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

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, Amendment 20 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would remove Clause 4(5) from the Bill, as suggested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, unless a full justification for its inclusion can be provided with an explanation of how the Government intend to use it.

I shall not go over the arguments again, but this is another part of Clause 4 where serious concerns have been raised about the powers the Government are seeking to take for themselves, and an explanation would be appreciated as to why it is needed. This is the sort of issue that we may want to bring back on Report and to divide the House if we do not get a satisfactory answer from the Government.

Amendment 21 probes why the power is necessary. Maybe it is to reduce fees and charges and, if so, the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, provides the necessary clarity. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has explained, Amendment 21 is complementary to Amendment 20 in that it seeks to persuade the Government to explain how they would use this power. In the absence of that, it is hard to justify it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has expressed great concern about this clause and the breadth of the discretion it would confer on Ministers to levy fees or charges. In this Bill, we are talking about people who, before Brexit, would have had free movement rights under EU law and would not have had to pay these kinds of charges. It is, therefore, beholden on the Government to provide some proper and explicit justification, as the committee suggested, for this inclusion and to explain how it would be used.

In preparing for this debate, I recalled that Section 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives the power to implement the withdrawal agreement by regulations, expressly excludes the power to impose fees. I seem to remember—although sometimes the last few years are a bit of a blur—that we had quite a dust-up about that provision. Of course, if other amendments to limit the Clause 4 delegation of powers— specifically Amendment 11—were to pass, then Clause 4(5) would drop because Clause 4 powers would exclude fees in that case.

There is, obviously, a great deal of concern about this subject, because the current fees impose costs on people far in excess of reimbursement to the Treasury. In some cases, they force people to become outside any permission to remain because they cannot afford the fees for themselves and their families. When the Minister replied to questions at Second Reading, she said that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, “asked whether the visa costs would be brought in line with other countries. These immigration and citizenship fees are set at a level that helps provide the resources necessary to operate our border, immigration and citizenship system. In fairness to UK taxpayers, it is only right that those who directly benefit from our immigration system contribute to its funding.”

Of course, that is right if it means reimbursing the administrative costs that cause the fees, but anything much over that starts to get into the realm of making a profit. Some might see that as a good idea, but, of course, it is problematic when we are going to be—and this is the Government’s vision—competing internationally for skilled people. The British Heart Foundation makes the point that the up-front cost of obtaining a five-year UK global talent visa is £2,608, considerably more than 11 other leading scientific nations. The total average up-front cost for a tier 2 skilled worker visa, taking the cost for the researcher and employer together, is £8,419, 540% higher than the average cost in other leading scientific nations, which is £1,316. I confess that I have not made these calculations myself, but I have no reason to think that they are not accurate.

In the current context of families struggling for work and their incomes in the Covid-19 pandemic, this is even more of a problem. We would like to hear from the Minister the justification that the Delegated Powers Committee has suggested. If it really is only to have the power to reduce fees, that would perhaps be a reasonable point for the Government to make, but in the absence of that reassurance, it is concerning that the Government would have a free hand to raise fees which are already, by international comparisons, pretty high.

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

My Lords, I was pleased to attach my name to Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which was also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I also agree with virtually everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just said. Essentially, as it appears in the Bill, this looks like a power-grab by the Government in a situation that is already iniquitous and utterly unreasonable. The cost of that to the UK —the denial of the skills, knowledge and ability of people who might go somewhere else because our fees are just too high—was set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, very clearly. I somewhat disagreed with her, however, when she suggested that it might be reasonable for the Government to cover the actual real cost through fees, and I will particularly focus on children.

In December 2019, the High Court ruled that the Home Office had acted unlawfully in charging £1,012 for children to register their right to British citizenship. This was a judicial claim brought by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens on behalf of two children known as O, age 3 and A, age 12. They were British but could not access their citizenship because they had been priced out. The court found that the Home Office had taken no account of the best interests of the children in setting the fee. It highlighted a mass of evidence showing that the fee prevented many children from registering for British citizenship, thus leaving them,

“alienated, excluded, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.”

We are already in an iniquitous situation. The Government have chosen to appeal that ruling, so it is still before the courts. However, we certainly do not want a situation where the Government are not subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that such scrutiny will be applied, otherwise an utterly unreasonable situation that is bound to affect many more people will become even worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

It may be helpful to the Committee if I remind noble Lords that we are debating a group of amendments in which Amendment 22 is the lead. It is of course possible to speak to the other amendments in the group, but at this stage it is not possible to move them individually.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the ban on working before a whole year has passed, and then only in professions such as classical ballet dancer and geophysicist, is bad on all counts. I am aware that we have a trained classical ballet dancer in the Chamber and she is a very valued Member, but she would probably agree that it takes rather a long time to train as such. We are not asking for a radical policy like Sweden’s, which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, reminded us allows asylum seekers to work after one day, or like Portugal’s, where the period is seven days, but, if you like, a middle way of three months or even six months. Six months is, if I recall correctly, the threshold in EU asylum law—I think it is the reception conditions directive—but the UK Government declined to opt into that provision.

It is detrimental to the well-being, dignity and self-respect of those seeking asylum to be refused the opportunity to work and to be kept in poverty on £5.66 a day. The longer that they are out of work, the more that their skills and motivation deteriorate. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I dealt with various individuals whose physical and mental health, sometimes after years of waiting, not just for 12 months but for three, four or five years for determination of their asylum claim—maybe the Government will tell me that the situation is much better now, but I am not sure that it is—had of course deteriorated; they had shrivelled as people and were unable to provide for their families. Their status, whether in their family or in their community, was completely undermined as their skills and motivation deteriorated.

Working boosts the chances of social and economic integration. Being banned from working also feeds into the prejudice that asylum seekers are “scroungers”, which not only is not true but is galling and aggravating when in fact they are prevented from working by government fiat, policy or law, which a lot of the public do not understand. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has quoted, they would contribute to the Exchequer. Rather than taking from the taxpayer, they would be able to contribute if they were allowed to.

So, frankly, it is win-win. No wonder two-thirds of businesses support people seeking asylum having permission to work and 71% of the public, in the study by British Future, support the right to work. One would have thought that this was a bit of a no-brainer, and I look forward to the Minister explaining to us why it is impossible for the Government to change their policy.

I believe that there was an announcement in December 2018 by the Home Office that it would be launching a review into the merits of restoring the right to work to people seeking asylum. I do not know whether there is any news on how that review is getting on and when it might come to a conclusion.

Lastly, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about a work visa for displaced people. Refugees, displaced people and people who for humanitarian reasons are unable to stay in their home country have many skills that are going unused. Banning people seeking asylum from working is a moral question as well as an economic and social one. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher: the idea that this would operate as a pole of attraction for people is unsubstantiated, and in any case that is hugely outweighed by the benefits of allowing asylum seekers to keep going and keep up their physical and mental health. If they do not succeed in their asylum claim then they have to leave, but in the meantime they will have been able to support themselves, keep up their skills and maybe, wherever they have to go or return to, have a better view of this country than they might otherwise have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendment 25, to which my name is attached, would introduce a sunset clause limiting the use of delegated powers under Clause 4 to one year, beginning with the implementation period completion day at the end of the transition period.

Immigration involves fundamental rights on a regular basis: rights to liberty, respect for private family life, property rights, the right to non-discrimination, data protection rights and a prohibition on inhumane or inhuman and degrading treatment. Changes that could or would affect fundamental rights should be made by Parliament through primary legislation, not by Ministers through secondary legislation where there is no ability to amend or alter what is proposed.

As we have discussed already, the Lords Constitution Committee and the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have both said that the provisions in the Bill

“include broad delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, for which there is little policy detail as to their intended use; insufficient safeguards and scrutiny processes in relation to”

how those powers are used. Other comments from one or both of these Lords committees are that

“The Bill effectively changes significant areas of immigration law from primary into secondary legislation, weakening the parliamentary scrutiny that will be required for any future amendment or repeal”,


and that “A Henry VIII clause”, such as Clause 4,

“that is subject to such a permissive test as ‘appropriateness’, and which may be used to do anything ‘in connection with’ in relation to so broad and important an issue as free movement, is constitutionally unacceptable”

and undermines “fundamental elements”.

The Government maintain that the Henry VIII powers in Clause 4 are only to address necessary technical legislative changes to primary legislation arising from the ending of free movement. The same powers in Clause 5, say the Government—those are the subject of a separate amendment later on—are there, first, to enable consequential amendments to be made to primary legislation and other retained EU law if areas of the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations, co-ordinating access to social security for individuals moving between EEA states, have to be repealed because they are not covered in a reciprocal agreement with the EU following the end of the transition period; and, secondly, if consequential technical amendments to legislation are needed arising from any new reciprocal agreement with the EU.

However, the trouble is that the actual terms of the Bill give the Government much greater powers than they say they need and are asking us to accept would be the situation. The Delegated Powers Committee said that Clause 4 presents

“a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive”,

and on Clause 5, it said:

“Parliament is being asked to scrutinise a clause so lacking in any substance whatsoever that it cannot even be described as a skeleton.”


If it the Government only want these very significant delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, for the reasons they have previously given, they will surely recognise the potential constitutional dangers of leaving powers which represent such a significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive permanently on the statute book. Accordingly, if the Government want to use these powers only for the reasons they have mentioned, they should have no difficulty agreeing to the sunset clause provided for in this amendment, which I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

We on these Benches are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for tabling this amendment, which I can describe as an insurance policy. I agree with everything he said about Clause 4 powers, which we have had a chance to discuss, but we have a hierarchy of aims, the top one being to persuade the Government that Clause 4 is really not fit for purpose, as our committees have helpfully advised us, and that they need to go away and think again about it. The second choice would be that they accept that the broad scope, the width, of the powers they intend to give themselves is far too vague and imprecise—“in connection with”, “affecting”, et cetera—and that they need serious discipline, rigour and tightening up. The advantage of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that if we fail in those ambitions, we would at least, I hope, have the fallback position of looking after a year at what improvements we could make.

This is not like the Covid regulations, where the Government are reacting to an emergency situation. That is the more normal scenario for a sunset clause, but, none the less, the clause has a huge impact and demonstrates that “taking back control” did not mean taking back control for Parliament, let alone the people, it meant taking back control for the Government. It was a clever slogan, but unfortunately it has been heavily misused, and Clause 4 sums up all the problems with the approach that has been followed in the past few years.

If we do not succeed in our other ambitions in relation to Clause 4, it is sensible to have this fallback position of a sunset clause so that at least we would have a specified review date when we could reconsider what use is being made of Clause 4.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for moving Amendment 25, with its purpose to sunset the regulation-making power in Clause 4. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said, this part of the Bill has already received quite a lot of attention, and I am sure will continue to do so in this and subsequent stages. As we know, Clause 4 enables regulations to be made

“in consequence of, or in connection with,”

Part 1, which relates to the ending of free movement and clarifying the rights of Irish citizens. The amendment would set the end date for using the regulation-making power as one year after the end of the transition period—that is, 31 December 2021.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, this is not a workable notion. I am not the world’s expert on the non-EU migration system. It is a world I am having to learn about, having known far more about EU free movement in the past. As I understand it, most aspects of non-EU migration to date—which is going to be changed by the points-based system—have, I think, been affected by caps within individual tiers. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. That has not, from some people’s point of view, been a great success. After all, for at least the last few years, annual non-EEA migration has been considerably higher than EU or EEA migration. I understand the aims of the authors of this amendment, but I am not sure how or why it would be expected to reduce numbers.

The amendment also offers us a very bureaucratic system rather than, as the Government intend, one that would respond in a flexible, streamlined fashion to the need for skills in our economy. After all, if you are an employer with a crucial post that cannot be filled—perhaps the geophysicist I mentioned earlier—it seems somewhat ridiculous that you would fail to recruit an expert that you could not find at home because you were the first one after the cap had been imposed.

It is not as if it is a free-for-all. As I understand it, the sponsor employer has to sponsor the call welcoming bids from would-be immigrants and has to pay the immigration surcharge and so on. It is not as if the numbers are not overseen by the system and by a number of individual needs and choices that are driven by the needs of the economy and the employer.

An overall cap would be unworkable and unhelpful to the economy and to employers. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, there are areas of the United Kingdom—he mentioned Scotland—that have a need for a greater population. There is one thing worse than having an expanding population, and that is having a declining one, as Germany is finding out and Japan has found out. There will come a time, with declining birth rates in this country, when we will be wishing that we had more immigrants. Indeed, that partly motivated Chancellor Merkel in 2015.

All things considered, I cannot offer from these Benches support for this amendment. I acknowledge the sincerity with which it is proposed, but I honestly do not think it is wise or workable.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope the Government’s response to this amendment, and indeed to the next two, might reveal something about their intentions and objectives as far as the new points-based immigration system is concerned.

I feel there is a lack of consistency on behalf of the Government about how crowded or otherwise they believe this country actually is. When it comes to the planning White Paper, and the opposition there appears to be to it from within the ranks of the Government party, one of the responses you get is that it is only a very small percentage of this country that is being built on. Yet when it comes to an immigration system, one senses that the Government base it on the fact that this country is too crowded. There appears to be a contrast, depending on whether they are talking about the planning White Paper or the immigration system, in what their view is on how crowded or otherwise this country actually is at present.

I hope that when the Government reply we shall find out a bit more about their statement that their points-based immigration system will reduce migration. An answer on that might address some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. The Government have never told us the basis on which they reached that conclusion—in spite of the comments of my noble friend Lord Adonis, and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, at Second Reading, which suggested that the contrary would be the case.

Over the past decade we have heard policy statements about reducing migration to below 100,000, but those statements—I will not go into whether they were sensible or otherwise—were followed by a rise in net migration, including, and not least, from outside the EU, where freedom of movement does not apply.

I hope that when the Minister responds to this amendment we will get a very clear statement from the Government as to exactly why and how they happen to believe that their new points-based immigration system will lead to a reduction in migration—if that, rightly or wrongly, is their policy objective. Such a clear statement is badly needed, and could be given right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Horam, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am all in favour of training for skills, whether through the education and further education system or by employers. However, to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has answered the question himself; there are good companies that train their workforce.

I have been very impressed by the publicity for apprenticeships recently. Historically, this country has not had as good a record as some other countries, such as Germany, in valuing craft, engineering and practical skills. The touchstone of aspiration has been a degree in PPE at Oxford; we know quite a few people in the Palace of Westminster who have the qualification of Eton and Oxford PPE. Speaking as a lowly LSE graduate, I have not had the same attitude. Unfortunately, that attitude has persisted for far too long.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Horam, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am not really clear how this is meant to work. Is there any intention on the part of the Government to allow the so-called new entrants to enjoy a lower minimum salary requirement than other migrants? It is clear that there is something that I have not fully understood on this. I assume that the authors of the amendment fear, anticipate or foresee such a development, but it may be that, as I admitted earlier, my knowledge of the points-based migration system is insufficient to allow me to fully grasp to what mischief this amendment is addressed. I am surprised it is assumed that this situation could arise.

That is rather a lame comment, so I look forward even more than usual to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why this amendment is—as I assume she is about to say—unnecessary or does not pass muster. It seems to me that it too possibly falls foul of the problem of being bureaucratic and inflexible. I think I should stop there and listen to the Minister’s expert explanation.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I think I am in a very similar position to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in wanting to hear the Government’s reply.

I notice that the Government have been told that we are heading for a policy shambles, and I notice that the Minister has been told by those behind her that we are making too many changes. Obviously this is something that inevitably happens when we have a Bill with no proper scrutiny of what the Government can do.

Having made that comment, I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say and to whether she agrees that we are heading for a policy shambles and with the other concerns that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow powerful speeches from across the House, not least the one I immediately follow, from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and of course that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I join the tributes to her and her record of campaigning, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Other noble Lords have driven in the same direction: the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, others on the screen, and of course my noble friends Lady Smith and Lady Hamwee—everybody, to be honest—made the very reasonable request that the Government reconsider their policies on the fees for citizenship. The terms “shabby”, “punitive”, “revenue generator” and “indefensible cross-subsidy”—I think that was from the right reverend Prelate—have all been used.

It seems extremely odd to be discouraging potential citizens. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, this is being put in a sort of transactional context, but it is more than that. I have only once had the honour of being asked to preside at a citizenship ceremony—when I was an MEP, I was out of the country a lot of the time, so the opportunity arose only once. It really was an honour and a privilege to see all those eager faces looking back at me. Those people wanted to become British citizens, for all the reasons that have been expressed in this debate: to have their status recognised; to have a stake in our society; not to feel an outsider; and to feel that they truly belonged in Britain.

The contrast between the current situation and the language recalled tonight from the debates on the British Nationality Act 1981—which of course was also passed under a Conservative Government—is considerable. We should be encouraging people to become citizens, even if they are dual citizens, which I am glad to say is generally permitted—it is perfectly reasonable for people to choose which cricket team they wish to cheer without feeling that they are not loyal to the country. It seems incomprehensible that we would not want people, particularly those who have been in the country a long time, to move into the full role of citizens. That is good for our existing society, as well as for them. We want more people to feel that they have a stake, that they belong and that they are fully recognised, not fewer people.

Then, of course, there is the special concern about vulnerable children, especially those in care, for whom it is even more unreasonable to charge more than £1,000 for them to become citizens. The danger of a new Windrush scandal has been raised tonight, and we will have a further debate on that at the end of our discussions in Committee. After the experience of the appalling treatment that the Windrush victims suffered, and the Williams review and the Government’s pledge to implement its recommendations, it does not seem very wise to knowingly run the risk that we could be creating more people who are not properly recognised and integrated and who risk all sorts of horrible things happening to them.

From the non-partisan nature of this discussion, it is evident that this proposal has such wide support across the Committee, so I implore the Government to think seriously about whether the cost-benefit ratio of charging what, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, may be three times the actual administrative cost—a 200% mark-up—is truly worth it in view of the wider cost of potentially either excluding people from citizenship or, even worse, having a new Windrush generation.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I will be very brief, since I would only be repeating what has already been said, but I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett on her determination on this and, indeed, other related issues. EEA and Swiss nationals will shortly be joining the queue of those having to pay visa fees or fees when seeking a right to British citizenship. As we know, the Home Office currently makes a very substantial surplus in relation to this kind of applications following the major cuts in the department’s budget over the last decade. We believe that visa fees should not exceed the cost price.

Amendment 30 provides that regulations under Clause 4

“must ensure that no fee is charged that may deter or prevent registration of an EEA or Swiss national as a British citizen.”

Amendment 68 provides that no person who has lost their free movement rights under this Bill may be charged a fee for registering for British citizenship over the cost of processing their application.

Reference has been made to the British Nationality Act 1981, which contained provisions in respect of payment of fees relating to a child with an entitlement to register for British citizenship. For children with a parent who had free movement rights, Amendment 68 seeks to protect this position by providing that, if they are in care, they may not be charged any fee to register—if they are eligible—for British citizenship and that, otherwise, they may not be charged fees that they or their parent, guardian or carer cannot afford.

I simply conclude by expressing support for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Lister. I share the concerns that she expressed about the seemingly very casual attitude to citizenship shown by the Government in the debate in the Commons on this issue. I hope we hear a more understanding response from the Government tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

I do hope that the Minister will look carefully at addressing the issues raised by these amendments and recognise the urgency that other noble Lords have emphasised.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, a lot of the speeches have understandably focused on the problems that are likely to arise in the arts and the creative sectors, including for musicians. My noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and other noble Lords including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, have also focused in particular on the arts.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, rightly raised the problem of freelancers and people who are needed at short notice and for short periods who have specialist skills that lend themselves to that sort of freelance and self-employed status. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and others rightly stressed the need for multiple-visit visas, touring visas and a reciprocal system, because this cannot work unless there is close co-operation with our EU partners.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a good point. It is not that we wish the fisheries sector anything but well but, given the weight of fishing in the economy, which is a tiny percentage, well under 1%, compared with the contribution of services in general, which is over 80% of our economy, the disproportionate attention that fishing is getting in the Brexit negotiations for the future relationship—if those negotiations, as we hope, are going somewhere—is, quite honestly, incomprehensible.

The arts—the creative sector—are extraordinarily valuable, not just to London but to other parts of the country, including Scotland, and perhaps Edinburgh in particular. Other sectors are rightly mentioned in the amendments, from business to tech, from research to faith communities, and these all demand a great deal of attention from the Government.

The organisation techUK has stressed that tech talent is in huge demand globally, so any friction makes the UK less attractive. Currently, apparently, a tier 2 visa can take 23 weeks to process, so techUK urges that the Government ensure that the new points-based system significantly reduces that time.

techUK also makes a good point about how the fee system needs to be transparent and easy to understand. We have discussed the level of fees and whether the Government should have delegated powers in setting them, which some of us are worried about. Transparency is important. techUK says the current system is fragmented and the plethora of different charges and add-ons acts as a deterrent to hiring talent because, in addition to salaries, total costs include the sponsor licence, the visa, the immigration skills charge and the immigration health surcharge. This makes recruiting overseas workers more challenging.

The ending of free movement will have a huge impact. For EU nationals, where the cost to business has been zero, it rises to £8,400 for a five-year sponsored visa. That is for the main applicant only, not for any family members. It will be £9,500 if proposed increases to the immigration health surcharge take effect. This is much greater than the cost in Australia, France, Germany and Canada. It will be a big deterrent for talent to come here in the future. techUK asks for transparency over where the money is going for other charges, such as the immigration skills charge. That would give employers confidence in the future immigration system. It is a fair request.

The City of London is obviously very worried, but financial services are not just about the City. The sector accounts for considerable employment throughout the country, in cities such as Leeds as well as Edinburgh, which I have already mentioned in relation to the arts. The City is worried about future changes to the Immigration Rules getting no real parliamentary scrutiny. It points out that the UK’s status as the leading professional service centre is the key contributor in attracting other professions and workers. There is a clustering effect, particularly evident in fintech and other tech sectors.

There is a great deal of anxiety in the arts and other sectors of the economy over how the system will work for them. There is a great deal of trepidation. Another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, was that many arts organisations are very small. They cannot bear the administrative costs, the visa costs and the staff time to deal with all this.

Finally, the Government have to think about the children. It always used to be that the wives—these days one would say the spouses—got forgotten. A lot of people will not move unless their spouse can get a job as well. That is quite understandable when there are two qualified professional people in a couple. That goes for the children as well. The treatment of children—another subject we have discussed this evening—will be a factor in the success of the future immigration system. I hope to hear some reassurance from the Minister that these issues, so important to our artistic and economic life, are being given at least the same level of consideration as the fisheries sector.

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

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has made a compelling case for his amendment to be agreed. Almost every day in the media we hear about decisions, actions and the direction of travel of the Government in this area, and mostly it causes me and many others great concern. My noble friend set out the concerns of the science and research communities that the actions of the Government will do irreparable damage and that our competitors in the United States, Germany, France and elsewhere frankly cannot believe their luck. As my noble friend said, these people are vital to the future of our country.

We need an impact assessment on the effect that these regulations will have on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the UK. In my opinion, to move forward is very unwise, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, will see the strength of the argument in this respect.

What is not acceptable is for Government to hide behind saying that this is the will of the British people. No one voted to put the NHS under further strain, or to put at risk world-leading research or the ability of the United Kingdom to remain a place where talented people from the European Union can come and advance our knowledge and international reputation, ensuring that we remain at the top table. That is without talking about interference in the referendum by foreign powers, which alarms every democrat in this country.

Let us be clear: this has the potential to be an absolute disaster and, I suspect, the focus of another U-turn when the reality and enormity of the decisions being made without proper assessment of the risks involved finally hit home for the Government.

Amendment 59, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, is one that seeks to help the Government and Parliament by requiring the Secretary of State to present a report on how the changes made to the Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals have affected skills shortages in the labour market. This power expires after five years, as by that point we will have a clear understanding of the direction of travel and, I hope, will have acted on the issues raised. I suspect that this will not find favour with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but I also suspect that this is exactly the work that the Secretary of State will have to ask his officials to do, as the Government will need to understand the effect of their policy decisions and then take corrective action if it is to the detriment of the UK.

I am supportive of Amendment 69 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bull. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set out quite startling figures—the billions of pounds at stake if we get this wrong. In this debate it is hard to understand what benefits there are to the UK. As we have heard in the discussion, huge damage is being done and the Government are, frankly, struggling to find mitigations. They are just suggesting that we should not worry because it will all be alright on the night.

I want to pay tribute to the work of the Musicians’ Union, Bectu and Equity in standing up for their members, and to other organisations such as the Incorporated Society of Musicians—which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—mentioned, UK Music and many other organisations that have raised the concerns in the arts and the creative and entertainment industries. We cannot overstate the additional problems and risks to those individuals affected, and to our future prosperity as a nation, if we mess this up.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is right that we seem to have forgotten that what we do to others will be done to us. It would be hugely damaging and, frankly, unforgivable of the Government not to fully understand the enormity of the risks to our economy and individuals and not to take action.

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

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I very much regret the end of free movement rights. This has often been presented as a one-way system, as if it applied only to nationals of other EEA countries inward to the UK, but it has of course been a two-way system, and something over 1 million UK citizens have taken advantage of their free movement rights to live, work and settle in other EU and EEA countries. When I was an MEP, I was proud to work on the 2004 citizens’ rights directive, which is often called the free movement directive. We did not get everything we wanted, as the European Parliament did not have quite the rights over legislation that it has today. However, it allowed lots of people who were not particularly well off to take advantage of EU rights to move, live and work abroad—it was democratised, if you like.

I fear that there could well be resentment in future, as divisions appear between those who retain a right to move around and those who do not. I also think that some British citizens who currently enjoy EU free movement rights may not fully have taken on board what is about to hit them. When I talk about divisions, for instance, there are those who will be able to get an Irish passport. I declare an interest here: apparently—I did not realise this until a few years ago—I am already an Irish citizen because my mother was born in Dublin. I have not yet got round to applying for the passport. I put it off partly in the hope that somehow Brexit would be averted, and also because I feel a little sheepish about my right to it. But I have not had to apply for Irish citizenship, as it has sort of fallen out of the sky, courtesy of my mother—or her mother, I should say.

There will also be people with means who will be able to move abroad. We know that it is possible to buy so-called golden passports in some EU countries. There are also investor visas. One way or another, it is not going to be the rich who will be affected by the grab of free movement rights.

This Bill is largely about the future of EU and EEA citizens in the UK and them coming under immigration control, but as the organisation British in Europe so splendidly details, we must remember the difficulties for UK citizens in EEA countries.

Reference has been made to Amendments 4 and 5, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee will probably talk about. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about Amendment 3. These amendments are similar in that they are objecting to wording about powers,

“capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any provision … under the Immigration Acts … or … capable of affecting the exercise of functions”.

The two committees that have very helpfully reported to us—the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee—have pointed out the legal complexity of immigration law. It is a complicated policy area. I think it was the Constitution Committee that said,

“the complexity of law had developed to the point that it was a serious threat to the ability of lawyers and judges to apply it consistently—not to mention raising rule-of-law concerns as to the ability of the general public to understand the law to which they are subject.”

This is the system into which we are catapulting EEA citizens who, up to now, have enjoyed the protection of EU law. I hope they continue to enjoy the complete protection of the withdrawal agreement, but noises off in the last 24 hours have not reassured people of the Government’s commitment to upholding all the provisions of the agreement.

This is a complex area. I know we are going to talk about the Immigration Rules on a later amendment but, as this Bill does not set out the domestic immigration framework that will apply to EEA citizens, there is understandable nervousness. One of the things that people are worried about is a retrospective demand to show private health insurance—the famous “comprehensive sickness insurance”. The Minister will know that it is interpreted by the European Commission—and was always understood when we were legislating on the citizens’ rights directive—that in a country such as the UK, which has a national health service, free at the point of delivery, the right to use the NHS is the comprehensive sickness insurance for people paying tax and national insurance. They should not be required to have private health insurance. There is a lot of worry that when people come to apply for citizenship the Government will say, “Show us that you had private health insurance all the time that you have been resident in the UK.” Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.

Colleagues in my party and, indeed, people in other parties believe that there should be an automatic system instead of the EU settlement scheme, which is an application system. A letter went to the Prime Minister yesterday from representatives of five parties, including my friend in the other place Alistair Carmichael MP, urging the Government, even at this stage, to replace the settled status process with an automatic right to stay for EU citizens, guaranteed in primary legislation, as a declaratory system. It is something that we have persistently asked for and will not stop asking for. I see that the Minister looks dismayed.

One group—I think it was Law Society of Scotland—raised an interesting question. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this. It asked whether Clause 1 is necessary in the light of powers in the EU withdrawal Act 2018 for Ministers to repeal retained EU law. I would be grateful for her guidance on that subject.

Finally, I thoroughly support Amendment 61 on EEA citizens having access to eGates, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will speak to.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to Amendment 60 to which I have added my name, can I say, as a member of the Constitution Committee and a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I agree wholeheartedly with the searing criticism from the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Beith? I am appalled that we should start to have laws that are incomprehensible. It might be meat and drink for the satirist, but it should be no part of our arrangements.

By contrast, the amendment to which I have added my name, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, is clear, straightforward and simple to understand. The noble Baroness gave a very good account of it and its intentions so I will not repeat them now for lack of time, but I want to make a serious point. If young people—minors—are not able to come to this country without a full passport, it is unlikely, when things return to normal, that many of them will come at all. They are far more likely to go to some other English-speaking country—one thinks immediately of the Republic of Ireland or even Malta. One might even think of the Netherlands, where it seems to me that they sometimes speak English better than we do.

Be that as it may, this is a very real worry. It is bad enough that young people have suddenly stopped coming over to schools and organisations as a result of Covid-19. Such organisations are in dire straits and we do not want to put some ghastly obstacle in their way as things gradually return to normal. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look carefully at this to see if we can simply have the identity cards, which are used at the present time and are simple and easy to use. They would be using only those that are properly instituted by the various countries of the EEA and Switzerland.

There is a further problem, looking forward. Many people first come to this country as a youngster on an exchange. Very often they will return, perhaps for higher or further education. We do not want to cut that off at the beginning. That would be extremely short-sighted.

Some areas of the country have a number of language schools. I am thinking of where I live in East Sussex where, within quite a small area of Hastings, St Leonards and around, there are three notable language schools. The same could be said of the constituency in Plymouth of which I had the honour to be the MP. If one looks round at some of the seaside resorts, one will find a good many more there too.

This is a useful, small part of the major issues of which this Bill is party, but I believe it is very important and I hope that my noble friend will be inclined to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard from across the Committee the concern about this crisis in social care. Many noble Lords have considerable expertise on this topic and I am grateful to them for sharing their knowledge.

History will record the failure to deal with the fragile state of the provision and funding of social care as one of the major failures in domestic policy, and one has to say that particularly of the last 10 years of Conservative and Conservative-led government. I wish that as much energy had been applied to this subject as to Brexit. It shows a peculiar set of priorities.

I do not know whether the Government are being ideologically pure, to use the term employed by my noble friend Lady Barker. I certainly think that they are being obdurate and, I am afraid, unintelligent in not responding to the enormous problems in social care. The idea that in a short space of time we are going to find loads of people in the United Kingdom who want to work in this sector when they have never previously shown any interest in, inclination towards or aptitude for such work is pie in the sky. We learn that there are 120,000—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to an estimate of 133,000—vacancies in the social care sector. When a quarter of a million social care workers—that is, 20% of the workforce—are EU or non-EU nationals, the ending of free movement under this Bill will lead to even greater shortages of staff.

I agree that it is wrong to exclude care workers from the health and care visa route, since only maybe senior care workers will be included under the salary level criterion. My understanding is that Canada and New Zealand have sector-specific visa routes. Since they are flavour of the month, why don’t we follow countries like them?

I was very moved by the tragic account from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of the suicide of quite a young man through the fear of a lack of care. I experienced this a little when my late husband, four years before he died, had to have a leg amputated due to sepsis. He benefited from carer support, as well as, I hope, from my support. I can absolutely relate to the emotions—the fear and anxiety—of people, whether the elderly or those with a range of disabilities, who do not know whether they will be able to get care either in a care home or in their own home.

As many noble Lords have pointed out, low skilled and low paid does not equal low value. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, referred to the right caring personality being one of the necessary skills, but somehow that seems to be disregarded as though it comes with the territory, not least with women. Women are expected to be natural carers; well, we are not necessarily.

My noble friend Lady Barker referred to an acute and growing need for paid social care as the number of people without children grows to, I think she said, 2 million in 2030. I am one of those guilty parties—I have failed to grow the population—and my noble friend makes a very good point. Many families are not necessarily in a position anyway to provide care within the family, but she makes a very good point about a factor that increases the necessity.

Various amendments call for a review. Some of them could talk about health and social care but the emphasis in this debate, just like Amendment 2, which was very ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has rightly been concentrated on the social care sector, which is where we are facing a crisis. One of the factors in that crisis is going to be the lack of an adequate workforce, and quite honestly it is astonishing if the Government do not respond to that. I hope the Minister can give us some hope of progress when she replies to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her very clear introduction and explanation of the reasons for Amendment 8, to which I am delighted to attach my name. The noble Baroness set out very clearly the need for legal certainty and security for Irish citizens and people born in Northern Ireland.

Rather than repeating all these things again, I think it is worth very briefly addressing the whole issue of deportations. Of course, in this context, I cannot avoid mentioning the Windrush generation, the hostile environment and the fact that we have increasingly come to see people who have perhaps spent effectively all of their life in the UK, who have very close ties to the country and whose entire upbringing and experiences are in the UK facing deportation. That is utterly unacceptable in any circumstances but the situation with Irish citizens and the Common Travel Area involves two countries between which there has been continual, regular interchange and movement. A large number of people could potentially be affected by this situation, people who could see their lives torn apart. It is crucial that we build in these protections.

We have a great deal to do and it is already late so I will not go on too much longer, but I also want to mention briefly—having listened very closely to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the debate on the previous amendment, in which many expressed the sentiment that we should have world-leading protection in the UK for victims of trafficking and modern slavery—that I associate the Green group with those sentiments.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I speak strongly in support of Amendment 8 as moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Like my noble friend, I understand Amendment 58 but, as she said, we need statutory underpinning rather than exploration of the situation because there is no one place where rights under the Common Travel Area are collected. They are still largely expressed in a bilateral convention and now a memorandum of understanding.

The Common Travel Area rights have been overlaid in recent decades by EU free movement rights, so it is entirely legitimate to worry about rights under the CTA when free movement is stripped away. My friend in the other place, Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party —I call him a friend because it is the Lib Dems’ sister party—said that there had been mixed and confusing signals about Irish citizens and the EU settlement scheme. Some have been told that they need not apply but they can, while Irish citizens from Northern Ireland are told that they should not apply. As he also said, on the face of it, Clause 2 goes some way towards giving reassurance and addressing anomalies. However, it spells out not rights but only ministerial powers, and it only applies to immigration issues—especially deportation —whereas the EU settlement scheme covers a much wider range, such as family reunion, equality of treatment, rights of the employed and self-employed, recognition of qualifications and voting. Stephen Farry recalled that only the right of voting for Irish citizens is explicit in UK law. Ideally, therefore, there should be a UK-Ireland treaty perhaps or, at least, an elaboration in statute of the rights of Irish citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 32 and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for his support. This amendment would ensure that the powers in Clause 4 were limited in line with the spirit of the Long Title, which addresses EU law, and would not allow the Secretary of State to change the rules regarding non-EEA or Swiss migrants under the cover of “connected purposes”.

I tabled this amendment for two reasons. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am concerned about the wide nature of the powers in the Bill—breath-takingly wide, in her words—and the excessive use of secondary legislation. Others have already made this point better than I can in earlier discussion, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to concerns expressed today and to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It would be a great pleasure to hear from its chairman, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who is sitting next to me in a socially distanced manner.

Secondly, in discussion with our excellent clerks, it emerged that amendments to Clause 4 tabled in this House could relate only to EEA or Swiss citizens. Examples include Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, on immigration caps, Amendment 27 on the prior advertising of jobs in the domestic market—to which I have added my name—and Amendment 29 on the employment of asylum seekers in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.

My reading of the paperwork on, for example, the points-based immigration system, and the discussion to date is that the Clause 4 power may be used to set down immigration rules or revisions which apply to third-country citizens as well. I must ask my noble friend the Minister for a clear answer on whether this is the intention or not. If that is the case, I am sure that she and the whole House would agree that we must be able to table amendments to the Bill that relate to third-country citizens as well, otherwise we will not be scrutinising the Bill properly.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I also very much look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as his committee has provided us with two excellent reports which have been of great assistance, particularly with regard to Clause 4.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee pinched one of my quotes, but I will use the other one from the Delegated Powers Committee report, which stated that

“we are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous”,

and by negative procedure regulations, unless it amended primary legislation. I think we can take from that that they do not think very much of Clause 4 and the schedule.

Even if there is some value in the fact that the first regulations are by “made affirmative” rather than negative procedure, those rights could be abolished by new regulations under Clause 4, when the negative procedure would apply. Therefore, any value there is in “made affirmative” over negative procedure could be removed by some deft sequencing of regulations. Everything points to the justification of having a test of necessity.

Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 is also problematic. It potentially disapplies any retained EU law in the context of immigration. This could lead to the repeal of legal protections far beyond the realms of free movement. It could dent the EU law retained by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 because, even though provisions might have been partially saved by the Act, those provisions would not apply to the extent that

“they are inconsistent with or otherwise capable of affecting the interpretation, application or operation of any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts or otherwise capable of affecting the exercise of functions in connection with immigration”.

That is amazingly broad. We had some fun over the Brexit draft legislation with delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses and so on, but I have not seen anything quite to match this. The phrase

“functions in connection with immigration”

can relate to almost any aspect of immigration control within the UK. This is broadened even further when it is linked to the test of “capable of affecting”. It lacks any objective parameters by which to be able to ascertain the intended targets. Immigration practitioners trying to advise clients will be totally at sea. It undermines the rule of law if people do not know what the law is or could be in this area. They are going to be unable to make their behaviour fit the law.

A number of measures could be cited. Trafficking victims have already been discussed on an earlier group of amendments. Asylum seekers were protected under the reception conditions directive, which the UK opted into although it did not opt into all the asylum legislation. During the debate on an earlier group of amendments, my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned the protection of victims of crime and the victims’ rights directive. These protections are potentially at risk as collateral damage from the ending of free movement. Even if the Government do not intend at this moment to repeal these provisions, they must explain why they could fall within the Bill and how they are going to introduce some rigour into the drafting of the Bill, such that this collateral damage does not happen.

With my support, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has put forward one solution in Amendment 11. All the amendments in this group are intended to provide the tightening up that is so sadly lacking from the drafting of the Bill as presented to us.

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

It is my pleasure to follow the three noble Baroness who have spoken. In our earlier session I strongly disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, but in this case, I agree with her concerns and share her experience of apparent inequality. I sought to table a number of amendments to the Bill to deal more broadly not with just EU and EEA citizens, but I was told that they were outside the scope, yet it appears that the Government are being given open slather to address anything they like through the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who moved them clearly and explained the importance of what is being sought by introducing them.

As the noble Baroness mentioned, this seems timely, given some of the recent very troubling reports. Lately, the possibility has arisen that the Government are not satisfied with the withdrawal agreement in some way, having signed it recently in good faith, while working, hopefully, towards an agreed exit after the transition period at the end of this year. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that there is no intention of trying to override the withdrawal agreement in any way and that our country will not be seen to be trying to renege on an international agreement, especially so soon after having signed it.

I hope that UK citizens living in the EU can be reassured that the measures in the Bill will not be affected deleteriously by future regulations that might change what they thought was already enshrined in this international agreement and that pensions, pension increases, other benefits and health care will be protected, as was intended and implied in the withdrawal agreement. I also hope that the measures in the Bill will remain consistent with the withdrawal agreement and that no powers under the Bill will be used to make provisions inconsistent with that agreement.

I know these are probing amendments and I hope that the reassurances or necessary changes can be made to satisfy the House. I support the intention of these amendments and look forward to my noble friend’s response.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments, led by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, is about ensuring that the Government cannot legislate by regulation, contrary to the withdrawal agreement. This is a prescient set of amendments, tabled when it might not have been thought that there was a particular danger of that happening. However, the pronouncements and press reports since last night—there is some backtracking going on, however, which we will debate in the Chamber tomorrow—raise serious fears about the Government’s reliability and integrity in respecting the withdrawal agreement, and, indeed, any other treaty commitments. It raises the question of whether they can be trusted.

We will be debating separately the question of the Government’s refusal to give settled status applicants a physical document, not just a digital code. I will raise a brief query here: whether a digital code alone would satisfy the requirement in Article 18 of the withdrawal agreement for

“a document evidencing such status which may be in a digital form.”

Those latter words were added at the UK’s insistence, as we understand it, but it still talks about a document evidencing status. I wonder whether a digital code is a document.

Not least as a feature of the settled status scheme which has been flagged up by the3million, which does excellent work and has provided some fantastic briefing—I shall use this occasion to thank that organisation along with the organisation, British in Europe—non EU-national family members get a physical document in the form of a biometric residence permit. Since Article 12 of the withdrawal agreement requires the Government not to discriminate on the grounds of nationality, it is odd that EU citizens do not get a physical document but those in the family who are not EU citizens have a biometric residence permit. That is rather strange.

In the context of group 1, I raised comprehensive sickness insurance. The Minister said that the Government would use their discretion in deciding whether the absence of CSI in the past would bar a person from getting UK citizenship. I know that this will come up again in a later group. However, it is important to note that the UK is regarded by the European Commission as being in breach of EU law by insisting on the term “comprehensive sickness insurance” as it is in the 2004 citizens’ rights and freedom of movement directive. The Commission insists, as indeed MEPs did at the time, that this means only that relevant persons should have access to whatever the health system is locally, so the Government’s insistence that they should pay for private health insurance is, as I understand it, the subject of ongoing infringement proceedings.

In 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May promised EU citizens that the CSI—I prefer to call it private health insurance because that is what we are talking about—for those who had been economically inactive would be dropped as a requirement for settled status under the new system. However, what is happening now is that those people applying for citizenship are at risk of having their applications refused because in the past they did not have private health insurance, even though they had been told that they did not need it for their settled status application. When they apply for citizenship, they are told that retroactively they will be barred if they did not have private health insurance in the past. This feels like moving the goalposts, playing cat and mouse and so on, and the Government will not make any friends by this. The Minister referred to a power of discretion, but I do not believe that any details have been made known about how that would be applied, so that leaves people in the dark and in a state of anxiety.

I should mention also that Article 10 of the withdrawal agreement states that those covered by the citizens’ rights provisions of the agreement include

“Union citizens who exercised their right to reside in the United Kingdom in accordance with Union law”.


Union law—that is, EU law—means that the ability to use the NHS qualifies as “comprehensive sickness insurance”; that is the view of the European Commission, which as I say is following infringement proceedings. If the Government persist with this, I fear that they will come up against problems under the withdrawal agreement and there is a risk that they would be seen to be acting in bad faith. The amendments in this group therefore insist that the Government must abide by the withdrawal agreement in making regulations under both Clause 4 and Clause 5, and that should include doing away with the retrospective demand. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance on that point.

A great deal of justified concern has also been expressed about children either in or leaving care. I do not have time to talk about this now because it will come up again at least in part in a later group, but it is a matter of great concern. Local authorities, even with the best will in the world, have found over the past six months with the challenge of Covid that they have not had or have not applied the resources to assist children who ought to be applying under the settlement scheme. They are finding it very difficult to get the evidence together, so I hope that the Government can give some reassurance about the assistance that they will be given. We will also talk later about the dangers of another Windrush.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 12 and 83 provide that regulations under Clauses 4 and 5 respectively cannot make a provision that is inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement. Amendments 18 and 19 alter the language of Clause 4 to bring it in line with the 2018 and 2020 withdrawal Acts. The wording of the Bill does not appear to preclude the concerns which these amendments seek to address. Indeed, Clause 4(1) states that

“The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision of this Part”,


namely Part 1 of the Bill.

Clause 5 deals with the power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security co-ordination, and again appears not to provide for the limitations sought in Amendment 83. Presumably it is not the Government’s intention to nullify or weaken the terms or protections of the withdrawal agreement, or the terms or protections of the withdrawal Acts, by regulations that avoid the full and proper parliamentary scrutiny and challenge that is achieved only in respect of primary legislation. That should become clearer from the Government’s response, which will be interesting in the light of media reports today of their allegedly negative attitude to keeping to the terms of the withdrawal agreement. Whether there is any significance to the wording in Clause 4(4) being different from the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 will also become clear.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the case for adding the Feuerkrieg Division to the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act seems strong. Its very name, Fire War, is calculated to convey violence and hate, and I trust the Home Secretary to be acting on sound intelligence about the activities of this group. The current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, has called it

“a violent extreme white supremacist group”.

If this SI passes, it will join National Action and the Sonnenkrieg Division as banned far-right groups. It is encouraging that the system is getting to grips with this strand of terrorism as well as with others.

However, I want to say something about the unsatisfactory state of affairs regarding the list itself, expressed forcefully by successive independent reviewers such as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and by the current one. In his 2015 report, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, called the continued proscription of 14 groups which no longer met the statutory test

“an affront to the rule of law.”

During the passage of the last counterterrorism Bill he sought unsuccessfully to get a review scheme, with support from my party.

Mr Hall’s first report, relating to 2018, was published in March this year. In it he noted that proscription has powerful effects on persons and groups beyond the proscribed body itself. This is particularly true for agencies and charities working overseas. But unlike for financial sanctions or designated area orders, proscription is neither time-limited nor subject to periodic review. He concluded that

“there is little excuse for not keeping the list of proscribed organisations up to date.”

He noted that in its sole decision to date, on the PMOI case in 2007, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission stated—albeit obiter—that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to hold periodic reviews. Mr Hall went on:

“The judges observed that … it was ‘incumbent’ on the Secretary of State to ‘consider at regular intervals’ whether the power to deproscribe should be exercised”,


because

“it cannot have been Parliament’s intention that an organisation for which there were no longer any grounds for believing is currently concerned in terrorism should remain on the list ‘for any longer than is absolutely necessary’.”

The court was told at that time that the Home Secretary did carry out approximately annual reviews, but this practice ended in 2014. Mr Hall’s recommendation, perhaps to get round the Government’s objection, however flimsy, that they would have to divert resources to regular review exercises, was that proscription orders should automatically lapse after three years, unless extended. When will the Government agree to that sensible reform?

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

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Friday 10th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading Terrorist Attack

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

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

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


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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

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

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock [V]]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

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

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


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

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

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

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

The Minister said, again on 5 March, that

“the UK is currently working with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. The former chief constable of Essex was recently made the executive director of policing services for Interpol, the most senior operational role in that organisation. A UK government lawyer has also been seconded to the Interpol legal service to work with it to ensure that Interpol rules are properly robust and adhered to by Interpol member states.”—[Official Report, 5/3/20; col. 364GC.]

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

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee [V]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Ludford [V]]

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

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

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

Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

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

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

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

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

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


to bring that to a wider public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policing: Covid-19 Guidance and Legislation

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There are many questions in the noble Lord’s question. I would say that, in the enforcement of the new emergency regulations, there were definitely some initial inconsistencies among police forces. As I said in response to other noble Lords, that is because we are in an unprecedented situation and have all been operating at a fast pace to keep the public safe. We are now confident that the police are applying the new measures properly and proportionately. They are using the four-step escalation principles of engage, explain, encourage and then enforce. On the point about engagement with the guidance, the Government are engaging with the various stakeholders when drawing it up.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

In response to my noble friend Lord Beith, the Minister said that we should be mindful of the need not to confuse law and guidance. However, is it not a fact that government ministerial Statements and publications have elided and thus confused the two, which has often put the police in an invidious position? I see that while the Coronavirus Outbreak FAQs were revised on 1 May, they still seem to interchange between what you cannot do and what you should not do. Will the Government now clearly distinguish between the two to make life easier for the public and, indeed, for the police?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness’s noble friend Lord Beith helpfully distinguished between the two. The regulations are drafted in a way that draws a distinction between them and the guidance. The regulations are the law and the law is what applies. They set out the legal obligations and the guidance sets out best practice to assist in compliance with the law. While examples of inconsistencies have been reported in the press, given that 86% of the public are complying with the law and 70% support what the police are doing, I think that we are going in the right direction.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Ludford]

1: The Schedule, page 3, line 15, leave out from “judge” to end of line 19 and insert “as soon as practicable.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make the period within which a person must be brought before a judge consistent with other provisions of the Extradition Act 2003.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has led for the Liberal Democrat Benches until now, regrets that under the advice of the Government and the Lord Speaker she cannot be here today.

Amendment 1 addresses new Section 74A, which requires someone who is arrested to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of arrest. However, no account is taken of weekends and bank holidays in calculating 24 hours—so, for example, someone could be arrested without judicial involvement on the Friday afternoon before a bank holiday until the following Tuesday. Concerns were expressed about this on Second Reading, and in Committee on 5 March in debate on my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s then Amendment 3. We have now reworded the amendment so that this Amendment 1 would add that someone should be brought before a judge “as soon as practicable”. The Government claim that wording other than that in the Bill is operationally unworkable because the courts do not sit at the weekend, but in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who sadly also cannot be in his place today, said in support of changing the wording:

“Would you believe it, there is a judge on duty all weekend, every weekend, and all night”,


and that, if the provisional arrest happens over the weekend,

“it can be treated as urgent business.”

Both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Mackay, took issue with what the phrase “brought before” means in 2020, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointing out that:

“It is questionable whether the word ‘brought’ requires the physical presence of the judge and the particular person so that they should be facing each other directly. Nowadays we have all sorts of technology that enables people to encounter each other while not in one another’s physical presence.”


The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, said on behalf of the Government in Committee that it was

“the statutory intention that the person should be brought before a judge in person. It is an additional safeguard and a better situation for them to be seen in person before a judge.”

I am not really in a position to assess it, but I must admit that I am not convinced that is necessarily the case. We will of course see remote digital contacts in the justice system rolled out even more in present circumstances. In any case, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, responded:

“If that is the problem, we need to amend the legislation to make it clear that ‘brought before’ does not mean that there is a personal, direct, physical confrontation.”


He said he was very willing to talk to the Government about that.

On another angle, we were told in Committee that it was the Government’s

“intention to replicate the … provisions under the Extradition Act”,—[Official Report, 5/3/20; cols. GC 367-368.]

with the implication that new Section 74A did that. But the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, also explicitly acknowledged that the words in that Extradition Act 2003, in Sections 72(3) and 74(3) covering both an arrest under warrant and a provisional arrest in a Part 2 scenario, say:

“The person must be brought as soon as practicable before the appropriate judge.”


That is precisely the wording we want in Amendment 1. We on these Benches remain simply puzzled. If the Bill replicates or mirrors an existing provision—one we have not managed to find—can the Government explain precisely how? At the moment I cannot see how that is the case. In the absence of that explanation, we continue to believe that the Government need to change course. As far as we can see, it is Amendment 1, not the wording in the Bill, that mirrors that in the 2003 Act and aims for—and, we believe, achieves—clarity and consistency.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, highlights the need for caution over any period of detention before an individual is brought before the judge. From the points just made, I think the House can agree that it is unclear why these detention periods are inconsistent in different cases. The efforts to draw the House’s attention to this certainly have the support of this side of the House. I hope the Minister can offer the House an explanation as to the reason behind this inconsistency between urgent cases under the 2003 Act’s category 1 and category 2.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her explanation and the noble Lord, Lord Wood. As noble Lords will know, the courts to which all extradition suspects must be taken, whether arrested under Part 1 or Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003—as currently or as amended by this Bill—are Westminster Magistrates’ Court for England and Wales, Edinburgh Sheriff Court for Scotland and Belfast magistrates’ court for Northern Ireland. Currently, the person arrested under the Act must generally be brought before the appropriate judge “as soon as practicable” following arrest. Under the new power of provisional arrest in this Bill, it must occur “within 24 hours”.

The reason the Bill was originally drafted in this way was to strike a balance between getting arrested individuals before a judge as quickly as possible—the point the noble Lord, Lord Wood, makes—and allowing the police sufficient time to gather supporting information. This mirrored, in a more stringent form, the approach to provisional arrest in Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, which requires an individual to be brought before an appropriate judge within 48 hours of arrest. But I am conscious that the drafting departs from the general requirement currently imposed on the police after they make arrests under other existing powers in the Extradition Act 2003—the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, makes.

I listened carefully at Second Reading and in Committee, and I have concluded that the new power of arrest in the Bill should be consistent in this respect with existing law and practice in relation to Part 2 of the 2003 Act and should therefore mirror the wording “as soon as practicable”. This will ensure that individuals are not detained for any longer than is strictly necessary. If, for example, an individual is arrested in central London, “as soon as practicable” would in all probability be within 24 hours. Our operational partners have already proved themselves effective at producing wanted persons before courts within strict timeframes, and the three UK extradition courts have proved strict arbiters of police actions under the “as soon as practicable” requirement.

Therefore, I intend to introduce a government amendment to this effect at Third Reading to address those concerns. The amendment will leave out the words “within 24 hours” and insert “as soon as practicable” in their place, as well as consequently deleting the express exclusion of weekends and bank holidays in the calculation of the 24-hour period. While the language will not explicitly rule out production on weekends or bank holidays, these factors will, of course, be relevant to the practicability of bringing an individual before an appropriate judge. If public holidays or court opening times were to change in future, the legislation would not need to be amended to take account of that. It remains the Government’s intention that the arrested person be brought before a judge sitting in court and so the concept of “as soon as practicable” will remain subject to court sitting times, which are determined by the judiciary. There may, of course, be a multitude of other factors which affect, in the individual case, the practicability of bringing an individual before a judge, such as distance, natural disasters or illness of the arrested individual. We continue to think it is right, therefore, that the judiciary is the arbiter, in the individual case, of whether this test of “as soon as practicable” is met, and it will be able to do so in determining any application for discharge under Section 74D(10).

I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are content with those intentions, which I will bring back at Third Reading and that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for having productively reflected on this. I can see the original attraction of a rigid time limit, and the Minister is right that there is inconsistency in the Extradition Act 2003, because there is a 48-hour limit for provisional arrest in Part 1. Perhaps that is what guided the drafting of the original Bill. As the Minister said, the experience of the relevant courts dealing with extradition in the different jurisdictions is that they are prompt and do not sit on these things. Therefore we can rely on the operations of the courts to make sure that “as soon as practicable” happens and that it is only some kind of force majeure that stops that being very soon, taking into account what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said at Second Reading and in Committee about the ability of a judge to be available, certainly in the Westminster court, on a Saturday. I am very grateful and look forward to the amendment that the Minister intends to bring back at Third Reading.

Forgive me if, in all the turmoil at the moment, my knowledge of procedure has gone slightly AWOL: I think I still need to move the amendment. No? Okay, then I shall withdraw it. I am obviously not very good at this—that is why we need my noble friend Lady Hamwee here. I end by saying that on the basis of the assurances and promises of the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Ludford]

2: The Schedule, page 4, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations made under subsection (7)(a) shall designate no more than one territory.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require regulations which add, vary or remove a reference to a territory under Schedule A1 to contain no more than one territory. This will allow Parliament to reject a particular territory.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, again I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It is the same as Amendment 9 in Committee, though with a slight drafting change to refer to “regulations” rather than “orders”. We are pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Kennedy, have added their names and we understand why they are not able to be here today. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would have added his name had there been space.

As my noble friend Lady Hamwee explained in Committee, it is essential to allow additions to the Schedule for only one territory at a time. We can envisage a scenario in which the Government wish to add a whole raft of states to the Schedule all at once. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that would consist of all EU and EEA states and that in the list there is a country that might be an EU associated country, such as Turkey, but one over which considerable human rights concerns exist. I seem to be quoting a lot from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but he always says very wise things. In Committee, he said:

“We all know that there are countries in the world that do not respect the rule of law. I will not set about trying to give your Lordships a list because the list itself changes. Countries that respected the rule of law no longer do. Weimar Germany did; Hitler’s Germany did not. This is a moveable feast.”—[Official Report, 5/3/20; col. 378GC.]


That is a very good point. Turkey was making very good progress in democracy and human rights a decade ago, but it regressed, regrettably.

There is great concern that the Government want to give themselves wide powers for the Secretary of State to add countries to the list en bloc. I think it was in Committee that the Minister said that the Government had no intention of specifying countries likely to abuse the system to political ends. I utterly believe what she said, but I again quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who raised at Second Reading the fear that

“in the real world we are surely not going to be so naive as to believe that all sorts of motives—a possible trade deal, a plea just to be good friends with us, political beliefs, sympathy with a tyrannical regime—may not lead”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1731.]

to an addition to the list in the Schedule, although he certainly excused our present Minister from falling prey to such motivation.

The non-governmental organisation Fair Trials International, for which I have been pleased to work for 20 years and of which I am a patron, has done excellent work on the abuse of Interpol red notices where countries use them against political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists living in exile. The journalist Bill Browder was famously the victim of one from Russia and wrote a book called Red Notice. There are numerous examples of such countries and one would not expect them to be added to the list—Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Egypt and many others where Interpol red notices have been used in a very questionable way. I do not think that the argument the Minister used in Committee—essentially that “one at a time is not how we do things”—is quite good enough. She said

“it is common practice to allow for multiple territories to be specified together for similar legislation.”—[Official Report, 5/3/20; col. 382GC.]

But I am not convinced that it needs to be invariable practice. It may have been common practice up to now, but we are not obliged to follow that. It is perfectly simple to do it one country at a time. This will not cause Whitehall to collapse in shock.

Our amendment could actually help the Government, as it would avoid Parliament rejecting the inclusion of a list that had good states as well as a bad state. We would not have to reject them all because of the inclusion of a single bad state, if I can use that shorthand. It would allow for the sensible, responsible outcome of bringing the respectable states into the provisional arrest arrangement while excluding a state that did not respect the rule of law and human rights.

Accepting this amendment would not lead to any delay as two or more sets of regulations, each relating to a single territory, could be tabled at the same time. We would not lose time. Ministers have been keen to stress that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill QC, supports the Bill, but I as I read his letter, he was supporting the general proposition, which is fair enough, but he was not commenting on this sort of detail, so will the Minister have a another look at this? We on these Benches would be happy to have a meeting to discuss it. We are keen to understand whether there is any substantive reason for rejecting the amendment, which, to be honest, we do not see at present.

In normal circumstances, we would be keen to test the opinion of the House on this, but since these are not normal times, will the Minister let us return to this matter at Third Reading, in the way that she has so helpfully promised that we could do on Amendment 1? We are firm on the substance of Amendment 2, in the same way as on Amendment 1, but we are flexible on the timing, so I hope that the Minister can respond in that vein. I beg to move.

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

I will speak to Amendment 2, and Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy, who is unable to be here today. As we have just heard, Amendment 2 would require regulations that add, vary or remove a reference to a territory to contain no more than one territory. Allowing Parliament to reject a single territory would a create a valuable scrutiny mechanism for when either House has concerns to raise over a specific individual country that the Government intend to add because there will be occasions when the merits of adding individual territories are disputed. The amendment would create an important safeguard to exercise scrutiny in such circumstances and we support it.

In recognition of the powers in this Bill to add, remove or vary territories, Amendment 3 would create conditions for when the Government choose to exercise these powers. To this end, the amendment seeks to create a new process that means that the Government must take three further steps before adding and removing territories. The first condition for the Government to meet is to consult with the devolved Administrations and non-governmental organisations—the devolved Administrations because there will be certain powers relating to justice, policing and prisons that are devolved, and the non-governmental organisations to understand better any issues that arise from individual territories relating, for example, to the human rights records of the countries concerned.

The second condition is that the Government must produce an assessment of the risks of each change, which would put on record the Government’s rationale for signing the agreement, and allow for parliamentary scrutiny. The final condition is that if a new country is added, the Government must confirm that the country does not abuse the Interpol red notice system. That would make it clear that the Secretary of State responsible must not sign agreements with countries that have questionable records on human rights.

Although we fully accept the need to add further territories as treaties are negotiated, the Government must add only those that comply with our values. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with that. While we fully accept that it may be necessary to remove or vary territories, it is important that the Government are transparent about their rationale and offer themselves to the scrutiny of Parliament. Will the Minister allay our concerns about the rationale and availability of scrutiny and about consulting with the devolved Administrations and NGOs by confirming that the Government already intend to consult and open themselves to scrutiny when they add or remove further territories?

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, we on these Benches support Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We hope that the Government will confirm the involvement of the devolved Administrations and believe that there is a strong case to be made for consulting NGOs that have experience of the country concerned, however knowledgeable the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may be.

On the “risks” mentioned in paragraph (b) of the amendment, I imagine that the noble Lord means that he expects the Government to make an assessment of balance and proportionality in whatever conclusion they reach on the suitability of a country to be included.

Of course, we totally support his reference in paragraph (c) to the need to avoid the abuse of Interpol red notices, to which I referred in moving Amendment 1. I have said that I am a patron of Fair Trials International and I want to give it a plug: it has done sterling work on this issue in the past few years and can, I believe, take considerable credit for the reforms that have been made to Interpol red notices so far. They do not go far enough but reference has been made in previous stages of the Bill to the fact that some reform is going on at Interpol; that needs to improve because there is still the problem of abuse. Perhaps one day there will not be and we can look again, but, for the moment, Amendment 3 is very appropriate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken. I was looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, slightly strangely because it is unusual to speak twice on the same group of amendments. It really does not matter because these are very unusual times, so it is not a precedent.

I do not know whether noble Lords want me to go through the full arguments today or whether they want to return to them at Third Reading; I sense that that is the mood of the House. Noble Lords have made their arguments. For the reason that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is not here and would like a further crack at this whip, I suggest that we let this lie for the moment and return to it at Third Reading, if that is okay with noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.