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

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

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

“Grant of leave to EEA and Swiss nationals”.


Article 7 is entitled:

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


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

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

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

[Lord Deben (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

[Lord Deben]

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

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Ludford and Lord Deben

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

[Lord Deben]

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

[Baroness Ludford]

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