King’s Speech

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to send my condolences to Igor Judge’s family. We were undergraduates together at Cambridge 60 years ago, and I shall of course be writing.

This has been a wide-ranging debate with some quite remarkable contributions from all sides. For my part, I intend to confine my remarks to a single topic: sadly, it is one that this House is rather reluctant to address, namely the sheer scale of current net migration and its very serious implications for the future of our country. The present Government have deliberately permitted immigration to increase despite all their promises to the contrary. They meanwhile seek to divert public discussion to cross-channel asylum seekers, a problem which they know also infuriates the public.

But the fact is that legal immigration is about eight or 10 times the scale of illegal immigration and now carries many serious risks for the future tranquillity of our society. All population growth now arises from immigration, which since 1995 has accounted for nearly two-thirds of additional households. Indeed, last year’s unprecedented net inflow of just over 600,000 has resulted in huge pressure on housing and many other fields. The consequences continue to fall particularly on the younger generation, yet the connection with immigration is practically never mentioned.

Looking ahead, if we assume that births continue at the rather low present rate, and even if overall net migration is reduced to, say, 450,000 a year—very high by historical standards—the population of the UK would increase in the next 25 years or so by about 11 million, to 78 million. On reasonable expectations, that would be the equivalent of building nearly 10 cities the size of our second largest city, Birmingham. That is absolutely massive in all respects: housing, roads, transport, the whole lot. Indeed, if this rate of immigration is allowed to continue, 50 years from now the white British could well become a minority in their own country. Indeed, unless migration, the chief determinant, falls considerably, something of this kind will be inevitable. In younger generations, that new situation would arrive sooner, and white British children would become a minority in UK state schools in 20 years or so.

As Prime Minister, David Cameron saw some of the dangers ahead. In 2010, he said:

“We cannot continue to permit vast numbers of people to come to the UK and tell them that they do not need to integrate … and maintain certain values and ideas that are at odds with British values”.


He was exactly right. Only last month, the commissioner for countering extremism said the following:

“Allowing people to maintain parallel lives in our communities, without being part of our communities, has produced and will continue to produce … people committed to … undermining our values. The hatred that we have witnessed in recent days … is not only a cause for alarm among the Jewish community. It must be a wake-up call for … all decent people”.


Surely the first step must be to reduce substantially the scale of immigration to the UK. Nothing else will persuade the public that migration is being brought under control, that the very serious pressure on housing and on so many other areas will be reduced, and that they will not find themselves living in an unfamiliar country.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ludford, who is unable to be here today, has her name to these amendments so I am speaking on her behalf, as it were, and on behalf of these Benches.

I make the general point that interim relief is an intrinsic and sensible part of our law. Injunctions are generally to prevent something happening, to maintain the status quo until there can be thorough consideration of a case. It is that way round because the person who wants to prevent that something happening is at risk of an action which would have a major effect on him—the other way round does not work in the same way. In this case, the action—removal from the UK —would effectively be the end of the story for the claimant and, if not that, it would at least make pursuit of claim from outside the UK very difficult indeed. That is quite different from the depiction we heard last week of a witness on a video link from another room or another building with all the normal support and access to his representatives.

This afternoon, I received an email from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law—I stress “Bingham” and “rule of law”; noble Lords will note that title—with quite a long summary of a report on this subject which I understand is to be published tomorrow. It concludes that although improvements could be made to the process in the European Court of Human Rights, they do not affect the court’s jurisdiction to indicate binding interim measures. It makes the point that, when states signed up to the European convention, they expressly accepted that:

“In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide”.


So as not to detain your Lordships from making another trip to increase your steps through the Lobbies this evening, I will not read the whole of the summary. However, I make the point that the UK Government have proactively promoted the binding force of interim measures, advocating that other states, such as Russia, treat them as binding and comply with them. Given the provenance of that advice, I take it—and I hope your Lordships take it—very seriously.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister when he speaks in a moment will explain what this is intended to deal with. It is only specific to these circumstances; is it that a certain number of lawyers are making a certain amount of money and he thinks that that is not helpful to the policy that the Government intend to put forward?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in her defence of the rule of law and interim relief in cases involving the alleged expulsion of people to unsafe places. The Government were happy to support the court’s decision not to grant such relief in the current Rwanda cases, but now they want to take away this jurisdiction, forcing more applicants to Strasbourg pending a final UK judicial determination. If the Government are right that Strasbourg interim measures are not binding, Clause 54 is unnecessary. If the European Court of Human Rights is correct that they are binding, our amended Clause 1 should be enough to safeguard international law. With respect to those comments, I urge my noble friend if she is so minded to test the opinion of the House on her Amendment 152, which we would support rather than Amendment 153.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, can we have a little less talk about the far right? Some 70% of the population think that the present Government’s policy on asylum is a failure.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to get into the question of whether the Bill is going too far or not far enough, and whether our policy is good, bad or indifferent, on this group of amendments. If I may say so, those are Second Reading-type questions. I was simply responding to the point put by the noble Baroness.

To return to the point on Turkey, whether its acts are in accordance with the refugee convention is really a separate issue. I do not mean to diminish or demean this, but what we are talking about here are not acts, so to speak. We are talking about the fundamental question of whether it is proper—because the charge put against me is that it is not—for this Parliament to set out its interpretation, the UK’s interpretation, of the international obligations we have under the refugee convention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The idea of people being able to arrive here without going through a third country has been debated before in the course of this Bill—I cannot remember whether it was last week or another time. When we queried how people could get here, the Minister explained that they could come by aeroplane. That might be possible for some, but it is not possible for everyone who might need to be here in Britain rather than somewhere in Germany or France. Perhaps the Minister could give us a better explanation about how people get here, if there are not enough safe routes or aeroplanes.

To me, this is a naked attempt to stop refugees. I do not understand why the Government cannot see this as well. We are taking advantage of our geography and saying, “We’re too far away, you can’t come”. This is ridiculous. As I have pointed out before, we have a moral duty to many of these people. We have disrupted their politics, their climate and their lives—therefore, we owe them. It is not as simple as saying that they want to join their mates.

This Bill should be setting out safe routes and establishing ways to get people to the UK safely and legally. At the moment, we do not have that because the Government are pulling up the drawbridge.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, in a word, I see these issues from a policy point of view, not just a legal one. The fact is that our asylum system is in chaos, and very visibly so. Large numbers of claimants are turning up on our beaches. The Government are seeking to tighten the asylum system. That does not seem to be unreasonable, and I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I will very briefly address something that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said about people arriving here directly by aeroplane. As we will see when we get on to the group substituting “arrives in” for “enters”, even if someone came directly by aeroplane, they would not be legally arriving in the United Kingdom. This clause is central to many of the provisions contained in the rest of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his important, detailed and necessary exposition of his reasoning. Despite how long it took, it was absolutely essential.

Clause 36 seeks to redefine and undermine Article 31 of the refugee convention in UK law as a basis for penalties and prosecutions. As we discussed in previous groups, there is an accepted and settled interpretation of Article 31. As Amendments 106 and 107 seek to establish, passing through another country in order to get to the UK is not failing to enter the UK directly or without delay. This should, therefore, not allow the UK to impose penalties or treat asylum seekers less favourably as a result.

Amendment 108 highlights the particular difficulties some asylum seekers could face on account of their protected characteristics. Again, however, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti: there should be no reinterpretation of Article 31, no group 1 and group 2 refugees, and no four-year imprisonment because people had no choice but to travel through other countries to get to the UK, whether the UK considers those third countries safe or not.

Clause 36 is the sand upon which this Bill is built, and it needs to be washed away.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe fundamentally that international co-operation on these issues is right, and that is why I am very keen on Amendment 114. But, above all, I argue that we must have a more generous humanitarian approach, particularly to child refugees seeking family reunion.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I think that it is perhaps time for a different view from this side of the Committee. I will briefly deal with Amendments 112 and 113.

Amendment 112 refers to “Refugee family reunion”. It is a wide-ranging amendment, and I suggest that it is unnecessary and not very wise. We already have provisions for the family members of refugees to come here. As others have mentioned, these allow partners and children under 18 of those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection to join them here, provided that they formed part of the family unit before they left their own country. That seems a reasonable basis for this provision. Of course, the family members do not receive refugee status themselves, so their leave will expire at the same time as that of the sponsor. But individuals on such visas are allowed to work, study and have recourse to public funds, which also seems entirely reasonable.

Indeed—I will save the Minister a task—we have granted visas to more than 60,000 family members of refugees since 2010. Since 2015, over half of those were to children. This is already a very substantial move in that direction. But widening the criteria still further would, of itself, massively increase those numbers and add still further to the pull factors drawing people to the English Channel, a route that has very little support among the public.

There is a very strong case for not widening these refugee routes. In the real world, we simply do not have the necessary infrastructure, service capacity, housing or school places. Many refugees are being put into the poorest parts of the UK. In this context, the Home Secretary said to a House of Lords committee on 27 October last year:

“We simply do not have the infrastructure or the accommodation.”


A Member of the other House said of his area:

“The impact on housing pressure at local level could cause further tensions if there is resentment about refugees receiving housing assistance at a time of acute … housing shortage.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/21; col. 40WH.]


In setting our arrangements for refuges and their families, we must surely give due consideration to their impact on our own vulnerable communities.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I just put this to him: if children are coming to join family members here, the norm would be that the family member has accommodation to provide for them, so the argument about housing does not apply to that group of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I shall go on to Amendment 113, which deals with unaccompanied minors. The main effect of this amendment would be to put a considerable number of children in serious danger. As drafted, it applies only to children already in the EEA, but it would obviously be a major incentive for families now outside the EEA to pack their children off to Europe in the expectation that they could go on to the UK. The amendment is also widely drawn to include nieces, nephews, grandchildren, siblings, spouses—all from families that are very large in any case.

We have seen how opening this route would encourage minors to make dangerous journeys. In 2016, when there was talk of the UK taking significant numbers of children, the numbers of unaccompanied children literally doubled overnight. That is according to evidence given to the relevant parliamentary committee by the Home Office director responsible in December 2021. We have to consider the wider consequences of this, to which may be added the difficulties already facing the authorities in correctly assessing the age of those claiming to be children. We have discussed this before in Committee and we know that, in the last available year, 1,100 persons claiming to be children were found to be adults. This amendment is dangerous and unwise, and should not be accepted.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have been encouraged to say a word—it was only going to be a word, but it will be a few more now—in support of my noble friend Lady Ludford. I am pleased that she has taken on this cause. I am not seeking to analyse every one of these amendments, but they are about protection in every sense of the word, which is what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was saying. I applaud the Government for enabling the reuniting of some families, but I am thinking about those who have not been reunited, where there are problems.

I had a similar experience to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in a meeting with Brandon Lewis and a battalion of officials, when I remember being told that the rules are quite adequate—but they are discretionary.

We have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Green, to think about the real world. The real world is not just in the UK. One of the aspects of children being alone in the UK is the cost to local authorities, which can be very substantial when children are here by themselves. One needs to include a number of factors when balancing the question of costs.

I would like to echo whoever it was who pointed to the importance of siblings being able be together. A child or young person—frankly, anybody coping with the experience of being a refugee—needs the support of family. A sibling can be such a support to a child; I have heard siblings speak of this. These amendments have my support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I entirely agree about the appalling conditions in these refugee camps and the huge number of refugees that are being dealt with. The question that I and others ask is: how can we best use the resources that we can give to the people who really need it? How much more effective would it be to get aid, food and medical attention into these terrible camps, rather than spending huge sums of money on children here who cost the same as a term at Eton?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course that is right. That is why there was such a row about the cut in the aid programme. It is why we all believe that of course we have to try to prevent war, famine and all those things. Not to do that would be ridiculous. The sources of many of our problems are war, famine and disease, and all of those things, so of course we have to prevent them.

However, it is also important in the debate we have in this country about asylum and refugees—not immigration—to stand up to the view that “We take the lot”. The idea that it is this country that has to deal with the situation, no other decent country in the world does it, we are the country that has to take them all and we are the weak link in it all is just not true, however unpopular it is to say so. Sometimes the way that you change public opinion is by arguing with it.

People will say, as no doubt the Minister will, “We won the election and therefore this is what the public think”, but on asylum and refugees there is an argument for saying, “Of course we don’t want open borders but there is a need for us to act in a way that is compassionate and consistent with the values that we have always had”. Sometimes that costs you, as I know, but that does not mean you should not do it. Public opinion can therefore be changed, and the subject is debated. Indeed, policy and opinion can change in this Chamber, which is the point of it. In the interests of time, I will stop there.

Amendment 114 is exceptionally important because of the need for international action. To apply it to our own situation here, we will not deal with the migrant crossing problem in the channel without co-operation from France and the rest of Europe.

I want to talk about the importance of Amendment 113, and I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Green, on this. It is not an open invite to everybody to pile their children—I paraphrase, but if I get it wrong then no doubt the noble Lord will correct me—into the EEA because that means they can all then come to the UK. The amendment clearly lays out that it is about people who already have a family member present in the United Kingdom. It is about family reunion and trying to ensure that unaccompanied children in the EEA who have a family member in the UK get the opportunity to be reunited with them.

I will finish with this point, which I know the Minister will agree with. The problem we have is that sometimes Ministers have to speak to Governments, to the computer and to the Civil Service and say, “This bit of the Bill is wrong. It does not work.” Both Ministers have done it before on other Bills in other places where the Bills were wrong. On this issue of family reunion, the Government have got it wrong; they are not right. Nobody thinks that children who are unaccompanied in other parts of the EEA, for example, should not be able to reunite with their families in a way that is consistent with the values of this country, and it beggars belief that the Government would stand against that. It is not about an open door; it says quite specifically who should deal with it. I think if that were explained to the people of this country, and debated and argued with them, they would support it, because they are compassionate and decent, and in the end the compassionate and decent side will win. I think the Ministers are compassionate and decent, so let us have a Bill—in this aspect of it—that reflects that.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether this is helpful to the Minister or not, but the Dublin agreement was just quoted. Over the last five years, we asked France and Germany whether they would take back 2,480 cases. They took 234, which is just under 10%. Let us not imagine either that the Dublin agreement was useful or that something similar will be in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

We have had wide discussions about the UNHCR’s opinion on this and think that we are complying with international law. It is up to each state to interpret the refugee convention. I know that the noble Lord and most of this House do not agree but it will ultimately be for Parliament, through the passage of the Bill, to interpret what Parliament thinks of the refugee convention.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will not move Amendment 76 and will consider the Minister’s comments on it.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for battling so valiantly in relation to all the points that have been raised, and am extremely grateful for all the amendments that have been spoken to. What has become clear from this discussion is that there are, on any footing, immense practical difficulties in relation to Clauses 14 and 15. In effect, I think the Minister accepted that it is not going to be straightforward to repatriate people with inadmissible claims to other EU countries without any agreement. The expression “window dressing” has been used. It is going to be very difficult.

I hope I correctly interpreted the Minister in getting my crumb of comfort from Clause 14. I think she reassured me that the exceptional circumstances specified were not closed. As a statement from the Dispatch Box in Parliament, recorded in Hansard, that is quite an important point. If Clause 14 remains, it will give at least some people some succour at any event, particularly in the circumstances I mentioned: an EU country which does not prevent those who are citizens, resident or present within the country, from persecuting others belonging to a social group, or for some other reason.

I am afraid that the overwhelming sentiment—and certainly my view—was that whatever may be said by the Government about adopting existing expressions which are generally used or have been previously used, in vital respects Clause 15 is inconsistent with the convention. This is not in a complex way, but in an obvious way. I am sorry to say this, but to my mind as a lawyer it is an egregious contravention of the convention. I ask the Minister about, for example, condition 5 in new Section 80C. Not only is that not in the convention, but I do not know where it comes from. I can see it is there as a matter of policy but it is not in the Dublin regulations, so far as I can recall. As I pointed out, in any event the Dublin regulations are being revised, so there is no point in going back to them.

There are a number of difficulties. There is one point I was hoping the Minister might be able to reply to that she has not. I would be grateful if she could explain perhaps in communication with me. How does one reconcile condition 4, which is failing to make a claim in the first country—thereby rendering you having a connection and the possibility of inadmissibility—with one of the requirements under Clause 11 to satisfy Article 31, which is arriving directly, because you never get there if you are rendered inadmissible? At the moment I do not see how the two fit together. I am not suggesting it is a straightforward and easy point; it is a lawyer’s point, but an important one. It shows a muddle somewhere along the line. But, on the basis of everything that has been said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who apologises for having had to leave early. This speech will be in two halves—although one will be rather bigger than the other. The first half is roughly what the noble Baroness would have said.

At Second Reading she spoke about the ways in which she believes this Bill places additional unacceptable barriers in the way of women refugees seeking asylum who are fleeing sexual violence and exploitation. The amendment seeks to remove one of those obstacles and to extend the benefit to other groups of asylum seekers who may be similarly disadvantaged, so that it is accepted that they have a good reason for a late claim.

As we understand it, the issue is that in the proposed legislation the authorities deciding an asylum claim or appeal are instructed to attach, as we have heard, only minimal weight to any evidence provided late by the applicant, unless there is a good reason for it being late. However, there is robust evidence to show that the trauma suffered by the victims of sexual violence or trafficking can impact on memory and the ability to recall information. The Home Office guidance itself makes this clear. The other categories she included in Amendment 95, such as victims of torture, modern slavery and trafficking, are just as likely to suffer the same effects on memory and should be protected in the same way. I strongly support what she would have said.

However, as the arguments from this perspective are very similar to those I made in support of Amendment 40 on Tuesday, I will focus on children, a group we have not talked much about so far, although I was very pleased that my noble friend Lord Coaker did so in introducing this group. It is the strong view of children’s organisations such as the Children’s Society—I am grateful for its help—that the Bill completely fails to protect children, a group in particular need of it. Despite recognition of this added need for protection, this Bill’s harsh reforms apply to children just as they do to adults, unless the Minister can tell me that I am wrong—I hope he can. This is not right; it is a serious failure of the Government’s duty to protect children.

We need only look at Clauses 25 and 17 to see the disproportionate impact many of these provisions will have on children and young people. Amendment 95 seeks to ensure that children are recognised as having a good reason for not providing evidence by the deadline and that any evidence they provide late is given due weight. We know from organisations on the ground that asylum-seeking children who have been forced to flee, who may have witnessed violence and the destruction of their homes or schools, or even death, and who may have endured traumatic journeys, might not be able to share all the details of their ordeal in the first instance to provide evidence to support their case. The particular difficulties children might face in providing prompt evidence are recognised by the JCHR.

The Government know this. Their only quality impact assessment, to which my noble friend referred, sets out how these clauses will have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable persons, including children. The Home Office’s Children’s Asylum Claims Casework Guidance makes it clear:

“Decision makers must take account of what it is reasonable to expect a child to know”—


or relay—

“in their given set of circumstances”.

It is inappropriate for authorities to question the credibility of a child’s claim if they omit information, bearing in mind the child’s age, maturity and other reasons that may have led to those omissions. Requiring time-limited evidence and penalising children when they are unable to meet the deadlines goes against the Government’s own assessments and guidance and does nothing to protect children or, as we have heard, their best interests.

As one young person supported by the Children’s Society, which has long supported asylum-seeking children and young people, reminds us:

“This is not a joyful moment in our lives. We have to talk through the worst parts of our past. It is very traumatic.”


Children and young people need time and a sense of safety before they can begin to disclose their experience. They also need good, child-appropriate legal representation, which we know they often do not get, unfortunately. All too often, asylum-seeking children receive poor initial legal advice, which can lead to ill-prepared claims and to them not feeling comfortable about setting out their information. Due to legal aid funding cuts, quality legal advice is not readily available.

Another young asylum seeker supported by the Children’s Society described his experience:

“My solicitor did nothing, it was horrible. They didn’t even prepare a witness statement for my interview. I had to do everything myself. I had my social worker but she didn’t know how to help me with my asylum case. The interviewer told me she had no information and I had to tell her everything.”


The Children’s Society sees many asylum-seeking children who have to provide evidence at later stages of their claim, not because of any weakness in the claim but because of the trauma they have endured or the consequences of non-existent or poor legal representation. No doubt the Minister will assure us that these concerns will be addressed in guidance and on a case-by-case basis, yet, as was highlighted in the recent report, An Inspection of Asylum Casework, guidance is often neither followed nor implemented by Home Office caseworkers. Home Office staff themselves stressed that they

“did not have time to consider each case on its own merits, contrary to the guidance they receive.”

So the aim of Amendment 95 is not to tie the hands of decision-makers or legislate for every situation in which a person might provide late evidence. Rather, it is to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected in the Bill, because we cannot leave their safety and well-being to chance. That is consistent with this highlighted observation from the JCHR:

“It is crucial that decision-makers recognise the many legitimate reasons why asylum seekers may struggle to provide evidence in support of their claims within tight deadlines.”


If Clause 25 stands part—I have to say that I will support the proposal that will be put by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that it should not—this amendment represents the minimum necessary to protect children, women, women fleeing gender-based violence and others in the most vulnerable circumstances.

I want to return briefly to what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said. Given the Home Office guidance, we cannot see any logical or humane reason why the Government would not accept this amendment and establish on the face of the Bill that, in these circumstances, for these victims, any late evidence should always be accepted as being late for a good reason, and their application or appeal should not in any way be disadvantaged because of it.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 85 on the destruction of documents. I am a sponsor of this amendment, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who is unfortunately unwell and in isolation.

The purpose of these subsections is to indicate matters that might damage a claimant’s credibility in respect of an asylum or human rights claim. The destruction of documents is clearly one of these. Why else would this be done, except to make it much more difficult to identify the claimant and therefore much more difficult to assess their claims? Noble Lords will remember that claimants arriving by air used to cut up their passports and dispose of them in the aircraft’s toilet. That was dealt with by photocopying their documents before they boarded the aircraft. This time round, it is rather more difficult to counter, but it should certainly be regarded as relevant to an assessment of the validity of their claim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak against Clause 25 standing part. I agree with so much of what has already been said. This is a particularly tawdry little clause in an outrageous Bill, which, as we have heard, has been slammed by UNHCR, the custodian of the refugee convention, by the JHCR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and everybody, it seems, except noble Lords opposite.

My noble friend Lord Coaker need not apologise for not being a lawyer. It is not necessary to be a lawyer to see how tawdry Clause 25 is and how it absolutely puts process over substance.

This area of the law is not about parking regulations, or the tax owed to the Revenue or even major civil or commercial litigation between powerful opposing forces. This is the David and Goliath situation referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. When an asylum seeker presents themselves to whoever—the Border Force or the Home Office—they are putting themselves in the trust of Her Majesty’s Government in the hope that this is the right place to be.

Noble Lords have been making arguments in Committee, and those opposite have been making arguments about forum shopping, wanting better lives and all those things as if they are terrible but, in essence, the refugee convention is about desperate people escaping and having a fair crack at being believed. They may not all be telling the truth. Whether they are or not, they may not all qualify for convention protection, but there should at least be a kind and fair reception and a fair crack of the whip. That means not taking tawdry little process points such as this.

I have been a refugee lawyer, in and outside the Home Office. When I worked as a lawyer in the Home Office—I am going back now to before the new Labour Government, when my first boss was the noble Lord, Lord Howard—we did not take tawdry process points like this. That was in 1996.

In a moment, the ever-avuncular and brilliant advocate, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, will get up and tell us not to worry, because this will come into play only when there are no good reasons. So, fear not, Women for Refugee Women, UNHCR, Amnesty International, ILPA and every other bleeding heart. The Home Secretary would call them activist human rights lawyers and they are perhaps almost as contemptible as refugees in her eyes. The noble Lord will say not to worry because, where there are good reasons, this does not come into play and there will not be an issue about evidence.

But why put this in the statute book? Immigration officers, the Secretary of State, the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal and SIAC—these bodies are well capable of looking at evidence and credibility. It is an insult to their intelligence for them to look at whether there were or were not good reasons for late evidence. Sometimes late evidence is incredible and sometimes it is perfectly valid, because there are very good reasons—a host of good reasons, more good reasons than not—in relation to trauma.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

Would the noble Baroness like to say whether evidence is ever deliberately produced late in order that it is impossible to remove people for whom such a decision has been made?

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I have no doubt that that is sometimes the case, but my point is that you do not need Clause 25 to deal with that case, because the decision-makers listed here are well capable of looking at evidence whenever it is served. If the idea is that this is late, incredible or mischievous evidence, or the other concerns of the noble Lord, these decision-makers are capable of getting there by themselves. They do not need this insult to their intelligence that they must give it minimal weight. I never knew about this principle of minimal weight. It has been invented. Sometimes late evidence is good and sometimes it is bad, but this is asylum; refugees are at stake.

The noble Lord opposite always wants to talk about the numbers. He is very concerned about the numbers and I appreciate that, but this is not about numbers. It is about getting decisions right and protecting even the one claimant in a thousand who is the torture victim, who has been persecuted, who may be a child and who may have been trafficked. To turn this into a matter of a parking fine or commercial litigation, in which your case is prejudiced because you were only just advised that being gay is relevant and that you do not have to be afraid to say so, because this is Britain and Hungary, is tawdry. To make that process point, when we are talking about life or death—not big bucks or small bucks but life and death—is totally tawdry.

Clause 25 does not help. If anything, it will make life more difficult for the Home Office because, I promise you, there will be endless litigation about what good reasons are. That is why the amendments are helpful, because they are beginning to tease out what will eventually be the subjects of litigation. We do not need it. We all know that late evidence is sometimes an abuse and is sometimes incredible, but sometimes it emerges because people have only just got decent translators or lawyers, or country or other vital information, which is sometimes hard to get.

I am sorry to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is unwell. I am sure that the Committee will join me in wishing her a swift and full recovery.

On the point about identifying documents, let us go back to the history of the refugee convention. Some of the most genuine refugees have to escape without identifying documents, and some of the least oppressed people are the ones who have fantastic documents. That is why Amendment 85 has to go. This is not the biggest problem in a terrible Bill, but Clause 25 is a tawdry little clause, unworthy of Her Majesty’s Government; let us strike it from the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has ranged fairly widely. I will try to cover everything in my response. I start with Amendments 77, 89, 90B and 95A, which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on behalf of Lord Rosser.

We acknowledge that there may be many good reasons why an individual is not able to comply with either the requirements of an evidence notice or the requirements of a priority removal notice. We also accept that those good reasons may often be linked to the trauma that they have suffered. Where such reasons exist, they will be fully considered by decision-makers on a case-by-case basis and thereafter by the judicial system, should a claimant appeal the refusal of a human rights or protection claim.

The key point here is that every claim is unique; that is trite to say but none the less true. I therefore suggest it is correct that case-by-case scrutiny is given to all individuals. The good reasons test therefore takes into account objective factors, such as difficulties in obtaining evidence, but it would also include subjective factors, such as an individual’s particular vulnerabilities—related perhaps to their sexual orientation, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, mentioned; gender identity; or, indeed, mental and physical health. I suggest that the good reasons test, which I think is appropriate, means that Amendment 77 is unnecessary.

To respond specifically to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who invited me to parse or gloss what good reasons are and are not, I respectfully say that the test is deliberately open, not circumscribed, to ensure that all relevant factors in the individual case can be considered. Specifically, I can confirm that LGBTQ+ protections will be dealt with in guidance that specifically addresses good reasons and how they may relate to LGBTQ persons and issues, because of course you can have an LGBTQ issue even if you yourself are not LGBTQ.

Further, under Amendment 77, a vulnerable individual who did not fall within the specified groups listed in the amendment may nevertheless be served with an evidence notice. If they provided late evidence, a decision would be needed on whether or not they had good reasons for that lateness; whereas at the same time an individual who happened to fall within the categories set out in the amendment would be free to raise evidence at any time. For reasons that may be entirely unconnected with the reason for their exemption, they would none the less be automatically free from any disadvantage under the system or the consequences in the legislation, based on what is essentially something of a tick-box exercise. I suggest that that would be unfair.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked how the test would apply to children. This was taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, speaking also on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. Guidance will be published setting out how decision-makers should consider the age of the child in the exercise of their discretion. This should be obvious but let me state it from the Dispatch Box anyway: evidence provided by a child will be considered in the light of their age, degree of mental development, and maturity, currently and at all material times previously. As part of our obligations under the public sector equality duty, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, equality impact assessments have been completed in respect of these clauses. Those assessments incorporate a consideration of the impacts on children.

We are concerned that Amendment 77 could also lead to perverse outcomes, whereby individuals who do not fall into one of the categories identified by the amendment could abuse the process by falsely claiming that they did. That would perpetuate the issues that these clauses are designed to address, to the detriment of genuine claimants, undermining their usefulness.

For similar reasons, Amendments 90B and 95A are unnecessary and would confuse the test to determine the acceptable reasons for something being raised late in response to an evidence notice or a priority removal notice. Unlike the good reasons test, which is fair and is an established principle in the assessment of credibility of an asylum or human rights claim, an unclear and, at least in practice, a rather subjective test of “fairness” risks inconsistent decision-making, which could lead to an increase in uncertainty for both decision-makers and claimants. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to not move her amendments.

Amendment 89 introduces a requirement to publish guidance on good reasons within 30 days of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This is an arbitrary deadline which is not necessary to include in the Bill. I have already said that good reasons will be set out in published guidance for decision-makers. This will be made available when the measures come into force. The amendment does not assist those in genuine need of protection and would in fact limit the discretion of decision-makers and undermine the effectiveness of the priority removal notices. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to not move those various amendments.

I turn to Amendments 84, 90 and 96. In accordance with the public sector equality duty, protected characteristics must be considered by decision-makers when they are considering good reasons for lateness following service of an evidence notice or a priority removal notice. However, it is not intended that the good reasons are limited to the characteristics listed in Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010. For example, mental health issues or past trauma do not amount to a disability under the Act, but they will also be considered. These may be as important, perhaps even more important, than a protected characteristic in determining whether or not someone has a good reason for lateness. Therefore, the amendment is not only unnecessary but could have the unwanted effect of leading decision-makers to believe that they should be prioritising a narrower range of factors than those already intended within the Bill itself. I invite that amendment to be not moved.

I turn to Amendment 85, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. Again, I associate myself with the remarks of other noble Lords: we wish her well. Clause 18 adds two new behaviours to the existing credibility provisions in Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. It introduces the principles that providing late evidence without good reason or not acting in good faith should be damaging to the claimant’s credibility. Where there are good reasons for providing late evidence, that will not impact on their credibility.

The concept that certain conduct should be damaging to credibility is not new. Decision-makers must consider egregious conduct by the claimant, and it is then open to the Home Office decision-maker or the court to decide the extent to which credibility should subsequently be damaged. The good-faith requirement is intended to address behaviours such as those mentioned in the amendment, as well as any other behaviours that a deciding authority thinks are not in good faith. Therefore, there is no need, I would suggest, to single out, as this amendment does, particular behaviours to highlight them specifically.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister saying that in practice—I hope he is—if someone has quite clearly destroyed their documents, that will be taken into account when considering their claim?

--- Later in debate ---

delivered within it. That is obviously the whole tenor of these amendments; they are about fairness and justice. That is the only way to get real speed, not by these renewed gimmicks. I beg to move.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to say this is the detained fast track brought back again, in effect. I simply say that this is a very good idea. Leaving aside the detail, if experienced officials can see that a case is really very unlikely to be a genuine one, there should be a fast track and the person should be detained. The details can be sorted, but it is the right way to go. It is what we need to do, given the enormous wave of applications we are now receiving.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I speak in support of the amendment in my name in relation to Clause 26, Amendment 98. It is that

“The Secretary of State may not give … certification if the appellant claims to have a protected characteristic … which is innate or immutable, and that the characteristic is relevant to the appeal.”


Cases in which the appellant is an asylum seeker who has an innate and immutable protected characteristic that is relevant to the appeal are not appropriate for the very short timescale set out in Clause 26(3). I think the noble Lord the Minister himself acknowledged, and the noble Baroness the Minister accepted earlier, that many of these cases raise difficult issues and that guidance that we wait to see will be issued to provide assistance. The paradigm case again is that of the LGBTQ+ asylum seeker. Establishing whether or not they are in fact LGBTQ, the adequacy of the evidence in support on that issue—whether or not there is a genuine fear of persecution because of that characteristic, whether what they have done in relation to pursuing their claim has been reasonable, even if it was not always in compliance with the required time limits—makes their appeal inappropriate for an accelerated appeal.

Once again I say, as others have said, that this conclusion is reinforced by the significant proportion of successful appeals that have been brought by LGB refugees. That is something we simply cannot ignore. Nearly 40% of appeals taken in the period from 2015 to 2018 succeeded.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I shall focus not on asylum but on immigration. I declare a non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch UK.

Noble Lords may have seen a recent article in the Times by the noble Lord, Lord Hague. He referred to extraordinary events in France, where two groups of retired military officers have declared that their country is disintegrating—yes, disintegrating. A subsequent opinion poll found that nearly three-quarters of the French public agreed. The main theme of the article by the noble Lord, Lord Hague—with which I entirely agree—was the vital importance of a shared national identity. His view is that its promotion in the UK has become a matter of urgency.

I have three important points to add. First, this will not be possible unless and until immigration is sharply reduced. For the time being, the public believe the Government’s claims that they are taking measures for this purpose. For reasons I have set out elsewhere, the Government will fail in this matter.

Secondly, recent work has shown that high migration, combined with the higher birth rates in some immigrant communities—and a generally younger age structure—are driving major changes across the UK. We now find that about a third of all children born in England and Wales have at least one foreign-born parent. In both primary and secondary state schools in England, around one-third of all pupils are from an ethnic minority background. In the population of Great Britain, the share of ethnic minorities, including other Europeans, has nearly doubled to 21% in just 20 years. In more recent years, more the 90% of our population increase has been due to immigration.

Thirdly, there can be no doubt that the whole nature of our society is changing very rapidly and at an accelerating pace. Meanwhile, the public are instinctively aware of this and are, albeit privately, very concerned. A recent YouGov tracking poll found that nearly 60% say that immigration has been too high during the past decade. That is about 30 million adults.

That is enough about numbers. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will be a valuable addition to this House. She put it very well in her report of December 2016:

“It is not racist to say that the pace of change from immigration in recent years has been too much for some communities.”


People are understandably uncomfortable when the character and make-up of a town change out of all recognition in five or 10 years.

In calling for a sharp and sustained reduction in net migration, I am conscious that I shall be strongly opposed by those who profit from immigration, whether politically or economically. My answer is clear: these are vital issues for the future of our country. Having been appointed to your Lordships’ House for my work in this area, I think it no less than my duty to speak for those who have entirely valid concerns which our political system is simply not addressing.

European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will focus on free movement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, remarked, this is not an issue to be ducked and I very much hope that it will not be ducked in this House. To my regret, my remarks will be rather critical. My regret is because I believe that, in regard to immigration, our country owes a considerable debt to the Prime Minister. In the face of strong and persistent pressure from business and academia, he stood firm in a major effort to reduce net migration, supported of course by his Home Secretary.

However, having followed these matters for some 15 years, I can only give my honest opinion. I feel bound to say that the outcome of the recent negotiations will have very little effect on immigration from the European Union. Our own research has shown that about half of EU migrants are single when they come and another quarter are couples with no children. Neither of those two groups qualifies for any significant benefits. It is hard to believe that the remaining quarter will make a significant difference to the overall inflow. It seems much more likely, surely, that the availability of work in the UK and the prospect of wages at a multiple of those at home will be far more persuasive.

I accept that some of the other provisions on child benefits, marriage to EU nationals and deportation of EU criminals are useful steps, but they are relatively minor matters. The central issue is whether we have regained, or will regain, the power to control the inflow of EU migrants to the UK. Net migration from the EU has doubled in the past two years to 180,000 a year, almost the same as the amount from the rest of the world, and we will be left with no means of controlling it. Looking ahead, the introduction of the national living wage may add further to the pull factor. The implementation of universal credit will reduce the significance of benefits as a pull factor and, therefore, the significance of the outcome of these negotiations.

Putting aside the detail, I am afraid that the only possible conclusion is that the so-called emergency brake—even if we can reach agreement on its use, and there are questions about that—will have little, if any, effect on the inflow. It follows that we face the prospect that the present massive levels of net migration will continue well into the medium term and beyond. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, there is a tendency for immigration to accelerate as existing diasporas help their friends and relatives to come and find work. Net migration currently stands at about 300,000. The Government’s own projections show that, even at 265,000 over the long term, the population of the UK would increase by about half a million every year. As I have said before in this House, and I make no apology for repeating it, that would mean building the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool every single year for years to come. That is a very serious prospect and it must be addressed by our political system.

The Government have made serious efforts on immigration over the past six years. They have done their best in these negotiations to tackle that part of the flow that is from the European Union. But they have been denied by the rigidities of the European Union treaties, its institutions and, arguably, its mindset. To be fair, the Government have not even claimed that they will be able to bring EU migration under control. That is for a very simple reason: they cannot do so. Nor will they be able to do so in future. There are indeed risks on both sides in this referendum decision and it will be a difficult one for all of us. One risk is that, if we stay in, we will renounce any control over the size of the population for the indefinite future—actually, that is not a risk, it is a certainty. It is certainly not the “best of both worlds”.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Green of Deddington]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) if the day appointed under section 1(2) is before 1 January 2017, the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency, or(aa) if the day appointed under section 1(2) is 1 January 2017 or later, the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency by virtue of being a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or, under the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983 or the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas), a British Overseas citizen or a British subject,”

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 2 concerns just over 1 million potential voters. Its purpose is to establish a clear principle for the franchise at what most people agree is a historic turning point. At the same time, it would bring us into line with all our EU partners and all Commonwealth countries except New Zealand. I will speak very briefly, first to comment on the Government’s response in Committee; then to explain the changes that I have made since then; and, finally, to summarise the case for the amendment.

In response to my amendments in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that,

“the purpose of these two amendments is to restrict the franchise for the EU referendum so as to prevent Commonwealth citizens … and Irish citizens who are resident in the UK, from voting”.—[Official Report, 28/10/15; col. 1269.]

That is not quite the case. Let me stress again that these amendments apply only to Commonwealth citizens who have not become British citizens, roughly 1 million people of voting age. Those who are British citizens—roughly 2 million—would be entitled to vote, which is a vital distinction. I have since added in the Irish citizens, which I will explain in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Could the noble Lord explain the position of citizens of the Falkland Islands and other dependent territories?

[Lord Green of Deddington]

They would have to be resident in the UK, of course, in which case they would have the right to vote. That is buried in the reference to the British Nationality Act.

Finally, on the case for change, the effect of these amendments would be to establish a clear principle for the franchise, namely that only British and Irish citizens who have become British citizens would continue to be able to vote in the referendum, as would 340,000 Irish citizens. What is clear, as I mentioned in Committee—where I think there was no disagreement about it—is that whatever the result of this referendum, there will be deep unhappiness on the part of those who consider that they have lost it. A period of reconciliation will be needed so it is absolutely vital that the arrangements for the referendum, especially the franchise, should be above reproach, as the Minister himself made clear.

This matter seems to have slipped through the cracks in the other place. Very few Members of Parliament will have realised that the adoption of the franchise for the general election would include something like a million potential voters who are not British citizens, nearly all of them from countries that do not allow our citizens to vote in their general elections, let alone in their referenda—this when our referendum is so critical for our future. Indeed, the matter was barely mentioned, let alone discussed.

It is surely the duty of this House as a revising Chamber to adopt these amendments and invite the other place to give this important question the consideration that it deserves but has not yet received.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord needs to make clear which countries he is referring to. Could he spell out the number from each country and the countries in which we do not have a reciprocal right? Unless we have that information from him, we may not understand why he is moving the amendment.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Yes. The number is of the order of a million—it is actually 1.2 million—who are Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK but are not British citizens. Their nationalities vary—I do not think there is any information on which nationalities they are—but they are the ones who have not become British citizens.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord has a lot of experience in these matters. Surely he could give us an indication of the number, in rough terms, from each country—from India, from Pakistan, from Australia and from Canada. It would be helpful if he could.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

That would be possible—you can take that information from the Labour Force Survey—but it is not relevant to the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is that only British citizens shall be entitled to vote in a British referendum. It does not matter to me what their citizenship happens to be, nor does that affect the principle.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

My Lords, I must advise the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 3 or 4 due to pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

If they are resident in this country then they are entitled to vote. Of course in an extreme example, which I think is probably unlikely to happen, someone could arrive and then immediately attempt to register, however long that might take. However, I respectfully suggest that we cannot require those who are entitled to vote to remain in this country for a specific time before they become entitled to vote in the way that Parliament has hitherto always decided that they should be allowed to. I respectfully suggest that this is not the moment to change that franchise. Whatever may or may not be considered appropriate to do by changing the nature of citizenship or endorsing the importance of it, this amendment is not an appropriate vehicle to bring that about, nor to change the franchise. In those circumstances, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, this matter has now had an airing and a response. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to that, especially to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The only point that I would challenge in what has been said is the question of the guillotine, or of taking away something that people have. That would be the eventual effect but let us be clear that they would have a year in which to become British citizens, so it would be their decision not to become British citizens that would mean they could not vote. However, I think we have had the debate. It is now clear that all three parties are opposed to these amendments, and there are other matters to be pursued. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

It is correct that they would need to be provided with national insurance numbers, but I understand that that is also possible. None of this is rocket science or difficult, and we have a period of time within which to do it. My understanding from the Association of Electoral Administrators is that it is possible to do so within the timeframe that we foresee.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Is the noble Baroness aware that 16 and 17 year-olds amount to 1.5 million people? If you add in the attainers, you are probably talking about another 1.5 million people. That amounts to 3 million. Is she perhaps making light of what is involved in this registration process?

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

All the time, we seem to be trying to change the existing electoral register in favour of those who are more likely to vote to stay in than they are to leave. This is quite clearly changing the whole thing in favour of those who want to stay in the EU. I do not know why the noble Lord actually denies this. Does he really think that people living in the EU for more than 15 years will vote to come out? It is extremely unlikely. He knows that as well as anybody else. We have established that there is an electoral register and now we are starting to mess about with it. Once it includes the 16 and 17 year-olds, a whole host of other people can be put in. That moves totally away from the original register on which we were having this referendum.

If everybody wants to hold a referendum in this country which is narrowly won by those who say we should stay in the EU when there is all the gerrymandering that has been going on, do noble Lords really think that that decision will be accepted by the country when it is obvious that the whole thing has been slewed in favour of those who want to stay in the EU?

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I can help the noble Lord. He will not be surprised to hear numbers from me, or that I am repeating them. We are talking about 1.3 million people, according to the UN Population Division. Some of those will be minors because that figure does not distinguish between minors and adults, and some will have been in Europe for fewer than 15 years. There are no statistics and no way of knowing exactly how many people would be covered by this amendment, and I am not suggesting that there is. However, if we start with that 1.3 million, probably 0.3 million of them are minors, so we are left with 1 million, of which—who knows?—maybe 0.5 million or 0.3 million have been in Europe for more than 15 years. Whichever way we look at it, the noble Lord is quite right that this is a significant number of people, running into hundreds of thousands. We should be aware of that when we consider the amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and it is very helpful to have a few statistics to bring everything more vividly to light. I give way to the noble Lord.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I have one question. Some very powerful points have been made and I do not dissent from the case for granting the vote to British residents in the EU. But we need to be clear that we are talking about a very substantial number of people here. The number of British citizens in the EU is about 1.3 million, according to the UN Population Division; maybe a couple of million, according to other estimates. We do not know the number of adults, but it is likely to be quite high because of the very high percentage of retired people in certain countries, so we could be talking about something like 1 million potential voters. Some of them will have been abroad for less than 15 years and would therefore have the vote under the present arrangements, but we could none the less be talking about pretty substantial numbers who, under this amendment, would get the vote in this referendum.

What is the justification for confining the vote only to those British citizens in the European Union instead of conferring it more widely? It seems to me that if the 15-year rule is to be abolished—and there are good reasons for that—it should be abolished for everybody. Otherwise, there is a clear risk that passing this amendment would look as though it was an attempt to skew the franchise, with damaging consequences for the longer term. The key thing about this referendum, surely, is that it must be fair and must be seen to be fair. If we are going to do this, let us do it for all overseas citizens.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, with respect it is easy to distinguish between those in Singapore and elsewhere, and those within the European Union. The essential principle should be not only to avoid anomalies or absurdities but to ensure we include those British citizens who have a clear and direct interest in the outcome—those who are clearly stakeholders because of free movement and because they perhaps still have pensions here, and so on. Because of the network of arrangements between us and our partners within the EU, they will be very closely and directly affected, far more than those in Singapore or various other areas. We should seek if possible to try to meet them.

I know from personal experience of having a residence in a part of south-west France that many people there keep a very close interest in what is happening in this country and have a direct financial interest. It seems to me that they have as great an interest as, for example, someone who may come here from outside the EU as a result of marriage, who may have very limited English and who may know very little about our culture and our history. Quite rightly, if they assume citizenship through marriage, they have a say, and so also should those who have perhaps spent a lifetime in this country until they go abroad in retirement. They have very close links with this country and a direct interest in it. Yes, those in Singapore may have that as well, but no one can seriously argue that they have as great a stake as those who live in the EU and keep very close links with us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dobbs]

I have to grant that that is a possibility. However, this referendum has not exactly been a hidden secret: we have been campaigning about it for years. I would have hoped that if they had a real interest in the referendum, they would have taken the opportunity, as has existed, to sign up. This is not as simple an issue as some noble Lords have made out. It is a matter of great principle. It is a balance. Sadly, we do not know where these people are, in which countries, or how many they are. We will have difficulties contacting them because we do not know where they live. I am nervous that if we make a commitment that we cannot meet, it will end up in a mess. We are all concerned with making sure that this referendum—

[Lord Green of Deddington]

It is most interesting that the noble Lord should say that the number of registrations is so low. Of course, it will be higher if there is actually a referendum. But if the numbers are relatively small, perhaps I should turn my argument on its head and say that if a large number of people are not concerned here, why take the risk of appearing to alter the franchise in your own direction?

[Lord Dobbs]

I would hate to turn the noble Lord’s argument on its head, and I ask him to forgive me if I have encouraged him to do so. I am simply trying to set out some of the practical difficulties. This referendum could be held as early as September of next year, and I believe that this legislation could not be implemented until the early part of next year. It imposes extraordinarily difficult practical problems, and the last thing that any of us wish is an outcome that looks like a mess because of unsatisfactory registration. I ask my noble friend to consider that. If there were a sensible way of ensuring that all British expatriates abroad could be put on the register by the first possible opportunity of September next year, I would very much welcome it.

--- Later in debate ---

What does matter—as we heard at the outset from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—is that it is the Government’s policy to enfranchise British citizens who have been abroad for more than 15 years. As this is an issue where we seem to have cross-party support, I would have hoped that we might have had this debate rather more quickly. Can the Minister offer some thoughts on how the Government will deal with this specific aspect of the referendum, which we have been told in the past will be a one-off, once-in-a-generation event? Waiting for a revision to the Representation of the People Act would significantly disenfranchise people who have a real interest in it precisely because, in terms of the amendment, they are British residents of the European Union making use of the rights that they have as citizens of the European Union. We do not need to be a member of Schengen to have the benefit of free movement, but those people will clearly be affected by this referendum.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

The reason why the numbers matter is that if we get a close vote, as is possible, and if we are discussing here matters that involve potentially significant numbers, we will need to understand how that would be perceived afterwards.

[Lord Spicer]

It is notable that pretty well every speaker has spoken in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said. It was the reason why I intervened on the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when I asked him whether he really meant “abroad”—because if he had, it would have been a very significant thing. However, we are where we are. I hope the Government—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I shall describe Amendments 31 and 32, which stand in my name. In the earlier amendments in this group the Government are asked to set out the consequences of leaving the EU, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it is only right and fair that they should set out the consequences of staying in. In my amendments I have selected two issues which I believe are likely to be extremely important to the public in general in reaching a decision on how to vote.

Amendment 31 addresses net migration, which, as most noble Lords will be aware, is about 330,000 a year. Of that figure, more than half—180,000, a number that has doubled in the last two years—are from the European Union. That figure is split more or less equally between the EU 14 and the new members in the A10. How that advances in the future, of course, depends on the economic developments in those two regions, but I think that the figures are likely to remain high unless something is done to reduce the level of low-skilled immigration from the European Union.

As noble Lords may know, 75% of immigration from the A10 and 25% of immigration from the EU 14 is low skilled, or certainly low paid, so there ought to be some scope there and the Government need to set out the effect on that low-paid immigration of their negotiations with the European Union. It is not just a matter of a large number of low-paid migrants without, at present, any break or limit on their numbers; what are important are the implications of the impact on the population of the UK, which will be huge. Noble Lords will have seen this very week the latest population projections prepared by the ONS. Based on net migration of 185,000 a year, it has told us that the population will increase by 2.5 million—more than twice the population of Birmingham—in the next five years and by nearly 10 million in 25 years’ time. Even that projection is based on some very optimistic numbers. The ONS thinks that immigration will be about 185,000 per year going forward, but the average over the last 10 years has been 240,000 and the current level is 330,000.Therefore, there will be a huge impact on the population, and, by the way, the same document shows that just over two-thirds of the future population increase will be as a result of immigration.

[Lord Liddle]

Is the noble Lord claiming that the extra population of 10 million will be due to EU migration? It seems to me that that is not the case: he is muddling together EU migration and migration from the rest of the world. Given that much EU migration involves young single people, does he think that in time the impact on the population from those people, some of whom may well go back to their own countries, is likely to be as significant as the impact from non-EU migration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I mentioned earlier that more than half the intake—180,000—is from the European Union. The population increase over a 25-year period includes two things: the migrants and their future children, as well as the growth of the population already here. Over the long term, all population increase in the UK is a result of immigration; over the medium term, it is two-thirds. I am not suggesting that all immigration is from the European Union—it clearly is not—but it is a major factor; it is half of it. I am perfectly sure that, when it comes to the referendum, the public will want to know whether it will be possible to restrain the growth of the UK’s population from whatever cause. The present position is that there are things that can be done in respect of non-EU migration—there has been some very limited success on that front—but nothing can be done in respect of EU migration. The amendment therefore calls for a factual report from the Government as to what might be expected, what the effect of their negotiation has been and what the impact will be on population.

My second amendment, Amendment 32, addresses the present refugee crisis and its consequences—an extremely sensitive and difficult area which is almost certain to continue well into the referendum period. For the time being, we are largely insulated—we are not members of Schengen and we have no land borders—but most of those now arriving are likely to qualify for EU citizenship in a period of between five and eight years, depending which country they settle in. After that, they will have free movement to the UK. In addition to that, and it is not widely understood, one person who is an EU citizen can bring his full family to the UK and elsewhere, whether or not they themselves are EU citizens. We therefore need an assessment from the Government of what is involved here. There will clearly be consequences for net migration, for population, for public services and for social cohesion. These two issues are a very important consequence of staying in and they should certainly be reported on.

Finally, I want to inform the Committee that I intend to make two changes to the amendments that I proposed last Wednesday. The first is to remove any reference to Irish voters lest this fall foul of the Belfast agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, pointed out and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, as well. The second is to introduce what might be called a “sunrise clause”, so that the amendment would take effect only from 1 January 2017. That deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the practical difficulties of changing the electoral register in time. As your Lordships probably know, EU citizens are marked on the electoral register; Commonwealth citizens are not. The sunrise clause has the additional advantage that it provides to Commonwealth citizens the opportunity to seek British citizenship if they should so decide. The next version of the amendments will deal with the points raised by noble Lords.

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 21, to which I added my name and which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. As this debate has progressed today, it has underlined the need for the kind of reports that we ask for in the amendment. It is of enormous importance that there be a point of reference where voters can see the implications of the decision they are being asked to make, whether that decision is to remain in the European Union or to leave it. It is my hope, although I appreciate that we are asking my noble friend on the Front Bench to accomplish something extremely difficult, that we will be able to find a form of words which is acceptable to both sides of argument as we have heard it articulated during the afternoon. I hope that the areas where information is needed can probably be agreed. They may be surprised and may not wish me to say it, but I think that common threads run through Amendment 21, which I support, and Amendment 27 put forward by my noble friends Lord Blencathra, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Flight.

Of course, I think I know what my noble friends hope the outcome of the referendum vote will be, and they probably suspect what I hope the outcome will be. Indeed, I have been clear about what I hope the outcome will be. It is probably the opposite of what I suspect they want it to be. However, the report that we are calling for should not lead voters one way or the other. That is for the in/out campaigns, between which we have heard some preliminary skirmishes this afternoon. Those campaigns will be coloured by rhetoric and a selective use of facts—hence the need for an effective report on the consequences of withdrawal, covering a wide area. The report must highlight the changes that will flow from an in or an out decision, and without comment.

I dare say that I might be appalled by the conclusions. Others will be delighted, but that is for the individual to decide and for their own reaction to the factors laid out. It is for the Government to lay out the facts. In some areas, there may not be an immediate change, as many if not all the European directives and regulations have been incorporated into our domestic law. I do not know how that situation will be dealt with or how quickly it could be dealt with. Will it be by piecemeal repeals and replacements, or by some big bang like repealing the European Communities Act 1972? Other prospective changes may be dependent on the outcome of the exit negotiations.

I do not want to trespass into Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and if I do so I apologise; I will not take the time of the Committee when we reach that amendment by intervening. I believe that the report that we are asking the Government to provide must spell out to the citizens of the United Kingdom that the changes that we seek in exit negotiations, if that is where we get to, are not a fait accompli. They are not ours to demand. We cannot assume that all the other 27 states will agree. It will be for the 27 to decide and agree, and we do not have a vote in that.

I support the thrust of the amendment and hope that the Government will find it possible to enter into discussions before Report on a formula for the report to cover unbiased, informative and complete information, which citizens will require to enable them to make their choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

There is the political Government, but I believe that the civil servants of our country—there are eminent former civil servants around this House—can produce unbiased information if required to do so by the Government. Civil Servants per se are able to produce unbiased information, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is acknowledging. I think it is imperative that this should be done.

I want to come back to one issue that was brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Green. Of course I understand people’s fears and concerns about freedom of movement and I understand what he has said about refugees. However, personally, I deeply regret the fact that refugees and the refugee crisis are being brought into this argument. The facts show for themselves that at the moment most refugees wish to go to Germany and Sweden. They are learning the language—it is a prerequisite when they get there; they have to do that—they will have jobs, and I am sure that the majority of them will stay in those countries. But the fact is that these people are fleeing from areas of conflict. People are on the move going from south to north, and they will keep on being on the move until we resolve the conflicts and invest in the regions of the south. I do not think that what is happening with the refugee crisis should have anything to do with the referendum campaign.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My point is not actually about refugees because in seven years’ time they will not be refugees, they will be citizens of the European Union. Therefore the issue that may be in the minds of the electorate, at least, are the implications for us in the future if the European Union has lost control of its southern borders and if the chaos in the Middle East continues, which is quite likely. I am not talking about refugees. There is a lot to be said about them, but in this context we need to have our eyes wide open, and in so far as we can provide some guidance to the public, we should cover this issue.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I think we are muddying our feet and that we are in very dangerous waters when we go into these places. By raising these issues we are stoking people’s fears about refugees, and that is not a proper thing to do. At some stage we should discuss these things in more depth rather than in this sort of debate, but I think that it is a very dangerous way forward.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I suggest that there are two rather key points that the noble Lord has not addressed. One is that no other country in the European Union grants a vote in a referendum to foreign citizens, even EU citizens. The fact that most other referenda are on rather smaller issues strengthens the case against giving a vote to EU citizens in Britain on an issue of major importance. Secondly, on a point of fact, the number of EU citizens of voting age in this country is of the order of 2.7 million. The noble Lord has taken out those who have been here less than five years, so you are talking about 1.9 million people. These estimates are based on the Labour Force Survey, so they are not precise but you are talking about the order of 2 million voters. The likelihood surely is—particularly on the arguments the noble Lord has made—that these people will vote for the UK to stay in the European Union. What is going to be the impact on the public of knowing that this change has been made for this purpose? It will be seen as an attempt to swing the vote in favour of staying in the Union with the use of foreign votes.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

We are in a rather peculiar situation. The noble Lord intervened in my speech and is now making a speech all of his own.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

No, I have finished.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Okay, I think the noble Lord was intervening in my speech and, if he had listened carefully to what I said, he would have heard that I most particularly noted that the parallels with other members are not very apt because nobody has ever voted to leave the European Union—nobody has ever voted in a referendum whose outcome, if it went in favour of leaving, would deprive a large number of people in the country of their rights under EU law. I covered that. I know that earlier in this debate we forswore use of words such as xenophobia but I have to say that some of the arguments he advanced in his brief intervention were, let us say, rather close to the line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle]

One of the miracles of the European Union is that people have been free to move. Surely they have some right to vote. It should not be the case that the British citizens who have stayed here are the only people who can vote in a referendum.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, in that case, how is it that no other European country allows foreign citizens to vote in their referenda?

[Lord Liddle]

Because this is a referendum about leaving the European Union. I am not suggesting that this become the electorate in a British general election or on any other matter. However, this referendum is about the rationale for why these people are here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I think that it is completely improper for anyone, anywhere, at any time, to make an assumption about how a fellow citizen or group of fellow citizens will cast their votes. It is particularly improper for us to do it here, where we are legislating on the franchise for a very important vote, and discussing the general principles on which the franchise should be based for referenda and elections in this country. So I shall not go down that road at all.

I take my position on the basis of first principles. This involves the same first principle from which I argued on the last group of amendments—the central principle of coherence. At present the regime is utterly incoherent. We face the prospect of a referendum which, if we make no changes in the course of these debates in Parliament, will result in citizens of three members of the European Union present in this country having the vote, and not the rest. That is a thoroughly anomalous position. One is the Republic of Ireland, which is said to be a special case because of our historical relationship. The other two are Malta and Cyprus. They are said to be a special case because they are members of the Commonwealth.

What is so special about the Commonwealth? The Commonwealth is a group of countries with which we have had a happy historical relationship and a good relationship at present; it is something of a club. But surely we have at least that degree of close intimate relations and common interest—and probably far more in the way of common interest and connections—with the other members of the European Union. It seems utterly anomalous not to extend the vote to citizens of other EU countries who happen to be resident in this country.

Perhaps I could forestall the noble Lord, Lord Green, intervening to say that other EU countries do not give our citizens resident there the vote in their referenda, by saying that—apart from the issue of the different types of referendum we have already touched on—members of the Commonwealth do not do that either. I cannot go and vote in India or Australia if I become a resident of one of those two countries—unless, of course, I take nationality of one of them, and that is a different matter altogether. There is a real anomaly here.

I gather that Fiji has just rejoined the Commonwealth. Are we seriously saying that we have closer connections with Fiji than we have with, say, France, or that we should make more favourable arrangements for Fiji’s citizens to take part in British elections than we should for people from France? What an extraordinary notion.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

The noble Lord will be aware that I have an amendment in the next group that would deal with his problem.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

If it deals with my problem in a satisfactory way I may support it. I look forward to the noble Lord introducing it in due course.

Mozambique is also a member of the Commonwealth. Let me take that as an example. Do we have especially close relationships with the people and the state of Mozambique? Can it be said that we share the fate of Mozambique to a greater extent than that of most other countries? Do we have common interests that need to be debated and considered together? Hardly so. Is Mozambique more important to this country than, say, the Netherlands, Spain, Denmark or other friendly countries very close to our shores? It is an extraordinary insult to those countries to suggest that that might be so.

The Spanish ambassador told me the other day that there are 15 million visits by British citizens to Spain every year. Some people go more than once, of course, but that is still an extraordinary number. It shows the degree of human interchange—and of course, behind that there is a great deal of economic interchange—that we have with our fellow members of the EU. We all face similar problems and we will all be impacted by a British withdrawal from the EU, if that takes place. So there is an immense logic in extending the franchise on this occasion to EU citizens resident here. There is no logic whatever in extending that franchise to Commonwealth citizens but not to EU citizens. I repeat that in terms of reciprocity, the position is exactly the same, so that argument cannot be used. Again, we need some clear coherence here—some way of justifying the choices we make objectively. Otherwise we will lose legitimacy, and I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that we need that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I said at Second Reading that there was a very important principle at stake in this issue: that those who will be directly and personally affected by the outcome should be entitled to a say in the decision. I stick by that principle because it is exceedingly important.

I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled Amendment 13, which defines the five-year rule, because I had wondered whether it was justified for shorter-term or seasonal workers to have the right to vote. In the Scottish referendum people who had lived in Scotland for less than five years had the right to vote because the local government franchise and electoral roll were used. I am unaware of any trouble or problems caused by the fact that EU residents living in Scotland had the right to vote.

The compromise proposed in Amendment 13 is entirely reasonable. It gives the franchise to those who can demonstrate a longer-term residency commitment to the UK. I assume that it means five continuous calendar years, as opposed to any five calendar years, but on that basis—and the fact that people will have to prove residency for five years, which in itself might be a complicated task for some—it seems entirely reasonable.

I noticed that in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, we had the accusation that no other country does this and that we therefore should not. Of course, nothing ever changes if you always have to abide by what other people do. As we heard, Austria permits votes at the age of 16. Somebody took the lead there. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the United Kingdom deciding to make its own decision about how it wishes to conduct a referendum.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but does he accept that mine was a point of fact, not an accusation?

[Lord Shipley]

I accept that it is a point of fact, although I am very uncertain about the number of voters that the noble Lord came up with. I am not sure that that base can be proven accurate.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I made it clear to noble Lords that that calculation was based on the Labour Force Survey, which as they will know is a survey and is therefore subject to some variation. However, when the noble Lord talks about 1.9 million he is talking about a lot of people who have been resident here for five years.

[Lord Shipley]

The figures would clearly have to be checked, but people will have to register. They will have to demonstrate that they have a legal right to register. Then, of course, they will have to vote. We may have to do some further work on this prior to Report, but we need to examine those numbers very carefully indeed.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, said that this will be a referendum for British people. I agree that it has to be a referendum for British people, notwithstanding this set of amendments, but I wonder whether he includes those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years. They are British people and British passport holders and a very large number will be denied a vote. We will come on to that in a further group of amendments.

In conclusion, this is an opportunity for those who have demonstrated that they have a commitment to contributing to the life and economy of the United Kingdom to be trusted with a vote about the future of the United Kingdom in the European Union. I believe that it is right to have a policy for those who have lived here for five calendar years. It is appropriate because it demonstrates our confidence in those who are not British nationals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, perhaps I might briefly raise the question of what sort of numbers we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, suggested that we had 2.7 million. I have to say that sounds high.

I spent some time in the EU balance of competences review trying to discover the best estimates of the numbers of citizens from other EU countries in Britain and of British citizens in other EU states. I am well aware that it is very difficult to get the numbers but the best estimates we came up with, with the help of the Home Office, the FCO and the DWP, were 2.2 million British citizens living in other EU member states and 2.4 million EU citizens from other states living here. If we then ask how many of them have been living here for five years and how many are entitled to vote, we probably come down to something in the order of 1.5 million to 1.75 million on the five-year limit. I suspect a very substantial number of those will be of western European origin, including the many people who are in mixed marriages—British-French, British-German, British-Dutch, whatever it may be. Those are the sorts of figures.

It would help, if we are going to return to this on Report, if the Minister could manage to discover between now and then how many citizens of other EU member states are currently on the British electoral register. That figure must be obtainable. I accept that the estimate of how many there are in total in this country is very difficult to pin down but that other figure at least we must be able to have.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, there is not much between us. The noble Lord said 1.75 million; I said 1.9 million.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I am tempted to stray on to the next group, which the noble Lord, Lord Green, has mentioned, because there are obviously a lot of issues here about what is citizenship and what is entitlement to vote. Of course, for historical reasons, entitlement to vote in this country is very complex and has developed over a long time. The link between the right to abode in this country and a British passport has been broken. We are changing that situation gradually, but it is very complex.

I have some sympathy with the comments of my noble friends Lord Liddle and Lord Foulkes because I must declare an interest: I am married to a Spanish citizen who came here to work and has been here for 20 years, and who does participate in civic life in this country. He regularly votes for his local councillor and considers himself an EU citizen. He considers himself part of a European Union and I think the problem we have in terms of this referendum is that it will undoubtedly cause him concern if Britain votes to leave the EU. No longer will he have that common bond; he will be told that he is simply a visitor here.

The noble Lord may raise a question here about residents having the opportunity to apply for citizenship and I will return to that, but I want noble Lords to address a number of questions which I would like the Minister to answer. Whatever conclusion we make, there are nearly 2 million people who have been living in this country and participated in civic society who deserve some clear answers.

When we came to a question about the future of the United Kingdom and a referendum was held in part of the United Kingdom, in Scotland, the decision was taken that the appropriate electorate for that decision was the franchise for the Scottish parliamentary elections—the local government franchise. No one disputed that at the time, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said. Now I think citizens of the European Union—because that is what they are—who work here and have lived here for some time will ask if they vote for British representation—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I think it is true to say that, for all EU nationalities, dual citizenship is permitted.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Well then, good, but I still think that people need an answer to that question. People are moving to obtain British citizenship and we have to be clear on the consequences of this.

This debate has been really interesting in highlighting how people see what being a British citizen is about. We will come on to this in the next group, so I do not want to do so now, but if we are to use the Westminster franchise—and there are good reasons for doing so, not least that if people have resided here for longer than five years, they have the opportunity to apply for British citizenship and therefore obtain the vote—we may see a big rush in those circumstances. The Minister has the responsibility for giving a clear reason why those people who have worked and lived in this country for a substantial time will not be able to vote on something which will clearly affect their futures in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Green of Deddington]

12: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert “by virtue of being, under the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983 or the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas), a British Overseas citizen or a British subject”

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, 20 minutes ago, we thought that we would try to get this done tonight. Do your Lordships want to proceed or would you rather do it on Monday?

[Noble Lords]

Proceed!

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Okay. The hour is late, and I shall be extremely brief; I think that I can do this in five minutes or so. Let me set out very briefly the reasoning behind my amendments to Clause 2. Your Lordships will be well aware that the franchise in the referendum Bill is based on that which applies to general elections and is the same as for those. As such, it includes Commonwealth and Irish citizens, whether or not they have become British citizens. That is the point. It is nothing to do with racism and nothing to do with xenophobia: it is a question of who is a British citizen. My amendments are intended to base the franchise on that very concept, because a referendum is not comparable to an ordinary general election, which can be reversed five years later.

I believe that only those who have become British citizens should be permitted to vote. It is interesting that this point about the franchise appears to have been waved through in the other place. There was no discussion of it, and certainly no vote on it. We have, as I mentioned, a total of 3 million Commonwealth citizens in this country, of whom 1.8 million are British and will get the vote and 1.2 million are not British, and, I suggest, should not get the vote. I would add to that the 340,000 Irish citizens for the same reason. Of course they can become British citizens—there is no reason why they should not—but, until they do, I do not believe that they should have the vote.

The reason for the present franchise is largely historical, but the opposition Benches might like to recall that in 2007 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, made a report at the request of the then Labour Government on the UK citizenship law. He was a former Attorney-General, and he concluded in respect of the Westminster franchise:

“Ultimately, it is right in principle not to give the right to vote to citizens of other countries living in the UK until they become UK citizens”.

That was a Labour Attorney-General, and no action was taken by the Labour Government. I have been in touch with the noble and learned Lord because I was quoting from his report, and he replied that he could not be here tonight but authorised me to say that he supports the amendments I have tabled. There are three essential reasons for this—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I think the noble Lord is doing a little selective quotation from the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who in his report said that the franchise should not be removed from anyone who has it. Would the noble Lord like perhaps to enlighten the House to that bit of the report?

[Lord Green of Deddington]

The quote was precise. The proposal was that it should be phased out, if that is what you mean—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

What I am asking is what you mean.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Well, what the noble and learned Lord said is that it should be phased out. His view was clearly, as in the bit that I quoted, that those who are not British citizens should not continue to have the vote.

Of the three reasons, the first is the importance of the decision for Britain’s long-term future—that is obvious. Secondly, there is the issue of reciprocity, since no EU Government permits British citizens to vote in their general elections, let alone in a referendum, and no Commonwealth country, except New Zealand, permits foreign citizens to vote in referenda. Thirdly, and lastly, there is the need for clarity. This proposal would remove the anomaly that citizens in Malta and Cyprus, as has been mentioned, can vote not as EU citizens but as Commonwealth citizens. With this amendment, they would not vote as either.

There is a further anomaly in that Commonwealth citizens are able to vote very shortly after they arrive in Britain. For example, a Commonwealth student could be on the electoral register in a matter of weeks. There are no formal checks on his or her nationality, or even on his or her right to be in Britain. An electoral registration officer has the right to ask further questions if he believes that that is justified and he needs it before making a determination. However, in practice, it very seldom happens because of the risk of appearing to discriminate. So that of itself amounts to a significant loophole, which is surely unacceptable in a matter of such importance. I should mention in passing that Gibraltarians are not affected because they are British citizens under the British Nationality Act and therefore will get the vote in any case.

There has been some discussion as to whether the various groups proposed for the vote are likely to affect the outcome. As far as I know, there has not been any effective polling to tell us how these people might vote, or how many of them would do so. I suggest that that is a further reason to have the franchise on a clear and defensible criterion.

I close by pointing to the need that is bound to arise for reconciliation. As noble Lords will have noticed this evening, there are certain differences between Members of this House, and of course there are very strong differences in the public. Sadly, one side in this argument will have to face a future for this country which is deeply unwelcome to it. That makes it even more important that arrangements for this historic referendum should be above reproach, as the Minister said, in respect of the question, which I think is now settled, of the franchise, which we are debating today and involves millions of voters, and in the use of government resources, which we will discuss later in this Bill.

As the Minister said, any suspicion that the franchise has been manipulated to achieve a particular result would be deeply harmful for many years to come, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also said. That is why we need a crystal-clear principle for this franchise, and I suggest it should be the following: only British citizens, of whatever origin—it is not a question of xenophobia or racism—should decide Britain’s future. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, I concede very happily that the noble Lord has introduced an amendment, the effect of which—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

It is normally the case that we switch sides in debates here. We use alternative sides, I think.

There is no doubt that the noble Lord’s amendment restores symmetry and what I called earlier on, in a different context, coherence. He invited me in advance, in the course of the previous debate, to agree to it and to support it. I could not possibly support it. I have no idea whether the noble Lord realises this—I hope he does not realise it because he did not mention it—but his amendment would have the most perniciously destructive effect on our relations with the Republic of Ireland. It would be a breach of the arrangements we have had in place with the Republic of Ireland since 1921, since the time of the treaty, and it would be an explicit breach of the Belfast agreement, which lays down that all citizens of Northern Ireland, who are British citizens, of course, and British subjects, can enjoy full civil rights whether they declare themselves to be Irish or British. This would have a devastating effect. If the noble Lord wants to restore symmetry and coherence, he needs to do what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and turn the thing around, enfranchise EU citizens who are resident in this country and put them on the same footing as citizens of Commonwealth countries.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

In that case, will the noble Lord explain why British citizens are not able to vote in a referendum in Ireland?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this amendment demonstrates more than any other that our franchise consists of a series of historical anomalies and needs thorough reconsideration. We are clearly not going to get that for this referendum, but it is one of many problems with the current structure of our constitution.

I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the Irish dimension is extremely important. We all know that the Irish Government are actively concerned about the implications for Anglo-Irish relations of Britain voting to leave the European Union. It would very much be Anglo-Irish relations. I think Scottish-Irish relations might then become rather different, but we will see.

I question how conservative the noble Lord’s proposals are. As he notes in the amendment, there is a series of gradations of British citizenship, and full British citizens have a different status from British overseas citizens. I am not entirely clear why someone from the Cayman Islands, for example, or the British Virgin Islands should have the right to vote on our future in the EU, or actually someone from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, which are not part of the EU and which pay virtually no tax within Britain, should also be regarded as entitled to vote in a referendum on Britain’s future.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

The noble Lord asks a very good question. People from the islands he mentions—I think they are all islands—would have the vote if they were resident in Britain. The numbers involved would be trivial. This is a de minimis situation. As the noble Lord said, this is a very complex question of nationality, so there is no answer that will be entirely perfect, but I reckon my suggestion is as close as one can reasonably get.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

If I may tempt the noble Lord a little further, I recall Migration Watch suggesting at one stage that children of immigrant mothers should be counted in our immigrant population. I do not know whether those people are less than fully British.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

That is wrong.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I think I read it in a Migration Watch suggestion. There was a question of whether people born outside Britain really are fully British citizens. I do not press that because I am aware that both Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan were born outside the United Kingdom—one I think in Ecuador and the other in Tanzania—and would lose their rights to vote under this. Wherever we stop we run into difficulties in defining who is fully British and entitled to vote, and who is not. I merely remark that since the concept of British citizenship is itself one of the many muddles we must contend with perhaps we need to be very careful how far down this road we go.

--- Later in debate ---

That is a clear statement that there is not a cut-off point and change straightaway. When we debate this issue, there is a clear distinction between extending the franchise and removing somebody’s existing entitlement.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Did the noble Lord hear me say earlier that I have a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, which supports my amendment?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I did. I spoke to my noble and learned friend over the weekend and made it clear that we would not support these amendments, for the reasons that I am now stating. I do not want to delay the Committee any longer. Noble Lords have made their points, and the Minister talked about the arrangements since 1918. We have also made the point about the Good Friday agreement and the impact on that. I would be very keen to hear the Minister’s view about the impact on that agreement, and what the amendments might do to it.

I come back to the basic point that we need a debate. I hope that the report by my noble and learned friend will be reopened and reconsidered so that we have a debate. However, my noble and learned friend was not saying that we should take away people’s current entitlement. That is why the amendments cannot be supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

Yes. There is reciprocity. If a British citizen lives in Ireland they have the right to vote there, but not in a referendum. The position is, therefore, that there are long-historical links. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked a question which I cannot answer now. However, I shall endeavour to provide the answer in due course. The amendments have once again provoked an interesting debate, but in the final analysis I suggest that we should stick to the parliamentary franchise, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I thank noble Lords. It is late enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.