Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Home Office

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not talk about the case in point, because there is ongoing litigation. We will look at the judgment with interest and see what is to be done from there.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government want the immigration system to be self-funding in a way that no other government department is? Controlling immigration is of benefit to all citizens and should therefore be paid for by all citizens.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The whole rationale behind the fee is to pay for the costs of the border, and not everyone goes through the border. I take the noble Lord’s point, of course, that maintaining a strong border is a cost to everyone.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I shall first acknowledge that the noble Baroness the Minister has a script that she is obliged to follow. As the Minister has said in her introduction, this Bill gives the police the power to arrest somebody who is wanted in another country, without the need to apply to a court for a domestic warrant before the arrest can be made, provided that it is a trusted country and the National Crime Agency has verified that the foreign request to make the arrest is necessary and proportionate.

Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Minister has maintained that it is not a replacement for the European arrest warrant, and I agree—but only to the extent that the Bill does not change the extradition process once the accused is before a court. This power to arrest those wanted by a foreign country without a domestic warrant is, of course, part of the European arrest warrant regime. If someone is wanted under an EAW, they could be arrested by the police in the UK without a domestic warrant. Despite what the Minister has said, there is every indication that the UK will no longer be part of the European arrest warrant at the end of the transition period, not least because the constitutions of some countries, such as Germany, do not allow their own nationals to be extradited to a non-EU country. The noble Baroness prayed in aid the EU agreement with Norway and Iceland, but that agreement took more than a decade to agree and implement, and it excludes the extradition of a country’s own nationals.

We were suspicious that this Bill was a replacement, or at least a partial replacement, for the European arrest warrant—and, indeed, we were at a loss if it was not. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, asked:

“Could the Minister explain why the existing powers of urgent arrest under Sections 73 and 74 of the Extradition Act 2003, before an extradition request has been submitted or certified, are not considered sufficient? ... My understanding is that a request from the issuing state for the accused’s provisional arrest can already be the subject of a provisional warrant application by the CPS to the court—an application which, in urgent cases, can be made out of hours to the relevant duty judge, if necessary by email.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1735.]


This sounds to me like a process that could be quicker than the one proposed by this Bill, where the NCA has to certify the request to make an arrest.

Also at Second Reading the Minister said:

“Several noble Lords have voiced concerns that this Bill is an attempt by the Government to replicate the capability of the EAW. As I hope I have explained, this is not the case.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1757.]


This prompted the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to ask:

“If it is not a replacement for the European arrest warrant, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not add the list of EU countries to the list we have already?”


The Minister replied:

“I said that it is not a replacement for the EAW, but of course the Government can make that request of Parliament.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1760.]


And lo and behold, government Amendment 5 adds the list of EU countries, plus Norway and Iceland, which have their own versions of the European arrest warrant, to the list we already have.

Perhaps the noble Minister will now accept that, if the Bill is not a complete replacement for the EAW, it is at least a partial replacement for the EAW, in that it restores arrests without warrant in the UK for those wanted by EU countries—a power that will be lost, along with the rest of the European arrest warrant regime, at the end of the transition period.

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, just said, in effect, the fact remains that, even with the Bill, extradition of EU nationals will take longer and be more complex than under the European arrest warrant regime. There is no obligation on EU countries to reciprocate—that is, to immediately arrest and quickly extradite those wanted by the UK who are in EU countries —because the Bill is a partial but wholly inadequate replacement for the European arrest warrant. Perhaps this explains the Government’s sheepishness in trying to put distance between it and the EAW.

It is clear that we will all be less safe in the UK at the end of the transition period, when we lose access to the European arrest warrant, as a consequence of leaving the European Union. We do not oppose the government amendments in this group, but it would have been better if the Government had been more transparent from the outset.

Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 7th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations, although I am not entirely clear about them. She said that they are about the immigration skills charge and underinvestment by business in skills training, but then said that the money paid does not go into skills training, which I found a little confusing. The charge applies at a rate of £1,000 per migrant per year for big businesses, with reduced amounts for small companies and charities.

I presume that the regulations are necessary to bring the existing immigration skills charge in line with the new points-based system to be introduced from 1 January. If I understood the Minister correctly, that EU migrants from 1 January will have to pay the immigration skills charge is being dealt with under separate legislation and not under these regulations.

I am also a little confused by the Explanatory Note, however brief, which says:

“Regulation 3 adds exemptions to the requirement to pay the charge.”


That is clergy, sports players, sports coaches, instructors and officials. My understanding was that these people were exempt already, so I do not understand what “adds exemptions” means if they were already included.

I have a lot of sympathy with the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft: why sport? I understand that the guidance available on Home Office websites may not be up to date, but for a sportsperson to be exempt, they need to be

“internationally established as a player or coach at the highest level.”

That indicates that the sort of people we are talking about will be those who earn a considerable amount of money. I understand that sport covers from grass roots up to international level, but these will be internationally established people on extremely high salaries, so why are they exempt? I understand that it might be argued that the sort of skills training that sportspeople get is not impacted, but surely, as she explained, this money goes into some central pot to assist with skills training generally. Can the Minister explain why internationally established players or coaches at the highest level are exempt from the immigration skills charge?

We have discussed only in the past week or so in the House the issue of immigration, the job market and the resident market test in terms of encouraging employers to employ UK workers rather than foreign workers, so I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He asked whether £1,000 was really enough to encourage employers to employ UK staff rather than people who are migrants, particularly as the resident market test is being done away with.

I can understand clergy being exempt from the charge, because one does not normally expect clergy to be paid an extraordinary amount of money. It therefore does rather concern me that the guidance in relation to clergy states that, once you have been sponsored for three or six years, you cannot return to the UK under level 2 within the next 12 months unless

“the salary for the job that the Certificate of Sponsorship Checking Service shows you are being sponsored to do (including any allowances listed as acceptable for this purpose in paragraph 79 of Appendix A to the Immigration Rules) is £159,600 or higher.”

I think—although I do not know—that it would be unusual for members of the clergy, who I understand include monks and nuns, to be paid this salary or higher, or that the sort of accommodation with which they are provided, which can be included, would run to that sort of cost. So, all in all, this is very confusing.

However, if these regulations do not add these other people as exemptions because they are already exempt, and if their purpose is simply to align with the new points-based system from 1 January, I am content.

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

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

I have a certain sympathy with the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who referred to his late mother coming from the west of Ireland. In my case, my late aunt came from the Republic of Ireland to work in Plymouth. She had no particular qualifications, but she felt more at ease whenever she had her identity card and that necessary permit. It may be a difference of some 70 or 80 years, but I think the principle remains that people feel happier when they have access to proof of identity, by which I mean a biometric card or a document. For that reason, I urge support, and I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, will be moving this to a vote, which I will be very happy to support, because of the level of support in the wider community in the UK and because it is eminently sensible to underpin the settled status of our EU friends.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment and the powerful, eloquent arguments he put forward, honed by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the compelling arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and supported by every other speaker so far in this debate.

I hate to bore the House by repeating what I have said before about those entering the United Kingdom to visit, without a visa, who want to rent a property for the six months they will be here. The Government say that these people—and from 1 January they will be EEA and Swiss nationals—have to produce to the landlord physical proof of their nationality and the fact that they entered the United Kingdom within the last six months.

It has been confirmed to me by the Minister that there are no plans to have any digital proof of the status of those EEA and Swiss nationals visiting for six months that a landlord would be able to access to confirm that they can rent the property. So, we have a situation where, if an EEA or Swiss national, after 1 January, wants to rent a property for more than six months, they need a digital-only proof that it is possible, but if the EEA national has entered the United Kingdom within the last six months, it is solely physical proof that the landlord needs. There are no plans to change that process in the future. So, any argument that the Government are moving to a wholly digital system in the future is not true, certainly in relation to the circumstances I have outlined, which, therefore, knocks away a major argument of the Government’s against this amendment.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, over the years, I have often received pleas for help to support various campaigns. But over the last few days, like other noble Lords, I have been inundated with a multitude of emails—over 80—asking for support with changing a digital-only immigration status to one that has hard copies as well. I support Amendment 18. A digital-only immigration status will create new barriers for EU citizens, especially the elderly and the most vulnerable, who may not have the necessary skills and equipment. They need alternative ways of accessing services. This is not a fair way to treat our friends and neighbours.

EU citizens can prove their new immigration status only through the Home Office website. What happens when the website fails? Websites do fail. There should always be a back-up. Does the Minister agree? What happened on Wednesday and today are an example. Is that not a sign that this amendment should be accepted? In addition, if any one part of the digital checking process fails, people without a physical form of back-up will be vulnerable.

There should not be a two-tier system for proving the right to stay in the UK. There should be an acceptable system for all citizens in the UK and in the EU. I have a god-daughter living in France who is married to a Frenchman. This Bill is inhuman. Many EU citizens living in the UK own property, having paid their taxes. They have acquired settled status, but without physical proof of their identity they are really concerned. The letter they received states clearly that it is not proof of their identity. If they do not have hard proof, they feel very vulnerable. They need physical proof of who they are and of what rights they have earned. I congratulate and thank the noble Lords who have tabled Amendment 18, which I support.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Blunkett, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment. As other noble Lords said, this will have a damaging impact on the English-language teaching sector and associated businesses such as coach operators and accommodation providers, as my noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal said. That is because these students will be going to Ireland, Malta and Cyprus—other English-speaking countries—rather than coming here, because they can still use their ID cards in those other countries.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, 90% of those on short language trips to the UK travel on ID cards, and it will disadvantage young people from poorer backgrounds who cannot afford a passport. Much English language teaching is based in coastal and rural communities, so the Government’s levelling-up agenda will be damaged, as will exchange trips, disadvantaging UK students, because the foreign students will not be able to come here, therefore the UK students will not be able to go on exchange visits to European countries. For those reasons, we support the amendment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendment 19 provides that from the beginning of next year, the Secretary of State must permit children from EEA states and Switzerland to continue to use their national ID card to enter the UK, rather than needing a passport. They would be permitted to do this once a year, for a short-term stay of up to 30 days. The amendment appears, from what has been said, to be intended to address important issues about accessing and retaining educational opportunities and exchanges for what should be both UK and EU young people, and ensuring that those existing opportunities are not compromised, made more difficult or significantly more costly to access at the end of the transition period.

What conversations has the Home Secretary already had with the Education Secretary on the concerns that have been expressed in this debate about the impact on educational opportunities for children, following the end of the transition period, as a result of changes in the immigration arrangements? What changes will need to be made for school travel in both directions to ensure that arrangements no less comparable in terms of cost, speed of process and efficiency continue after the end of this year as regards schools, the children involved and our border personnel?

It has been made clear in this debate that the English language learning sector has concerns about the impact on English language education of changes to the immigration rules. What dialogue have the Government had with this sector on these concerns, which it clearly regards as striking at the very heart of its existence?

The amendment is not specifically linked to travel for educational purposes, but would give a blanket right for all minors from EEA states and Switzerland to enter the UK using an ID card once a year. It is thus considerably wider in its terms than its stated purpose and we would not be able to give it our support if it were taken to a vote; it is not clear whether the mover intends to do that. However, I hope that the Government can give assurances that, if it has not already been done, work is being undertaken to ensure that UK and EU children, and indeed older learners such as those who may access university or further education courses, will at the very least continue to have access, on terms that are no less favourable overall, to the educational opportunities they currently have, after the end of the transition period.

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

Lord Paddick Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 2 in my name, which takes us in a very different direction to the debate thus far. Amendment 2 has a modest snippet of text: “Leave out Clause 1”. If noble Lords go back to the Bill, they will find that it covers “Repeal of the main retained EU law relating to free movement etc.” This is the point, from the view of your Lordships’ House, at which the freedom of movement that was the birthright for everyone born since 1992, and which their elders have enjoyed since then, is irrevocably wiped out. We have an expectation, as problematic as it sometimes is, that society is advancing and improving. Yet here we are, after 28 years, taking a massive step backwards. I credit the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for noting in Committee how much she personally had benefited from freedom of movement. Many other noble Lords will have similarly benefited, and others have noted it in the House during debate.

As I speak now, I think particularly of the 18 year-olds who are having such a torrid time at university or college or in seeking a job. They have endured all the chaos of A-level and GCSE results and now face losing an escape route—a safety valve—but, above all, an opportunity to roam a continent without restraint, free to study, to work, to live and to love without thought of visa or restriction. That loss should not be allowed to slip quietly into the political darkness.

Much of the focus of the debate around freedom of movement and on the Bill has been on the fate of some 4 million EU citizens in the UK. We will be debating and, I hope, adding some positive changes to the Bill for them later. There is also a rightful focus on the Britons who now face being unable to live in their own country with their European spousal partner and children. I hope your Lordships’ House will also do something about that, but for now I will focus on the Britons affected. We cannot, of course, control what other countries do—by leaving the European Union, we have lost control of that—but we know that in Europe there is a strong tradition of reciprocity. Britons will largely be treated in European states as we treat their citizens here, which is something to think about right through this Bill’s discussions.

Of course, rich people and those with connections will not be anything more than perhaps a little discommoded: if you have enough cash, you can buy a passport from several European countries, and if you have a higher level of earnings or savings, a visa will not be a barrier. Losing freedom of movement is a massive set-back for equality. Over the recent long, weary years of campaigning, I have met many Britons who were not rich and who had not started out with the advantages that many in your Lordships’ House have enjoyed. However, they were able to establish a new life on the continent, with the choice of more than a score of countries before them; all they needed was a sense of adventure—or sometimes desperation—and a few pounds for a cheap coach fare, and they set out. They are some of the 1.2 million Britons who live in the rest of Europe, who will be profoundly affected by the decisions we are making today.

This is all one enormous, careless rush, with fewer than 100 days before the end of the Brexit transition period. In the Committee debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, noted that the Bill removes

“all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which derive from EU law”.—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 644.]

I cannot tackle everything, but I want to do everything I can to highlight this great loss. Therefore, I give notice that it is my intention to divide the House, as I indicated in Committee that I would do at this stage. I will ask every Member of your Lordships’ House to be on the record: will you vote to greatly reduce the freedom we all enjoy from January, and probably for decades to come? Will you show your opposition, or will you remain off the record in the face of this massive loss?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 26 in this group, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee will speak to the other amendments in the group. I too am sceptical about the Government’s ability to enforce immigration law in general and the end of free movement in particular. Indeed, as I have previously argued, there is evidence that, rather than “taking back control”, the Government have made the UK border more porous.

At previous stages of this Bill, I have raised the issue of EEA and Swiss nationals, who will continue to be able to enter the UK using airport e-passport gates and who will benefit from visa-free entry to the UK, officially for six months at the end of the transition period, along with the nationals of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA—the so-called B5JSSK countries.

I am very grateful to the Minister for meeting me face to face—a rare treat—along with several officials, who joined us virtually. The point of raising this issue now is to have on the record the fact that the Government’s approach to immigration contains significant loopholes, which are as follows.

First, there will be no digital record of the immigration status of EEA and Swiss nationals, or those of the other B5JSSK countries that I have listed, visiting the UK under the six-month visa-free arrangements. This can be checked—for example, by landlords, in order to fulfil their right-to-rent obligations to ensure that they do not rent property to those who are in the UK illegally. The Government have no plans to change this situation other than an ambition that this will happen at some time in the future.

Secondly, there will be no way of tracking EEA, Swiss or other B5JSSK nationals once they have arrived in the UK, as no information will be recorded as to where they are going to be staying, there will be no stamp in their passport and there will be no way of establishing whether they have left the UK when or before the six-month limit has been reached.

Thirdly, in order to comply with the law—even though there is no way of enforcing it—all an EEA or Swiss national, or a national of one of the other B5JSSK countries, needs to do is take a day trip on the Eurostar to Lille, for example, in order to be legally eligible to stay for another six months. In their UK Points-Based Immigration System: Further Details Statement, the Government claim that EEA and Swiss nationals should not

“in effect live in the UK by means of repeat or continuous visits.”

However, in reality, there is no way of checking or enforcing this.

Fourthly, with the leeway provided to landlords under the right to rent scheme, landlords can rent a property for up to 12 months to an EEA or Swiss national, or to other B5JSSK nationals—even though they are legally allowed to stay in the country for only six months—without any sanction, civil or criminal. At the end of that period, the landlord can continue to rent the property to the EEA or Swiss national, or to one of these other nationals, provided they produce another ticket, boarding pass, travel booking or

“Any other documentary evidence which establishes the date of arrival in the UK in the last six months.”


Fifthly, the Government cannot provide any details of the electronic travel authorisations, or ETAs, mentioned in the Government’s immigration plans under the heading “The border of the future”, or of how that system will operate. The Government claim that it will

“allow security checks to be conducted and more informed decisions taken on information obtained at an earlier stage, as to whether individuals should be allowed to travel to the UK.”

In the meantime, and for the foreseeable future, the UK could be vulnerable to such individuals entering the UK—without checks or a visa—through the e-passport gates.

Every national of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea or the USA used to hand in a landing card and be questioned by a Border Force officer at the UK border to establish where they were going to stay, how long they were staying and whether they had the means to sustain themselves without working illegally. I am told that about 3,000 US nationals a year used to be turned away at the border, but these individuals can now use the e-passport gates, almost always unchallenged. I understand that the reason the B5JSSK nationals were added to those who could use the e-passport gates was to better manage the queues at the UK border. Allowing people through the UK border more quickly by not checking whether they are entering the UK legitimately does not seem to be “taking back control” of our borders.

From 1 January, EEA and Swiss nationals will be able to enter the UK in the same way, even though free movement is supposed to be at an end. Can the Minister please confirm on the record that these loopholes do indeed exist and that there are no immediate plans to close them? Can she also repudiate the explanation offered by a lawyer friend of mine—who, when I discussed this issue with him, described the B5JSSK countries as “white” countries—by explaining how the B5JSSK countries were chosen?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I was very sorry not to be able to be here for the debates in Committee on these amendments, to which I put my name. I had an unavoidable business commitment elsewhere. I apologise to the House; I took the trouble to read Hansard carefully.

I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Green. We need a limit on the annual numbers from the EEA and Switzerland seeking employment. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said we should stop talking about it and just get on with it. She is right in a way, because a cap is inflexible and clumsy, but I have come to the conclusion—somewhat reluctantly—that it is inevitable and the only way we will be able to grasp the challenges that the number of arrivals in this country now poses.

Simply put, without a cap the Government will never get control of this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who I am glad to see is still in her place, asked why we think this. History, particularly recent history, has shown how extraordinarily difficult it is to grasp this problem. We have heard a lot about taking back control, but the awful fact is that, where we have no control over current arrivals—those from the EEA—arrivals are falling, but where we have always had control, they are rising sharply. In 2016, there were 133,000 arrivals from the EU; now there are 58,000, in the figures produced by the ONS a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the non-EU arrivals were 175,000 and are now 316,000—nearly double.

I sat in this Chamber for many hours, hearing all those noble Lords saying that Brexit was going to chase everybody away and no one would come here because we would all be anti-foreigner. I can tell the House that in 2016, 308,000 people arrived here, and the latest figures say that 374,000 have arrived, so that is not a sign that people are being frightened away. Nor is it about no immigration. It is about scale—about 374,000 people. It is about 900 a day and all that means. I will not go through the things other noble Lords talked about, such as houses and the impact. We have 6 million more people in this country, and that is with drastically reduced levels from where we are today. If we go on at the current level, it will be 8 or 9 million more. At 6 million more people, we will build over an area the size of Bedfordshire by 2040. No ifs, no buts, no maybes—that will happen. We will almost certainly be unable to stop it, because you always look 10 or 15 years out when you do demographic planning. We need to be honest and clear about the implications of the decisions that we take in Bills and statutes like this.

How has this happened? At root, it is because it is in employers’ commercial interest to recruit trained but cheaper labour from overseas. Why go to the trouble and the expense of training members of a settled population, many of whom may be quite recalcitrant and not particularly grateful, when you can avoid all that effort by recruiting someone from overseas, who is probably jolly grateful? British industry and commerce have become addicted to overseas recruitment at the expense of our own people. Figures bear that out. My noble friend Lord Horam referred to the think tank Onward. Last year it reported:

“Since 2011 employer spending per trainee has fallen by 17% in real terms”.


Employers have avoided having to put money into training; they have been able to go overseas instead.

In researching the pamphlet I recently published, I investigated the engineering industry, another sector where employers are always bemoaning the lack of UK-grown engineers. I was absolutely astonished to learn that last year, six months after graduation, fewer than half the engineering graduates of this country were working in engineering. I understand that they are not all going to go into engineering, but fewer than half is a surprisingly small number. When I went to talk to some of these young men and women about why they had not moved into engineering, they said that one of the problems is that UK employers preferred to offer jobs to someone with experience—no surprise there. UK undergraduates find themselves in a position where they cannot get experience without a job, and they cannot get a job without experience.

My noble friend will no doubt point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which has been the subject of a number of our conversations this afternoon, and its enlarged remit. The MAC is a fine body of men and women, but even a cursory reading of its annual report shows the enormous pressure that it is under to effectively abandon all controls. To quote from page 81 of last year’s annual report: “The majority of respondents”—that is, employers sending information to the MAC—

“agreed that there should not be a salary threshold above the National Minimum Wage”.

Secondly:

“There was stronger support for the idea of a salary threshold that was in some way variable to reflect employer needs”.


That effectively means nothing. On page one of the report, the MAC pointed out that this was the inevitable conclusion of “an employer-driven system”.

My noble friend on the Front Bench is a redoubtable Minister, as is the Home Secretary. No doubt there are many redoubtable Ministers in the Government, but they will find themselves under irresistible pressure, carefully argued by employers, about the inability of the UK to compete on a world stage unless more arrivals are permitted. Under that pressure, Ministers will first buckle and finally break. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the full effect of the pandemic has yet to make itself felt. Surely none of us seeks to argue that the consequences for the employment of our settled population will be anything other than lessened. Against that background, allowing annual immigration of 374,000 a year—1,025 a day—must be ill-advised and maybe runs the risk of societal disorder. That is why a cap—clumsy, yes; inflexible, yes—set annually, debated and approved in Parliament, is critical. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Green.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill is about ending the free movement of people from the EU and EEA, and Swiss nationals. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and other noble Lords oppose the proposed points-based immigration system that relies on measures other than a cap on numbers to control immigration to the UK. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham said, on 1 January at the end of the transition period, the rights of EU citizens to come and work in the UK will be replaced by controls based on salary and skill levels. That will also apply to migrants from the rest of the world. The number of EU migrants has already fallen significantly, and will continue to do so, as a result of the end of free movement that the Bill brings about. While we on these Benches regret that, it is the consequence of leaving the EU. That is what the UK people voted for; we have already left and will suffer the consequences.

I shall engage to some extent with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, raised and come back to them on future amendments. He said that the system was entirely for the benefit of business and not of British workers, would cost between 6 million and 7 million jobs, and that there were hundreds of millions of people potentially qualified to come to the UK to take those jobs. He said that the public were in favour of control. However, my understanding is that there will be control but of a different type from setting a cap. Presumably, although the Minister will enlighten us, salary levels and qualification requirements can and will be varied if necessary if consequently we suddenly face a so-called avalanche of people coming to the UK from areas other than the European Union. Any avalanche from the European Union would have happened already because, at the moment, there is free movement.

It is interesting that noble Lords opposite talk about business interests, yet in other debates they argue that we need a strong economy to pay for public services. The fact is that migrants, particularly migrant workers, contribute far more to public services than they receive in public services, and they certainly contribute more than the average UK resident does.

We on these Benches believe that government departments such as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department of Health and Social Care have knowledge of the migrants that the UK economy needs, and that they, not the Home Office, should decide on immigration policy, points-based or otherwise. I will not entirely do the Minister’s job for her but perhaps she can convince the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that his amendment is not necessary because the points-based system will effectively reduce immigration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, as the House would expect, but before I get there, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, threw down a challenge and I had better get to that first. I am pleased to be able to tell him that I paid for every single bit of that pamphlet. Every single envelope, stamp, and bit of printing was paid for by me and I am happy to share the receipts and information with him if he wishes. The only time that I used any of the facilities of the House was to distribute the pamphlet, a copy of which went to every Member of your Lordships’ House and every Member of the House of Commons.

I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Green, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Horam. I do not want to go over all that again now. In my remarks on Amendment 6, which we have just dealt with, I explained how employers have become addicted to cheap labour from overseas because it is in their commercial interests to do so. As a result, we have become thoughtless and careless about the employment opportunities for our settled population. We have young people locked into zero-hours contracts. We have members of minority communities locked into low-paid, low-prospect jobs. Increasingly, and really seriously because they are a larger part of our population, the over-50s find it hard to get jobs even as we raise the retirement age. A 2018 House of Commons report revealed that 1 million people over 50 would like to work or work more; 14% of 50 year-olds are out of work and 35% of 60 year-olds are out of work. Removing the resident labour market test opens them up to an even greater degree of unemployment risk.

As many noble Lords have said, as the impact of the pandemic makes itself felt, all these problems will get worse. How do we protect and look after our settled population in these circumstances, particularly since these same economic pressures will make employers ever keener to game the system and access cheaper labour from overseas? The first line of protection would have been a cap but we are not going to have it because my noble friend the Minister has told us so. This amendment is a second line of protection, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, since the resident labour market test prevents the grosser excesses of undercutting wages by recruiting from overseas.

I apologise to the House for not having been present in Committee, but I have read the debates and, following a point made by my noble friend Lord Horam, I was really astonished by a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, at col. 843 of Hansard, about the trade unions. Why every union at the Trades Union Congress is not down here supporting this amendment as a way of helping and protecting the working man they seek to represent, absolutely astonishes me. Now, that is for the party opposite to sort out.

The strains that our society will face do not just come from the pandemic. They will come also from the impact of the fourth industrial revolution—from artificial intelligence and robotics, not often mentioned in our debate so far. In those circumstances, policies that will likely result in close to 1,200 people arriving on an average day cannot be sensible.

A key determinant of a person’s self-confidence and sense of self-worth is, undoubtedly, purposeful and secure work. Professor David Blanchflower said in his book Not Working, published last year:

“Unemployment hurts and it hurts a lot.”


The amendment, if the Government accepted it, would help reduce but, sadly, not eliminate that level of hurt, which is why I support it.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I begin to wonder whether we should swap Benches at this stage. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, longs for the old immigration regime that he has criticised so much. This time it is the resident labour market test or, as the former leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown, may have put it, “British jobs for British workers”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, posited that UK employers were likely to recruit from overseas without even considering UK workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said that UK employers were addicted to using imported, low-wage labour. I thought that under the points-based system there was a minimum salary of £25,600, which does not sound to me like undercutting UK labour.

Surely, British employers will look to avoid the immigration skills charge by hiring a UK resident in preference to a migrant, if they possibly can, and British employers will look to avoid having to pay a licence fee to be an authorised sponsor of migrant workers, if they possibly can. Migrants will be deterred from working in the UK, including in the National Health Service and social care, because they will have to pay the immigration health surcharge in addition to income tax, national insurance and VAT—effectively, having to pay twice for the National Health Service. Migrants will also be deterred from working in the UK because they will have to pay far more than the cost price of a visa, and because of the salary and skill levels they will have to attain to secure enough points to get a visa in the first place. From 1 January, all that will apply to all new migrants from the European Union as well as those from the rest of the world. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary and we do not support it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, Amendment 7, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, was discussed in Committee. I am all in favour of maximising opportunities for British workers to have employment and skilled employment. Good companies invest in their staff, and it makes good sense to do so. It is much more sensible, when possible, to recruit and train staff locally, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, including the charges that employers incur when recruiting workers from abroad.

This amendment adds a test and a further layer of bureaucracy. For me, the case has not been made for why we should support it. Again, I find myself in agreement with the Minister and her position, as well as with the position of the MAC, which concluded that the likely bureaucratic cost would outweigh any economic benefit of bringing this test back in.

I should say that I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Horam. We are good friends; we served together for many years on the Electoral Commission. My only point about think tanks—and I am heavily involved in one—is that for some we are unclear about where their funding comes from. I am pleased that we now know that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, generously funded his own report. Sadly, of course, we do not know where the money of many of the think tanks that we refer to comes from. With all due respect, it is good of him to fund himself.

I do not think that the case has been made for this amendment in any sense, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. So far, I have heard nothing that could persuade me to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, one of the weaknesses of the whole Bill is the extent to which the detailed implications are contained in regulations which are only now beginning to emerge. Every Member of your Lordships’ House will be aware that the scrutiny of regulations is much less effective than that of primary legislation; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised that issue in the debate on one of the previous amendments. I should perhaps, just for the record, declare that I am the chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but I am speaking for myself, not for the committee.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the regulations are unamendable, so the House is left with what I call the “nuclear option” of complete rejection. Unsurprisingly, the House has veered away from that course of action, except on the rarest of occasions. That is one of the reasons why I support the noble Lord, Lord Green, in this case, because he is actually trying to wrest back a bit of control by having some more specific plans built into the Bill. They are necessary for the reasons that he, and indeed my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, laid out. In its way, this amendment is the third and last line of protection in regulating the extent to which the employment opportunities of our settled population can be undermined.

We already know that there is no cap and that we will have no resident labour market test. Therefore, if my noble friend the Minister refuses to accept this amendment—and I fear that if I could glance over her shoulder at her speaking notes, I would see that she might just be going to do that—it is extremely likely that our future levels of immigration will continue, probably in excess of a quarter of a million each year. It may be slightly below what we have now, at 320,000, but it will be well over a quarter of a million each year.

In Committee I chided the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who has been coming back at me this afternoon, when he refused to back my proposal to establish an office for demographic change, which was a planned idea, independent and transparent, to look at the complexities of these issues in the round—environmental, ecological, societal. It is easy to laugh—the noble Lord is already grinning—but the reality is that there are serious issues around water, land quality and species loss which are all related to how our population is growing. They are not entirely due to it, but they are very largely related.

I said to the noble Lord, I hope, gently, because I do not want to upset him—he is a sensitive soul—that his party had to decide where it stood on demographic growth, of which immigration is a part, because it is an issue that really resonates in the country. We have heard the percentages; 60% to 70% of people are concerned about it. In particular, his party must decide where it stands, or all the possibilities of recovering the red wall, now blue wall, seats will be vanishingly small.

However, it is perfectly fair to say that this is not without dangers for my party. We will face quite significant challenges. If those of us who are concerned about what happens if our population grows by 6 million or 8 million are right, and the package of policies before us continues to allow rapid growth—it is not about whether they are foreigners, black or white, or what their colour is; it is about the number of people—we will have two big challenges. First, a lot of the people who turned the red wall seats into blue wall seats did so because we promised a sustained reduction in the level of immigration. If we do not deliver that, they will feel betrayed and let down.

In parallel with that, every year we will have to build 100,000 houses to accommodate the quarter of a million people likely to arrive. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says that they pay more in tax than they draw in benefits, but there is a much more complicated issue, with which I will not bore the House this evening, about the capital investment to maintain and extend our roads and structures. They are not covered just by taxes; a much bigger level of capital expenditure is required. He and I can discuss this over a socially distanced cup of coffee, but I will not bore the House with it now.

We will build 100,000 houses a year, and they will be built in our shire counties. These people will not be delighted about it. We know that; housebuilding is intensely unpopular. The coming storm about the planning algorithm, which is now doing the rounds, is just the beginnings of the trouble there will be if we continue down this road. My noble friends Lord Horam and Lady Neville-Rolfe are right. The Government are wrong in believing they have the situation under control.

My noble friend the Minister nobly and loyally marches to the beat of the Home Office drum, which essentially says, “Don’t worry; it will be all right on the night”. I wish I shared the department’s confidence.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my understanding is that what lies behind this amendment is the aim to allow Parliament to set a rate for new entrants instead of it being set at 30% lower than the national average going rate of £25,600 under the points-based system. To restate what I have said before, this Bill is about EU migration, on which there is no restriction at the moment. From 1 January, if this Bill becomes law, there will be restrictions on EU migrants and a salary floor for new entrants.

It seems that the gut reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, to the new entrant salary level being set independently based on economic research by the Migration Advisory Committee at £20,480 is that it is a bit low. But as the Minister explained in Committee, the MAC found that those starting in their careers were typically being paid 30% less than those who were established in their role; hence the floor for new entrants is 30% less than the £25,600 set as the salary floor for migrants under the new points-based system. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is arguing that £25,600 is too low and therefore the new entrant salary level is too low, or whether 30% less for new entrants is not typical of a new entrant and therefore it should be something other than 30% less than the established rate.

If the noble Lord’s amendment is agreed, I would have to ask him on what basis he thinks Parliament should decide the new entrant salary level. I understand that the noble Lord believes that migration decisions should be based not on economics but on politics. May I say that I deny that I care little for ordinary working people, as the noble Lord said? If he would care to read in Hansard what I actually said, he will see that I felt that there were alternative protections for ordinary working people to what he was suggesting, which is completely different

We on these Benches believe that economic migration should be based on economics, while immigration by asylum seekers should be based on the compassionate consideration of the evidence of their claim. On that basis, we cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, Amendment 8, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is the third amendment that he has proposed; we considered them previously in Committee. I shall not detain the House for long, but I will say that I listened to the debate on 9 September and I have listened carefully to the debate today, but I am not persuaded by the arguments made so far. These matters are kept under review and if the problem the noble Lord is alluding to is a problem, I am sure that the Government would act. We are probably a bit constrained by our procedures in this debate; in many ways these amendments could all have been debated as one group.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am disappointed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and other noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I just do not accept the assertion behind these amendments—that the UK will be flooded with migrants from the European Union when we have heard that the numbers are actually going down, given the difficulties that will be in place at the conclusion of the Brexit deal. I am not prepared to accept what has been suggested. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that Tesco and the Co-op are going out to recruit all over Germany, France and elsewhere for people to come and work here, given all the charges that would involve for these companies. All those sorts of companies recruit their staff locally. They have huge staff turnover and they engage people locally.

I am also happy to say that this country has benefited hugely from immigration over many years and we should never forget that. However, the one thing I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about is his point about Bills and regulations. He is right to say that over the past 30, or perhaps 40, years there has been a drift, so that Governments of all persuasions produce skeleton Bills with more and more stuff being dealt with in regulations. There are many times when we have all felt frustrated by how we are dealing with these issues. I accept that.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was interested in and concerned about the position of the Labour Party. I thank him for that. The Labour Party will be fine and we will put forward our position at the next general election. However, I thank him for his concern. I should say, however, that in all the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has spoken, his own Front Bench does not agree with him. He has a problem, I suggest, with the Conservative Party as well. Maybe he should look there.

I take exception to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that I care little for ordinary working people. I care greatly about workers in this country and their families. We do not agree in this House—that is fine—but to suggest that I do not care, or that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with whom I agree, does not care, is wrong. That suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Green, is regrettable. We can disagree on politics and policies. I come from a family of people who have worked hard in this country and care about how the working people in this country are looked after and protected. I will leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Covid-19: Child Trafficking

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord will want, as I do, to see the online harms White Paper become a Bill in Parliament. Much work is going on to tackle that sort of abuse, which is probably on the increase during the Covid pandemic. On conspiracy theorists of all descriptions—including anti-vaxxers and those against 5G masts, which we saw at the beginning—clearly that sort of misinformation can be incredibly harmful.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the role of local authorities. Covid-19 has led to the scaling back of some crucial local services, one of which is on-site workplace inspections to identify child and adult victims of trafficking and rescue them. Can the Government tell the House how many inspections have been carried out since the start of the pandemic?

Emergency Services Network

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

I call Lord Desai. No? We will move on. I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this new emergency service network will operate on old 4G technology, and current estimates are that it will cost £33,000 per user. We learned from the King’s Cross fire and the 7/7 terrorist attacks the importance of this network working on the London Underground but, to date, it does not—even though my own iPhone does. How and when will this be resolved?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to point to the importance of emergency networks in the London Underground. In fact, that work and that testing has begun with TfL— I visited one of its sites in Canada Water—but it has been delayed because of Covid-19, for very obvious practical reasons. I can assure the noble Lord on this. The testing is absolutely imperative, so that the technology that we have works in emergency situations such as those he referred to.

Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2020

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has said, the 2019 Conservative Party manifesto contained a commitment to

“increase the health surcharge to ensure it covers the full cost of use”.

As a result, this statutory instrument, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said, increases the full immigration surcharge to £624 a year. However, in April 2019, the Department of Health and Social Care, using 2017-18 data, estimated the cost to the NHS of treating immigration health surcharge payers at £624 per year—the amount that the SI increases the charge by—but re-ran that estimate using 2018-19 data, putting it at £646 a year. Why are the Government using the old estimate and not the current one?

My understanding is that the Home Office takes a cut of the £624 charge to cover its costs. The amount therefore paid to the NHS is even less than the outdated £624 a year. What does the Home Office take out of the £624 allegedly taken to fund the National Health Service? Taking those two factors into account, the Government are falling short of their manifesto promise to cover the full cost of use.

I strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, not just on ID cards but on the statutory instrument. The flaw with the immigration health surcharge is that it takes no account of income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT, which are funding sources for the National Health Service paid by working migrants who also have to pay the IHS. The difference between the UK and most other countries with which the noble Lord was making a comparison is that they do not have health services that are free at the point of need, as we have in this country.

Analysis by Oxford Economics for the Migration Advisory Committee estimated that in 2017-18, the average non-EEA migrant made a net fiscal contribution of £310 more than the average UK adult. The average EEA migrant made a net contribution—that is, paid more in tax than they received in benefit from the state; for example, in healthcare, education and benefits —of £1,940 more than the average UK adult.

This analysis shows that migrants already pay more than the average UK adult towards government services, including the National Health Service, so why should they pay the immigration health surcharge on top? Even if we ignore the baseline figure, surely a further option the Government should have considered is discounting non-EEA migrants working in the UK by £310—the amount they contribute in addition to that contributed by the average person in the UK—and exempting EEA migrants altogether. Surely, this would cover the full cost of the use of the NHS. Or, why not charge migrants who do not work and not those who do?

These provisions are estimated to raise £177 million a year, a tiny fraction of the 2018-19 NHS budget of £114 billion, yet the impact on reducing the number of migrants seeking to come to the UK is estimated to be 2,500 people per year. Can the Minister confirm that the main objective of the immigration health surcharge, along with the vastly inflated sums charged for visas, is to reduce migration into the UK by pricing those least able to pay out of the market?

We then have the farcical situation whereby migrants working for the National Health Service have to pay the immigration health surcharge. Yes, there are exemptions, but these are for the more highly paid professionals such as doctors, dentists and pharmacists. Those least able to pay the IHS, such as porters and cleaners, are not exempt. NHS and social care staff from other countries—many of whom are working on the front line of the coronavirus pandemic, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said—should have the right to stay in the UK without having to renew their visas or pay the immigration health surcharge. That is why Liberal Democrats in the other place have tabled legislation to give them indefinite leave to remain.

There is no justification for imposing the immigration health surcharge on working migrants, who already contribute not only more to the Exchequer than they cost it, but more—in the case of EEA migrants, considerably more—than the average person in the UK. Failing to exempt all NHS and social care workers from the IHS adds insult to injury. We support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and if he presses it to a Division, we will vote with him.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I start on a personal note to say how pleased I am to be in the Chamber for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot; I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will be equally magnificent.

The most important thing we should be seeking to achieve is ensuring that terrorists do not cause harm to others—on that, we are united. How best to achieve this outcome is what is likely to divide us. We on these Benches will decide on the evidence, not the rhetoric. We acknowledge that the terrorist threat level remains “substantial” and that the tragic and horrifying terrorist attacks at Fishmongers’ Hall and in Streatham, less than a year ago, were committed by those who were known to the security services, and who had been released automatically at the half-way point of their sentence with no consideration by the Parole Board. As the Minister has said, we passed emergency legislation, the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020, to address that situation.

I believe there are six remaining questions of public safety arising out of these tragic incidents, which the Government should be addressing. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has said, some of these are addressed in the Bill but some are not. First, is the Prevent strategy effective in identifying those at risk of being radicalised, and in diverting them away from potential terrorist activity? The most important thing is preventing terrorism—to stop people being radicalised to the extent that they are a threat to the public. Yet, this Bill pushes the independent review of Prevent, which this House insisted on in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, into the long grass, with no timetable for completion. Can the Minister tell the House what progress, if any, has been made?

Secondly, does the Prison Service have the information, training, expertise and resources to be able to deradicalise those in its custody and to prevent inmates from being radicalised or further radicalised? If they are convicted and imprisoned, offenders need to be in an environment where they can turn their lives around. Longer and longer sentences, extending early release from half way to two-thirds to never being released at all, overcrowding and understaffing—all provide a fertile breeding-ground for radicalisation. What evidence do the Government have that longer sentences deter idealistic, radicalised individuals who are determined to do us harm?

Thirdly, is it more effective to deradicalise those in prison or those on licence—and what is the impact of longer sentences on the susceptibility to deradicalisation? The Government claim that longer sentences provide more time to deradicalise, but what evidence is there that this would be more effective? How do we know that longer sentences, which may be perceived to be unfairly harsh, do not create greater resentment and make someone less amenable to deradicalisation?

Fourthly, does the Parole Board have the information, training, expertise and resources to be able to assess the risk posed by such offenders? What are the Government doing to improve the Parole Board’s decision- making capability? There is nothing in the Bill on this issue.

Fifthly, does the probation service have the information, training, expertise and resources to be able to manage the risk posed by such offenders? The Government’s record in relation to the probation service generally is disastrous—and the experience and expertise required to manage the potential risk posed by such offenders is considerable. Perhaps lie-detector tests can help. As the Minister said, what evidence is there that they work? Does the probation service have the equipment, technicians and scientists to carry out and interpret the results of the proposed polygraph tests? If they are effective, why is there no plan to make these tests available to the Parole Board, for example, to help in its decision-making?

Sixthly, is the way that different agencies, including the police, probation service and security services, work together to investigate, monitor and manage terrorist offenders under the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements operating effectively? Where are we with the implementation of the recommendations of the independent review of MAPPA, particularly those considered urgent by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who carried out the review?

In 2011, control orders were replaced by terrorism prevention and investigation measures—TPIMs—moving from significant and indefinite restrictions on suspected terrorists’ liberties without trial to a limited power to manage the risk posed while evidence was gathered to secure a conviction. TPIMs can be imposed without the standard of proof usually required before the state can restrict an individual’s—that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. The civil case standard of

“the balance of probabilities that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity”

is considered enough.

The Bill wants to take us back to the control order standard of “reasonable grounds for suspecting”—the same standard of proof that a police officer requires before making an arrest. Believe me, I know that that standard is very low. Jonathan Hall QC, the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, says:

“I am not aware of cases where the authorities would like to have imposed a TPIM if the standard of proof had been lower”.—[Official Report, Commons, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill Committee, 25/6/20; col. 6.]


In that case, why do the Government need to change the standard of proof? Jonathan Hall QC also argues against doing away with the two-year limit on TPIMs as the Bill proposes. At the least, he suggests, safeguards are needed, such as the Secretary of State seeking the court’s permission for any extension beyond two years in the same way that she does when a TPIM is first made. Although we are blessed with a number of former independent reviewers of terrorism legislation in this House, what is the point of having a current reviewer of terrorism legislation if he is not listened to?

We should not return to the days when the state could deprive someone of their liberties indefinitely without trial. We on these Benches have had enough of the Government’s “talk tough” rhetoric and their low-cost or no-cost options that have no evidence to support their effectiveness. We will support every measure in the Bill where the evidence shows they are necessary and effective in keeping us safe from terrorism but we will call out every measure where the evidence suggests they are unnecessary and ineffective.

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

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that we, as a country, have been backward in coming forward to other countries that need our help. We are working closely with Greece. As I said, we have given it money to deal with some of the most vulnerable people on its islands, and we will continue to do that.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but what I heard in the first question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was about taking refugees from the camp in Lesbos. She talked exclusively about unaccompanied children. Germany had initially agreed to take 400 unaccompanied children, but has now changed that decision and will take in 1,553 refugees from Lesbos, making up the difference in the numbers with adults. Can the Minister clarify that the Government’s position on not taking adult refugees from anywhere in Europe has not changed despite the disaster in Lesbos?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I said was that we did not participate in the EU relocation scheme; I am not sure whether we ever have. I am saying that we will absolutely meet our obligations under Dublin, and if a request comes from the UNHCR for us to take displaced people from Greece who are eligible to come under Dublin, we will of course consider that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]]

I join in the appeal from the noble Baroness for the Government to look again, as I have many times—and she has as well—at the whole immigration process that we have in this country. To mention recent developments, I would like to know exactly how many of the 13,000 immigrants on the island of Lesbos have been offered a place here in the United Kingdom.

Windrush of course created so much harm and unnecessary suffering, but we still see that the sort of attitude that is there is able to create harm to many people. As I mentioned before in this Chamber, in 2005, 17% of those who were given a hostile decision by the Home Office had the decision overturned on appeal. It is better now, they say—but it is not. Last year, 52% were successful on appeal; that means that 52% of the decisions taken by the Home Office were incorrect. They created hurt and worry and also created for the United Kingdom Government the need to go to appeal, at extensive cost.

So will the Minister and the Government look again so that, as we say in this amendment, the lessons of Windrush will be learned? We should have a thorough-going overhaul, because we are going to see very many new crises in the coming years regarding immigration. Are we going to take the lead in a hospitable way? We are not the best nation in the world for accepting migrants. We are going to see climate change, and so on, create deserts where previously there were productive lands; we have to face that. Now is the time to look at the past and say, “We were wrong,” and look at the future and say, “We can do better.”

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 95 in the name of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.

In her Windrush Lessons Learned Review, Wendy Williams described the Windrush scandal as both “foreseeable and avoidable”. The Home Office cannot afford another scandal, this time in relation to EEA and Swiss Nationals. Wendy Williams said:

“It is the responsibility of the department to keep track of the impact of the policies and legislation … and to make sure that, where members of the public are affected, particularly where they are at risk, it supports them appropriately.”


We heard from noble Lords on Monday about who might be at risk: those in abusive relationships; those who do not have access to IT, such as many Roma people; and those who rely for IT support on organisations that may not be there in years to come. Wendy Williams went on to say that

“it is perhaps unsurprising that the department did not then consider how difficult it might be for people to prove their status, prove when they arrived, or that they had been in the UK continuously some 30, 40 or even 50 years later.”

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, amendment after amendment in this Committee has criticised the hostile/compliant environment. As the noble Baroness said, Wendy Williams recommended a full review and evaluation of it, assessing whether the measures contained within it were effective and proportionate. She said:

“This review must be carried out scrupulously, designed in partnership with external experts and published in a timely way.”


To echo the noble Baroness, where are we with that review now?

We have heard compelling evidence that the EEA and Swiss nationals affected by the ending of free movement have real concerns—reinforced by recent developments over the past week—particularly over having physical proof of immigration status, although the Government say that is not necessary. The Windrush review said:

“The Home Office should take steps to understand the groups and communities that its policies affect through improved engagement, social research, and by involving service users in designing its services”,


yet the Government not only seem not to be listening to EEA and Swiss nationals whom this Bill affects but, as a result, appear to have learned nothing from the Windrush review.

When it comes to impact assessments, the report recommends:

“Officials should avoid putting forward options on the binary ‘do this or do nothing’ basis, but instead should consider a range of options.”


Yet the department’s approach to matters such as physical proof of immigration status seems to be exactly that—failing to properly consider a “physical proof on request” option, for example.

As my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno has just said, the number of successful appeals against a refusal to grant settled status questions whether the values and culture of the Home Office have changed in the way that Wendy Williams recommended, and whether there is an effective central repository from which lessons and improvements from adverse case decisions can be disseminated.

Windrush really was a scandal. Ensuring that there is no repeat in relation to EEA and Swiss nationals depends on the implementation of the Wendy Williams review recommendations. I support this amendment.