulations will come into force before they are debated in Parliament.

Finally, as I understand the position, the Home Office is working on a complete revision of the Immigration Rules which might run to several hundred pages. They could be put through Parliament with no serious examination before they come into force. I think the Minister mentioned something to this effect earlier. Will she clarify the position? Is this indeed what is likely to happen?

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. As a member of the Delegated Powers Committee I strongly support all the points made in our report and, along with other noble Lords, I very much look forward to hearing from our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

I am aware that part 6A of the Immigration Rules sets out the points-based system which applies to migrants from the rest of the world. EEA citizens will move from a position of free movement to having to find their way through a thicket of literally hundreds of pages of rules and guidance currently applying to the rest of the world. Will the points-based system be adjusted for EEA citizens? If so, in what ways will the EEA rules diverge from the current system set up in part 6A? The framework should surely be in the Bill.

Clause 4 has potentially life-changing consequences for a large number of people—an issue raised by the Delegated Powers Committee report. Ministers are given the power to modify primary legislation or to modify retained EU legislation, which has a similar status to primary legislation, as noble Lords know. These provisions, together with the power for Ministers to introduce regulations on any subject in connection with Part I of the Bill, provide incredibly wide powers for Ministers.

I want to take just one example of an issue which needs to be dealt with in the Bill and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will raise a number of others. Tier 3 of the PBS which applies to unskilled workers has never been opened. We know that the UK is likely to face severe shortages of so-called unskilled workers in some sectors, most particularly health and social care but a number of others as well. Can the Minister press her colleagues to spell out in the Bill the key changes envisaged to the PBS, at least for the short to medium term, to keep the UK economy functioning adequately? Then, of course, Ministers could have the powers to introduce regulations to adjust the system over time. I fully recognise that there would be a need for that.

We all understand the need for Ministers to be able to introduce consequential amendments through secondary legislation, such as removing the references to free movement scattered across the statute book. Typically, however, most consequential amendments are put in the Bill and then regulations are used to tidy up the bits and pieces that were somehow missed during its passage.

We are invited by counsel to the Delegated Powers Committee to consider whether Ministers’ powers to make consequential amendments through regulations should be restricted by a test of necessity. Can the Minister convince the Committee that the wide powers to make consequential amendments to this Bill are in fact necessary? It would be very interesting to hear the Minister’s defence, if you like, of the breadth of those consequential amendments left to regulations. Why cannot most such amendments be included in the Bill before Report? I am sure colleagues would support a short delay before Report to allow that to be done.

Even more serious than the power to make unlimited consequential amendments is the power to make regulations in connection with Part I of the Bill, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I strongly support the amendment from the Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to deal with that issue. This would of course become redundant if Clause 4 were replaced with a string of substantive clauses.

Can the Minister provide an adequate justification for the broad discretion given to Ministers to levy fees or charges on anyone seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK who until the end of the transition period would have had free movement rights under EU law? If not, then these matters must surely be in the Bill with provision for Ministers to adjust the fees or charges over time. As others have said, transitional protections for EEA nationals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period are surely known. Why are they not in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister could explain that.

Finally, I had understood that Brexit was all about restoring the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. This is just one of a series of Bills transferring powers from the EU not to the UK Parliament but to Ministers. We know that even where the affirmative procedure will be used, Parliament has no real power to influence the shape of those regulations. I hope the Minister will do all she can to achieve a more democratic outcome to this Bill, even at this late stage, by replacing Clause 4 with a series of clauses spelling out the Government’s policies, or at least the framework of those policies, to adjust the points-based system to meet the needs of the UK economy in the post-Brexit world.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

It is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, one of the most distinguished members of the Delegated Powers Committee. I am particularly grateful that she has not stolen all the sexiest bits of our report and has left me some original bits to quote, although a number of noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, also quoted extensively from it. Perhaps I should sit down and say, “I agree with everyone who has gone before me”, but since I have been here in the Palace for about eight hours, working upstairs, I feel I should earn my crust.

I am speaking on Clause 4 stand part only to draw attention to some of the key points of the Delegated Powers Committee report on the Bill. I am privileged to chair that committee but, in view of some of the highly critical reports we have made recently, my noble friends may be pleased to know that I will be standing down as chair. My term is up by Christmastime, so there may be a more emollient chairman in future.

Last week I spoke on the Delegated Powers Committee report on the medicines Bill and quoted extensively from it. Our report then was hard hitting and I make no apology that I was robust—I suppose I was not robust but scathing—in my condemnation of the delegated powers, which in my opinion were an affront to democracy. I said then that the Bill was “not unique”, just another in a long line of skeleton Bills with all the blank spaces to be filled in by delegated legislation—much of it negative, of course.

Today I will not be as vicious in my remarks, but I report in sorrow that this Bill also has some fundamentally excessive delegated powers. Clause 4(1) confers on the Secretary of State powers to make regulations containing

“such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision”

of Part 1 of the Bill, including Henry VIII powers to amend primary legislation. The combination of the permissive concept of whatever the Minister thinks appropriate, as opposed to necessary, the words “in connection with” the Bill, the subject matter of Part 1, ending free movement, and the number of persons who will be affected make all this a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive.

With regard to those provisions, my Committee said:

“As we said in our earlier Report, we are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations (assuming no amendment was made to primary legislation).”


As for the scrutiny of regulations, we are concerned that the first set of regulations would be made by the “made affirmative” procedure, avoiding legislative scrutiny before they come into effect, but subsequent ones would be draft affirmative—but only if they amended primary legislation. Everything else would be negative, even if the regulations amend or repeal what is known as retained direct principal EU legislation. By contrast, the approach in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is that the affirmative procedure is mandatory where regulations modify retained direct principal EU law.

We were also concerned that delegated legislation could alter fees and charges enacted in primary legislation. As mentioned by noble Baronesses earlier, it is usual for legislation to have a schedule at the end listing consequential amendments and a provision that regulations can tidy up any missing bits or loose ends with further consequentials, but in Clause 4 the bulk of the consequentials will be done by regulations afterwards.

So we concluded, overall, the following:

“We remain of the view, expressed in our earlier Report, that clause 4(1) contains an inappropriate delegation of power and that the Bill should be amended so that: the words ‘or in connection with’ are removed from clause 4(1); consequential amendments are included in the Bill itself, but with a power to add others (subject to a test of necessity) by regulations (subject to the affirmative procedure if primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation is amended or repealed); transitional protections for EEA nationals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period are included on the face of the Bill; clause 4(5) (about fees and charges) is removed, unless the Government can provide full justification for its inclusion and explain how they intend to use the power; and clause 4(6), which provides for the first set of regulations under clause 4(1) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure, is removed from the Bill.”


Those were the principal conclusions that we reached.