E-scooters

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend outlines an important problem. As a humble pedal biker of a Brompton—other brands are available—I know how frightening it is to be approached by one of these e-scooters on the road. Riding on the pavement can result in a fixed penalty notice of £50, but to my noble friend’s point I recommend that everybody who rides a cycle, wherever they ride it, gets the proper training they need.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I first became aware of the extensive use of e-scooters a couple of years ago, when I saw smartly dressed young men and women whizzing around the centre of Vienna, clearly on the way to the office. There, e-scooters have been legalised and integrated into the bicycling infrastructure. E-scooters are here to stay, at least for a while, so does the Minister not agree that the quicker we legalise them across the whole UK, the better—not least so that we can regulate specifications and ensure roadworthiness?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think the trials will help towards this end. They are here to stay—nobody is denying that—but it is a question of not in any way endangering the safety of others and being ridden in a way that is safe to other motorists and cyclists on the road.

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

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

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

Moved by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

17: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to report on the arrangements for visitors for business purposes
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act coming into force, publish, and lay before each House of Parliament, a report evaluating the effects of this Act on the arrangements for temporary entry and stay of EEA and Swiss nationals for business purposes.(2) That report must include consideration of—(a) the qualification requirements for a short-term business visitor;(b) the activities that can be undertaken by a short-term business visitor; and (c) for purposes of comparison, the reciprocal arrangements for UK nationals travelling to the EEA and Switzerland for business purposes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to consider the requirements of short-term EEA and Swiss national visitors for business purposes.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 17, I will also speak to Amendment 25 in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bull, on Amendment 25. The amendments ask that impact assessments be carried out on the effect of the loss of free movement on areas of work, research and artistic and cultural activities in both the UK and Europe.

I will speak briefly to Amendment 17. Many of the problems and threats to livelihoods faced by the creative services—I will come on to them—are also faced by other services, which is the main reason why I tabled this amendment. I realise in retrospect that I should perhaps have been more to the point and included “services” in the amendment’s wording, but I do not see why, when one thinks of business trips abroad, the provision of services that depend on mobility should not also come directly to mind—as much as sales, for example. However, it is services—our major industrial sector—that are being forgotten by not only the Government but the media.

Last week, I attended an online meeting of a group that has been set up to address the problems facing a number of British workers, some of whom are based in the UK, some of whom are based in Europe and all of whom are self-employed and work for European clients in differing professional areas, such as IT and translation. Some of their concerns are certainly outside the scope of this Bill and will be better addressed tomorrow in the debate on the Trade Bill, but others relate directly to the loss of free movement and parallel the concerns of those in the arts, including on the need to move at short notice between the UK and the EU and between EU countries without red tape. A major worry relates to the lack of information and guidance, as well as uncertainty about what they should be doing to protect their livelihoods.

The credit for the composite Amendment 25 must go to the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Clement-Jones, for their Committee stage templates, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for eloquently moving the research and innovation amendment in Committee. I was minded to press Amendment 25 to a vote, but I will not do so, although I will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply.

Amendment 25 concerns matters of considerable importance to many outside this House and for the country as a whole, with regard to research, as leading scientists pointed out in a letter to the Prime Minister in June. The amendment is important because it is about the future of science and the arts. It is about the future of research and creativity. As much as it is about people’s livelihoods, it is also about the co-operation and the building of relationships that we have seen over decades between ourselves and the rest of Europe and which so many people working in universities, research bodies, the arts and the media do not want to see endangered more than they already have been.

This is not scaremongering. The Royal Society observes that

“the UK is now a less attractive destination for top international science talent—with 35% fewer scientists coming to the UK through key schemes”.

Yet we benefit from such expertise from Europe as much as Europe benefits from the expertise that we can offer it. The loss of free movement puts a significant part of this exchange of ideas and exchange of culture on our continent at tremendous risk. Ultimately, there will be an economic effect and an effect on our standing in the world.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, concentrated his remarks on the life sciences and medical research. He said:

“It is this mixture of domestic and international talent that supports our thriving research environment.”—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 872.]


This is also the experience of the arts: of the visual arts, the area I most know, of music, dance, theatre and many of the other creative industries, including video games. The people we need who will enrich these industries and innovate are those who are as yet unknown. The salaries of many working in the creative industries, a large number of whom are freelancers, do not reflect the enormous contribution that the creative industries make financially to this country, which the DCMS estimated in June at £112 billion a year. These artists are the ones who make it happen. Many of them will not be earning anything like £25,600 a year—certainly not near the beginning of their careers.

There is also the huge concern about short-term work-related visits to this country for artists, which we discussed in Committee and, importantly, for UK artists visiting Europe, with the music industry in particular having an especially large number of concerns about the loss of free movement, including over touring. I will not repeat the detail of what I said on this in Committee, but I want to make one additional point. Free movement for the arts has come to something of a halt as a result of Covid, but it is instructive that interested organisations, despite the big hit that the arts are taking over Covid, in no way minimise the effects of Brexit as they understand it, even in the current crisis of the pandemic. We should not lose sight of that. In last year’s survey of 2,000 members, the Incorporated Society of Musicians found that 35% of respondents spent at least one month per year working in the EU. Europe is a significant source of work in the arts, and that loss will not be compensated for elsewhere.

We have got to the stage when concerns expressed urgently need to be addressed by the Government. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, which liberally references the reporting of the Migration Advisory Committee, but I say to the noble Baroness that the concerns raised in these debates are hardly touched on in that document. My question to her is: how will the Government monitor the impact of the Bill on these areas and publish findings? It is clear that there is already a significant effect—and that in anticipation of the loss of free movement—in terms of both the loss of opportunity and of our confidence for the future. We need to know not just whether things are going right or wrong but how the system needs to be improved to everyone’s advantage. I beg to move.

[Lord Patel (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 25 in the name of my noble friend Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. In Committee, an amendment in my name was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am grateful to him, for he did so with great skill and persuasion—as far as the House was concerned, but not the Minister. Hence my second go at it, but with the added privilege of joining the amendment of my noble friend Lord Clancarty.

The Prime Minister has the ambition to make the UK a science superpower. Really? Yes, really, and why not? We can, and the sciences are up for it. Our science and research universities are world leaders. We are innovative. Our scientists in all areas of life sciences, clinical sciences, physical sciences, animal and plant sciences and other sciences are world-class, as are our universities, which excel in technological innovations. But any country that wants to be a science superpower needs to be open, welcoming and supportive. We have been and are such a country, hence our success in attracting thousands of young scientists who currently work in our country.

However, we now want to go away from this, and the messages we are giving out are all negative. We want talent, but we want it to pay lots of money for visas, health charges, and an uncertain future. As the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, one of our respected past Ministers of Science, said in a debate on research funding of universities on 9 September this year, a post-doc wishing to come to this country for a period of three years, with three family members, would end up paying 10% of his salary in visas and health charges. How much of an incentive is that?

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the noble Earl feels somewhat comforted by my words—and noble Lords will have noticed that I have not mentioned the Migration Advisory Committee once.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. There are a couple of themes that have run through this debate like a thread: one of them is mobility, which some noble Lords have mentioned, and the other is individual workers. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned skilled technicians in research, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned individual members of orchestras, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about earning power, or lack of earning power, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about the cost of the global talent vision. So there is real concern about people being able to come to this country.

Since I first started taking part in all these Brexit debates, the phrase I have become most afraid of is “the brightest and the best”, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, there is no relationship, particularly in the arts, between salary and talent. People are often here for many years developing their practice, and still may not reach even £20,000 a year, yet they still make extraordinary contributions to this country in the arts and indeed in research.

There is an increasing case—and it comes out of this debate—that these are areas that need to be considered not preferentially but as exceptional. One of the things that has come out of this debate is that it is plain that the discussion we have had has been far from the arguments about jobs in these areas being taken by others from other countries. Others are welcome, because they contribute to the innovation and creativity that have the potential to lead to new jobs and even new industries. We may be an island, but we should not be an island research-wise or creatively, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested.

I want to finish by repeating my question. I think the Minister is trying to give a bit of a concession by saying that they are going to keep an eye on these sectors, but I repeat the question I asked in my opening speech: how will the Government monitor the loss of free movement in these significant areas? A month may be too short a time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, pointed out. There remains an urgent need for such an assessment to be made, and it should be made taking into account everything the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about MAC in his speech. But I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

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

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

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

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, at the previous stage of the Bill and very late in the debate on this amendment, which was then in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Flight—I am glad that he is able to be here this evening—having listened to the Minister I asked what she would advise a couple living in the EU, one British and one an EU national, if they both have elderly parents, on one side of the family in the UK and on the other in that EU country. They would be—they are—faced with not just the end of free movement but an impossible choice: not just where they should live after March 2022 but which parents they should decide to care for personally. They will have to make that decision within the next 18 months—15 months after the end of the transition. The Minister had an impossible task in responding to my question as to whether picking between parents was a humane response. She argued that people will have had plenty of time, but does that really address the point?

Since Committee, I have had so many emails, as no doubt have other noble Lords, making it clear how many different family situations there are, but all presenting families with similarly impossible choices. I thank everyone who has written to me and to other noble Lords. They have taken such care to contact us, not with standard formulaic emails but with powerful descriptions of their situations, their concern and their distress. Noble Lords will understand that I want to read some of them into the record, and that I cannot read them all. As examples, however, there is a lady of 75 living in the Netherlands supporting a Dutch companion, and vice versa, whose mother is 96 and in a care home there. There is a lady of 79 in the UK who expected to receive support and part-time care from her daughter, who would be prepared to give it provided that her French husband is able to move to Britain. A couple in France with a 12 year-old son are faced with whether to uproot him from school. There is a family in Italy, one parent British and one Italian, with two teenagers of dual nationality—one of whom has just started at university in the UK, while the other may want to make her life here; the parents may want one day to follow their daughters. And so it went on.

We are a global society. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and in all places. Many people make the point that their residence outside the UK makes them feel no less British and that they are surprised to find themselves writing as they do. Many say that the prospect of separation from family is unbearable. All say that when they moved abroad, they had no idea that there could be restrictions or conditions on returning as a family.

The amendment provides that the regulations

“must make provision to enable UK citizens falling within the personal scope of”

the agreements referred to

“to return to the United Kingdom accompanied by, or to be joined in the United Kingdom by, close family members”

without

“conditions on the entry or residence of close family members … which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement … on the day on which this Act comes into force.”

I have been asked about a detail of the amendment: the reference to “close family members”. As it happens, in a Select Committee yesterday the Immigration Minister used exactly that phrase in discussing family reunion. I suppose the technical answer is that these provisions would be implemented by regulations which would be precise, but by anyone’s definition partners and parents “where that relation subsisted”, which in the case of parents it obviously would, at the end of the year and continues to do so would fall within it, as well as children.

The Minister explained in the context of various amendments in Committee that the Government were seeking to be not discriminatory but to end discrimination between, on the one hand, EEA/Swiss citizens and, on the other hand, other citizens. But the Government’s proposals for ending the current arrangements in March 2022 would discriminate between those families of mixed nationality who happened to have settled in the UK and those who settled elsewhere in the EU. They would require Britons who wish to return to meet conditions for sponsoring a spouse and children.

The financial requirements—the minimum income requirements—are not easy nor by any means available to everyone. Some 40% of UK workers could not reach the minimum income requirement, and the non-British partner’s income can be taken into account only after six months, assuming he or she can get here in the first place. If you want to bring elderly parents, they have to be so much in need of care that, according to evidence given to a working party that I chaired some years ago, they would probably be unfit to travel. If you yourself are older and no longer earning, can you reach the income threshold? This would be discrimination against our own citizens, imposed retrospectively on citizens who had no expectation that this choice might lie ahead.

Lifting the end date would not mean unlimited numbers of people coming here with their families. As I have explained, we are talking about people who fall within the agreement, their families and children, and others with whom the relationship subsisted before January 2020. I asked rhetorically in Committee if this was really humane. I ask now whether it is the right approach—to ask that, I think, would also be rhetorical. Since Committee, I have begun to realise just how inhumane it is, so I give notice now—I suppose it is notice for Monday—that, barring assurances which I cannot say I anticipate, though they would be very welcome, I will press the matter to a vote in accordance with current procedure. For the purposes of the debate this evening, I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. When I spoke to it in Committee, I genuinely thought that this was something the Government had overlooked. I discover that this is not the case and that there is some history behind the Government’s position. The reason perhaps for my naivety is that the argument as I saw it, and as I still see it, is very simple: it would be wrong to put a deadline on British citizens returning to the UK with their families. It would be deeply unfair to do so, and I am glad that the noble Baroness intends to press this to a vote if the Government do not accept the amendment.

The Minister cited in Committee the case that the Conservative Government of the day brought against Surinder Singh in 1992, and said at the beginning of her reply that the amendment

“refers to a specific cohort of people relating to what is known as the Surinder Singh route for family immigration.”—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 827.]

I fear that this statement betrays an element of cynicism in government thinking about this issue—for which I of course do not blame the noble Baroness. However, this is an inappropriate analogy, in the sense that the Government have clearly not accepted the decision made in Surinder Singh’s favour. It is an inappropriate analogy for a couple of other reasons. One is that there is a universal cut-off point that applies both to British and European families, which is of course the end of this year. We will not then be part of the EU and there will be a limit on the number of families, European and British, who might then come to this country from Europe.

The second thing to say is that we are talking about many British citizens who have been married for many years, often to other European partners—though it should not matter where in the world their partners have come from—and often they are building families with strong and complex roots in the UK and the rest of Europe. They have done so believing at the time that they had a settled life in Europe, wherever that may be in Europe; that was their bone fide position. Yes, people get divorced—and indeed married—for all kinds of reasons; that is life. But this Government are applying the Government of 1992’s perception of that case to generalise about all British families living in Europe. British citizens and their families in Europe are not that cohort, as this Government perceive it, and it is insulting to all British families currently living in Europe that they should draw that analogy.

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

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, it is my pleasure to support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Flight—who just presented an excellent introduction to it—and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

I also refer noble Lords to my Amendment 79, which addresses some of the same issues, although it is particularly addressed to children and was inspired by an issue that I have worked on many times over the years, known in shorthand as “Skype families”, whereby people are able to maintain family relationships only by Skype—perhaps we should call them “Zoom families” these days—over long periods for all of the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, just outlined.

We have seen many people trapped in this situation. In particular, I recall a gentleman who contacted me and was frantically trying to find anyone who could help him in a situation similar to the one described by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. His family origins were in south Wales, but he had been teaching English in Thailand for a number of years and was seeking to come back to care for his aged parents—care that would, of course, potentially save the British state considerable amounts of money as well as ensure family reunion—but he would not be able to bring his Thai wife and children with him.

We are now in a situation where many more people are likely to be caught in this trap. We know that there has been a huge exchange of people across the continent, and families have been created. One thing that I have found when working on this issue over the years is that, when many of the people who have found themselves caught in this situation talk to me, they say that they have talked to other British people—friends, neighbours and work colleagues—who say that this surely cannot be right and that surely a British person can live in their own country with their foreign spouse or partner and/or their children. They are British; that must be a right—this is what people believe. Indeed, I have encountered members of the public who, when they went to their MP for assistance, found that this was initially the impression that elected Members of Parliament had.

I believe that we should have a rule for everybody: a British person should be able to live in their own country with a foreign spouse or partner and their children, independent of any income situation at all. As referred to previously in this debate, the Public Bill Office tells us that, within the scope of the Bill, we are allowed to refer only to EU and EEA people, so that is what this amendment, like Amendment 79, does.

However, I will not talk at great length because this is an issue about which I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House attending this debate—and I hope the Minister as well—are well aware. However, I will finally reflect that I am sure that the Conservative Party would claim to be a party of, and in support of, the family. Why would it want, through immigration law, forcibly to separate families, spouses and children, forcing people into impossible choices over caring for elderly loved ones, being with their children, living as a family and having a family life?

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and thank Brexpats—Hear Our Voice for the excellent “British in Europe” briefing. I will be brief because there is a straightforward argument here.

This is a simple matter of humanity. We are talking about British citizens living in Europe, who, like the rest of us, had no inkling up to four years ago of the significantly changed circumstances in which they would find themselves. Many have raised families in EEA countries with the reasonable expectation that their and their families’ mobility around Europe—including the UK—would not be affected in the future. Of course, Brexit has changed that.

We need to help our fellow British citizens and ensure that those who wish or need to do so can return to the UK with their families without deadlines being put on that return or any other conditions, such as the MIR, needing to be met. Indeed, as it stands, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, we are discriminating against our own citizens if EU citizens who moved to the UK before the end of 2020 can, according to the withdrawal agreement, bring family members here for life and return to their own countries with their families. This is a clear discrepancy.

I cannot see any good reason why this amendment should not be accepted. I hope this is a matter that has just been overlooked. I will listen with interest to the Government's response.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, some years ago I chaired some work on the minimum income requirement affecting British people who, as has been said, never thought that they would be affected by their own country’s immigration laws.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned someone from south Wales. I encountered someone from south Wales, David, whose second wife was a teacher from Canada—I do not think that you can get more respectable than being a teacher from Canada. By his first marriage he had a disabled daughter. Had he been able to bring his wife to the UK to share the care of his daughter, that, among other things, would have saved the state a lot of money. Instead, he had to limit the amount of work and the kind of work that he did and so did not meet the minimum income requirement. She was appallingly treated. I do not believe people in British society would support this, were they to know about it. Many do not until they are brought up against it personally. I have long thought that the answer to all this will be found only when a son or daughter of a Cabinet Minister finds himself or herself in this situation.

The focus at that time was largely on spouse visas and what can be taken into account in calculating incomes. That has been changed somewhat, but the issue remains. The rules about leave to enter for an individual’s parents are so harsh that they really amount to saying, “You need to be so much in need of care and support that you probably would not be fit to travel.”

The reality of this is striking home, as noble Lords have said. One of my noble friends received a letter, which she passed on to me at the weekend, from a UK citizen who has found herself in this situation. I shall read some short extracts: “As someone who married a non-UK EU national in the UK but then moved to his country to live as his parents were already elderly, never was it in my worst nightmares that I would not be able to do the same and I might be forced to choose between caring for him and caring for my mother. When I left, returning was always an option, as I work remotely, to be able to return to care for my parents. My parents are now on the brink of their eighth decade. My mother has lung issues. My father has prostate cancer. It is inevitable that I will want and need to return at some point. What child does not want to care for their parents themselves?”

She goes on: “I and many of the more than 1 million UK citizens living in the EU will not have that right. If we do not return before the end of 2022, our fate will become income-dependent. How is it conceivable that the British Government’s approach involves discrimination against its own citizens? Surely, the family is as sacrosanct in the UK as in the rest of Europe.” I am pleased, from our Benches, to support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I am delighted that this amendment is supported by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. All are doughty champions of the creative sector. I focused largely on musicians and associated performers, because that is where the impetus for this amendment has largely come from. However, it is also of great importance across all the performing arts. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and will speak in the same area. I will speak to Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which I have added my name, and to my own Amendment 75. I am particularly indebted to the Incorporated Society of Musicians for its briefing.

There is considerable overlap between these two amendments, particularly if one understands the term “business”, as used in my amendment, to be business in any form. I will return to that point in a moment.

I wish to associate myself with a passionate and inevitably elegiac speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on the first group of amendments on Monday. While some people did vote to limit permanent immigration to this country, they did not vote for their own movement—the movement of UK citizens—around Europe to travel, work or study abroad to be curtailed, or for temporary visits in either direction to be affected. But the side of the argument that, “What we do to others will be done to us”, has been almost entirely ignored, and continues to be, even though the loss of free movement will have a direct effect on the livelihoods of British workers—including those resident in the UK—unless an agreement is reached.

I did have a little trouble getting the third limb of my amendment, regarding reciprocal arrangements, into the amendment. I could only do so—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones could with his amendment—with the preceding phrase “for the purposes of comparison”, even though we are discussing the direct effects of the Bill as things stand.

The second thing that has been to a large extent ignored and greatly underestimated is our services sector, which depends on free movement. This is extraordinary, because we are, and have been for some time, primarily a services nation. Services are responsible for 80% of our GDP and just over half the UK’s services exports are to Europe, our closest neighbour.

My amendment would cover many areas, from engineers to IT and the creative sector, all of whom have concerns about the effect of the loss of free movement and, consequentially, the essential importance of a mobility framework between the UK and the EU. I think we will discuss this when we debate the Trade Bill. Of course, the experience of all these sectors in the UK ought also to be providing a basis for the immigration arrangements of those visiting our country for similar purposes.

The UK’s creative services before Covid were, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, worth over £111 billion a year and they employ over 3 million people. I gently remind the Government that the UK’s music industry alone—just one part of the sector—is worth almost four times as much as the fishing industry and is important too, as the whole of the creative sector is, in terms of soft power. If fishing, important though that industry is, is holding up a trade deal in other areas such as services, I wonder whether the Government are losing their sense of perspective about what is important in the round—I emphasise: in the round—for this country.

There is a particular concern for the performing arts, including music, whose business in Europe is touring, although not exclusively so. Has the Minister seen the ISM’s 2020 report How Open is the UK for the Music Business? It shows that the current immigration system, which is intended to be applied to EU nationals in the new year, is not fit for purpose. Specifically, this includes the permitted paid engagement route—it is not being applied in the manner that, I admit, I helped to negotiate—the standard visitor route and the tier 5 temporary worker, creative and sporting visa route. All those routes have been criticised by artists, promoters, tour managers, music agents and festival organisers. It has become increasingly difficult for non-EEA musicians to obtain visas or to work in the UK, and indeed the same is true of other areas of the creative sector. If this is to be the basis of a reciprocal agreement, things do not bode well.

From our perspective, it is essential that an arrangement is made with the EU rather than having to go through the nightmare of doing this with 27 individual countries. The recommendation of the Incorporated Society of Musicians is that either the commitments of mode 4 should be extended to include performing or that a multi-entry touring visa, valid for two years and covering the EU, is introduced and that EU nationals are treated in a similar vein. It is becoming clear that mode 4’s conventional interpretation of business activity is too narrow.

Also, as a result of the loss of the four freedoms, the Government need urgently to negotiate a cultural exemption for the temporary transportation of instruments and equipment or cover the cost of carnets, scrap plans to introduce a charge for musical instrument certificates, maintain the health insurance, ensure that the A1 certificate system continues to be recognised in the EU, and expand the list of CITES-designated points of entry and exit. Transportation by ferry will not be possible between Belfast and the mainland. I hope that all this is being looked at.

It is also important to understand that there is an inherent sense of reciprocity in our creative sector—which I am sure is true of other areas considered in this grouping—which stands apart from reciprocity as a necessary part of a trade agreement. Much of this is about an exchange of ideas and culture, which is one reason why it is so difficult for many of us to accept the loss of freedom of movement. Nevertheless, in the long term, the better the arrangements we make for our temporary visitors, the greater will be the benefits for us. Some of the arrangements that I have mentioned will apply also to other services, but the performing arts provide an example of some of the widest range of concerns.

Amendments 75 and 69, like others in this group, ask the Government to develop an evidence base to inform later decision-making. The problem is that time is not on our side. The arts in particular, perhaps more than any other area, have been knocked for six by Covid. It is essential that there is an arrangement for our creative sector by the end of the year, otherwise that sector in particular will suffer a double whammy. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, expressed it very well on Monday when he said that while

“we are legislating in the dark for the withdrawal of many rights of EU citizens coming here, it is also true that we are legislating in the dark for the rights that we are going to be taking away from UK citizens that they can currently exercise in respect of their travel and legitimate business on the continent.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 568.]

We are in the dark at the moment. I hope very much that that will not continue to be the case and that we will see some light and hear positive assurances in the next few weeks.

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

My Lords, within this grouping, I support amendments that protect reciprocal rights of United Kingdom citizens and those of EEA countries and Switzerland. Following current changes regarding immigration, these include the need for regular impact assessments on skills shortages, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in Amendment 59; the emphasis of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in Amendment 75, on assisting arrangements for short-term EEA and Swiss nationals for business purposes; equally to do so, as advocated in Amendment 69 by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, to achieve free movement of persons involved in arts and entertainment activities; and to do the same, as urged in Amendment 97 by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, for members and representatives of faith communities. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also reminds us, in Amendment 34, of the importance of continuous

“recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the United Kingdom”.

I come now to my own Amendment 76 on

“Leave to enter for education, research, training and student exchange”.


It goes without saying that, from the Middle Ages, when it was notably in evidence, free movement in education has always been part of the United Kingdom’s and Europe’s culture and expectations.

Nevertheless, when, shortly before it was created in 1949, Winston Churchill urged a Council of Europe for the healing of wounds and the bringing together of minds, by implication he also did so in terms of education, research, training and student exchange. As a result, in 1953, the United Kingdom signed the European Convention on the Equivalence of Diplomas leading to Admission to Universities as well as the European Convention on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications.

Predating our membership of the European Union as this did, yet continuing our proactive membership of the Council of Europe, which we do, the case for following Churchill’s advice in these respects is all the stronger now that we leave the European Union.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister agrees and is able to accept Amendment 76.

Quarantine: Scientific Advice

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]]

My Lords, it is absolutely the Government’s intention that if we can lift restrictive measures, we will. Many of us are keen to watch the football. I was supposed to be going to the Derby; I do not think I will see it in real time, but I might see it virtually. Based on the science, we are reviewing these things every three weeks.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]]

My Lords, why are frequently flying business travellers exempt, when this increases the chances of spreading the virus? Does this not make a nonsense of the restrictions, and is it not another case of one rule for some but not others?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]]

My Lords, there are certain exemptions for people such as hauliers. We need people to deliver food to this country. In all decisions that the Government make, there is a balance to be struck between public health and not only the economy, but getting essential goods and services to the people of this country.

Immigration: Points-based System

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for raising that question. He is absolutely right that we should be mindful of regional variation, regional demand and regional supply. In fact, the shortage occupation list that was drawn up does not look much different in Scotland than it does in the UK as a whole. But he is right to make the point that, in terms of engagement, we should listen to the devolved Administrations and be mindful of what they say. We would not want them to be unable to have the workforce that they need in their areas.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I do not understand when the Minister says that musicians, for example, will be treated exactly the same. If they are going to be treated as though they are from non-EEA countries, it will be a massive change; it will not be the same at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was absolutely right to mention reciprocity. Of course, what we will do to the EU will be done to us. From the point of view of the creative industries, which are so important culturally and economically, it is hugely disappointing to see in paragraph 25 of the policy statement:

“We will not be creating a dedicated route for self-employed people.”


The effect on our own UK workers will be devastating if there is not a dedicated route, unencumbered by the need for sponsorship and allowing onward movement, among many other things, not only in the arts and the creative industries but in the UK services sector more widely, for which Europe is the major market.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take the noble Earl’s point on board and I will try to get a fuller answer on the creative industries, because I recognise the point that both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, make. As I was on my feet, I was thinking that maybe it was because of the short time for which performers might want to come to the UK. But I will get a fuller answer for the two noble Lords and put a copy in the Library.

Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, how often are chemical markers such as SmartWater being used on public sculptures and memorials? Are scrap metal dealers being encouraged to check for such markers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Earl how often chemical markers have been used, particularly on heritage assets. However, I can write to him about it.

Brexit: UK-EU Movement of People (EUC Report)

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the Home Affairs Sub-Committee on their informative report.

I want to talk about an area that is touched on in the report but that has not had the discussion in Parliament or in the media that it deserves. I refer to how the loss of free movement in the future would be likely to affect UK citizens based in this country, especially young people, as how we treat EU nationals who are already in this country will mirror how we expect UK nationals going into Europe in the future to be treated.

The report discusses short-term travel to the UK with reference to agriculture, for instance, but what is missing is any picture of how UK citizens move round Europe, particularly for periods of less than a year, and, more generally, attitudes towards free movement as an aspect of EU citizenship—issues which I believe are central to the Brexit debate.

In both those respects it is worth quoting the observation on page 18 of the report made by Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London. He is concerned about the problem of the definition of an immigrant as someone who arrived in the UK intending to stay for more than one year. He said:

“That was probably quite meaningful … in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when people who planned to come and live here came from the Caribbean or India with a work visa … If you are coming from Poland, Latvia or France, there is no legal, moral or practical obligation on you. When you come here and flash your passport with no visa in it, you may very well not know whether you intend to stay for a month, six months, or the rest of your life. Even if you did have some vague intention, it could well change and you are perfectly entitled to do that”.


There are two things here. One is the ad hoc, spontaneous manner in which free movement can now occur—part of it being “free”—and the other is that of entitlement. A problem is the scarcity of data on how British people utilise free movement, apart from the 1.2 million UK nationals who we know are settled in Europe.

One industry that might best reflect how young people in particular utilise free movement is the arts and creative industries. For instance, 48% of those in the creative media industries are under the age of 35, which is 13% more than the average for the national workforce. Results of a study released last week at the launch of the campaign #FreeMoveCreate—a joint venture between the Incorporated Society of Musicians and the Artists Information Company, representing over 30,000 musicians and artists—gives a detailed view of how important free movement is to our creative industries. These are now worth £87 billion to the UK economy, more than either the car manufacturing or aerospace industries.

The creative industries have a strong service industries aspect to them; it is rarely as simple as just the movement of goods. What emerges is a sophisticated picture of movement, with frequent travel and stays varying from long to short. In the past 12 months, 40% of visual artists travelled regularly to the EU for work or professional development, and 53% who had travelled to the EU had an average stay of between four and seven days. Seventy per cent of musicians travel overseas for work. The average stay is eight days, but can range up to 60, and musicians are 25% more likely to travel to the EU than the rest of the world. Some musicians travel to the EU more than 40 times a year. Deborah Annetts, chief executive of ISM, says that,

“60% of musicians placed maintaining freedom of movement as their number one priority … Our research shows that visas are not the solution and can cause even more problems”.

That conclusion is in line with the concerns expressed to the sub-committee on EU nationals seeking short-term work in the UK.

Work permits and required job offers are entirely unrealistic. The informality and spontaneity of decision-making in the creative industries cannot be overemphasised. Many artists visit other countries in Europe on a look-see basis, with opportunities for work decided at a moment’s notice. A good example of this is the fashion industry, where it might be decided in London in the morning that a fashion shoot will happen in the afternoon in Paris, Rome or wherever, with participants arriving from different countries.

The mantra that we hear from the Government when problems are raised about EU nationals coming to the UK—and of course any final deal would need to be reciprocal—is that “we will attract the brightest and the best”, as was referred to earlier by my noble friend Lady Prashar. This outlook seems to bear no relationship whatever to the nature of the reality of an industry where short-term and long-term opportunities often segue one into the other. This is true for movement in both directions. The individual citizenship right of free movement is pivotal to the operation of the creative industries, let alone their success.

The other concern that Portes’s observation raises is the issue of entitlement. For young people in particular there is the question of the extent to which free movement in this way is understood, not just for the purposes of travel to work and study in another country but as a democratic right in itself, as enshrined in the 2004 citizens directive. There is a strong argument—supported by Floris de Witte, assistant professor at the London School of Economics—that free movement is the core value of EU citizenship. I submit that for most Europeans it is inconceivable that the ability to move at will between countries in Europe and in an expanding EEA, notwithstanding the referendum, could be a right that is lost. It is part of the democratic foundation upon which modern Europe is being built. In the UK, we know from YouGov that 71% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted remain in the referendum. A poll last month for the Observer held that 85% of 18 to 24 year-olds wished to retain EU citizenship. It is free movement that the young in the UK do not want to lose.

The Government need to recognise urgently that a distinction must be made between the individual’s right to free movement, and an overarching immigration policy that might be introduced for example to protect industry in the UK in regions where it is felt necessary to do so, while we retain access to the single market. The right of UK citizens to move freely within Europe should not become collateral damage.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this debate with his usual comprehensive analysis of the problem, which, as we have heard, is significant. I am also grateful for the briefings from the Manifesto Club on public space protection orders. The noble Lord rightly focused his attention on PSPOs. The heart of this issue is bound up with our understanding of what public space is and what we want to get out of it.

Not entirely coincidentally, the debate happening simultaneously in the Chamber—an equally important debate led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—is also about public space, a different kind of space: the public sphere. The reason we are now having these concerns about the future of public space in the broader sense is that both the imaginary space, as it has been described, of the public sphere and the geographical space under discussion here are under considerable threat to both their amount or degree—a concern I will come back to—and their quality or operation.

I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about PSPOs, the examples given and about changes to statutory guidance. PSPOs are horrendous. In the manner in which they are being applied, they seem to vary from the ludicrous to the sinister to the blatantly inhumane. As the noble Lord said, the ludicrous include bans on people lying down in parks or carrying golf clubs. The sinister include bans which limit freedom of expression and the right to protest and bans on the gathering of groups of two or more people, such as in Hillingdon and Guildford, and on live music, the handing out of free literature and blanket bans on amplification.

There is a randomness about these orders that has nothing to do with what I would regard as real or respectable law, but there is also a targeting involved which reveals blatant unfairness in them. In a BBC interview in Hillingdon in March this year with a group of teenagers about the ban on groups of two or more—I am not sure the interview itself was strictly legal—one of them said very reasonably, “You know that if there is a group of elderly people standing there”—meaning within the bounds of a particular shopping centre—“they will not get fined”. This, then, will be law used as it suits the local council.

As an example, I refer to a particular PSPO that, in the words of Liberty on 31 August,

“has taken full advantage of this vague power by seemingly banning everything”.

This is Teignbridge District Council’s PSPO for Dawlish of 14 June. It is a detailed six-page document making it illegal to,

“act in a manner as to cause annoyance … to any person”.

It also states that,

“the purpose of the PSPO is to deal with a particular nuisance … in a particular area”.

I emphasise “nuisance” and “annoyance”. The Minister may recall that on 8 January 2014 in this House, at the Report stage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, tabled an amendment that, after a two-hour debate, specifically removed “annoyance” and “nuisance” for injunctions. I believe that the amendment did not cover PSPOs but I am raising the matter of whether it should have. Causing harassment, alarm or distress is quite a long way from nuisance and annoyance but it is at this much less significant level of perceived harm that PSPOs are being applied.

It seems that you can be criminalised effectively for anything that the local council decides on. This surely makes a mockery not just of the concept of public space as a space of co-operation—a publicly owned and shared space whose uses should be negotiated and tolerated by all the public who use that space—but a mockery of the law itself.

At the inhumane end of the scale the criminalisation of rough sleepers in Wrexham and beggars in Southampton and other places is particularly scandalous and entirely unacceptable, since this is the targeting of the vulnerable who need to be helped, not criminalised. The idea of slapping a £100 fine on a rough sleeper or beggar is both absurd and inhumane.

For a number of reasons there is a particular desire at the moment in councils to effect a kind of cleaning up of our towns and cities. Teignmouth, for example, cites holidaymakers and Oxford’s implicit concern is for tourists. None of us likes to see rough sleepers on the street because it makes us uncomfortable. But I would prefer that they are there, in recognition perhaps of a problem so far unsolved, rather than being swept under the carpet, pushed off into another borough, or, worse still, criminalised.

In an article in the Guardian in May of last year, Matt Downie of Crisis said:

“Rough sleepers deserve better than to be treated as a nuisance”.

There is that term, “nuisance”, again. He continued:

“They may have suffered a relationship breakdown, a bereavement or domestic abuse. Instead, people need long-term, dedicated support to move away from the streets for good”.

Hackney Council’s announcement last year of its order applying to rough sleepers and street drinkers stated that,

“enforcement is always the last option”.

The “last option”: when should the criminalisation of rough sleepers ever be an option? On this occasion, after a sustained, celebrity-backed campaign, the council saw reason, although unfortunately this has not been the case with all other councils who have introduced PSPOs.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, The Social Value of Public Spaces from 2007, made the valid point that not everybody is equal in public spaces. It cites the example of local parks being used by young people for hanging out or by groups of street drinkers. In the absence of other facilities or spaces, it says that,

“this might be regarded as legitimate, as long as no harm is caused to others”.

The fact is that to a certain extent public space is messy because people are messy.

I want to make a point here, too, about street drinking, which I think shows not just how culturally relative this can be but also what a public space might include. In Berlin, for example, drinking on the streets and on trains, particularly late at night at the weekend— that is, quaffing from beer and wine bottles—is socially absolutely acceptable and wholly unaccompanied by violence. It is something that you see all classes of people doing and it is an accepted aspect of their city space.

Ultimately, my preference for PSPOs—indeed for the Anti-social Behaviour Act itself—is that the legislation should be repealed, though I appreciate that this might be asking too much of the present Government. I say this because prosecutions involving harm of one person against another should be based on the law of the land, whatever the environment it takes place in, not on the use to which public space is put, since such legislation in practice has been geared in favour of particular users over others and drives a wedge between perceived victims and perceived aggressors. Such legislation, as we are seeing, does not in effect respect the potential for public space to develop organically but limits it.

Finally, there is real concern that PSPOs are being used to clean up an area prior to its being sold off. That privatisation of our public space, particularly in city centres, has already been a significant long-term trend is undeniable, as Anna Minton forcefully describes in her book Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First-Century City. This issue has not yet properly surfaced as a major public concern, in part because many spaces which are privately owned have the surface appearance of being public—for example, the frankly sterile, privately owned public spaces, or POPs, where PSPOs do not apply, such as the More London estate which surrounds City Hall, where neither protesting nor filming is allowed, full stop. With continuing austerity and the starving of funds for councils this process may well be accelerating. This is the worst-case scenario: that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act becomes irrelevant, for all the wrong reasons.

We badly need an audit of public spaces in this country. True public space in its different forms is an important if underestimated democratic right, and this is now such a critical concern that there is a case to be made for a Minister of public space, although that is a debate for another day.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all three distinguished noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am very glad to be back with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because on a number of occasions we have discussed busking and how much we enjoy hearing buskers, particularly the ones in and around Westminster and further around London. Busking is very positive for community life and that is why this is an important debate. Anti-social behaviour as we know it can blight the lives of communities, but there is widespread interest, not least from this House, in the powers available to the police and local councils to respond to such things being used properly. This debate is timely.

The Government’s starting point is that there is a clear recognition of the serious impact that anti-social behaviour can have on ordinary people’s lives. That is why the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave the police, local councils and other agencies the powers that they need to take swift and effective action to protect the communities they serve.

The Government are also clear that anti-social behaviour powers are there to protect the activities of the law-abiding majority, to enable people to enjoy their public spaces and feel safe in their homes. They are not there to be used to restrict reasonable behaviour and activities not causing anti-social behaviour, as all noble Lords pointed out. That is why the Act contains legal safeguards before the powers can be used. However, we have said that we will look again at the statutory guidance on the use of the powers that the Home Office published to help emphasise these points.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that despite ministerial assurances, PSPOs are being used in an inappropriate and disproportionate way. As I said, there are clear legal tests for the use of the power. The statutory guidance references the need for councils to consult whenever community representatives and regular users of the public space think it appropriate and specifically references buskers and street entertainers. Following the noble Lord’s Oral Question this February, the former Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime gave a commitment to revisit the statutory guidance. We are reviewing it to see how we can strengthen it to ensure proportionality in the use of the powers and accountability, which is very important. The work is under way, so the pens are on the paper, and officials are consulting front-line practitioners.

We will write to the noble Lord and other interested noble Lords on the proposed revisions once the work has progressed further. We will complete the work as soon as we can. We are also working with front-line practitioners to develop a case-study document to highlight effective practice and appropriate use of the powers. I say again that it is a useful power but should be used proportionately to deal with a particular anti-social behaviour problem in a particular area by imposing reasonable restrictions. That is critical here.

The noble Lord also talked about the wider problem—not just buskers and street entertainers are affected. He referenced the Manifesto Club’s report on PSPOs, as I think did the noble Earl. Officials have met the Manifesto Club to discuss its findings and see what its primary concerns are about PSPOs. It is important that PSPOs and the other anti-social behaviour powers are used to deal with anti-social behaviour problems, rather than introduce blanket bans, to which the noble Lord referred.

Noble Lords also referred to the democratic aspect of this, with examples of single officials making decisions. We are examining that in the review of the statutory guidance. We have also discussed such concerns with the Local Government Association. The noble Lord talked about PSPOs targeting activities that are not actually harmful in themselves. The Government’s position is absolutely clear: anti-social behaviour powers are there to protect law-abiding people and enable people to enjoy public spaces and feel safe in their homes. They are not there to restrict reasonable behaviour, as I said, or activities that are not actually causing anti-social behaviour. There are legal safeguards in place and we will look again at the statutory guidance. PSPOs are useful powers for councils but need to be used proportionately. It is critical that councils are able to respond to problems such as street drinking and aggressive begging, because these kinds of behaviours have detrimental effects on a community’s way of life.

The noble Lord also talked about the consultation process. It is clear that a council may make a PSPO only after it has consulted the police, but it must also consult any other interested community representatives it considers appropriate. It is for councils to determine how best to consult, but there will be learning from across various councils; that will come out in the review process. We want to capture that learning as we undertake the review. The noble Lord asked specifically what has been proposed to change the guidance. We are developing a case-study document, as I said. We will write to the noble Lord on the proposed changes when we review the statutory guidance.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about homelessness. He brought up a very good point. The Government are committed to tackling and reducing homelessness. We do not want homeless people to be used as a target. Anti-social behaviour orders are not to be used to tackle the most vulnerable people in our society. They are there purely to deal with anti-social behaviour.

There have been some specific—and, I might say, slightly comical, although I do not mean that flippantly—examples of how councils have used their anti-social behaviour powers to deal with certain things. Some are almost unbelievable, but I do not disbelieve the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I quickly checked on Lewisham and it is not on the red alert list. However, I do not want to draw on the specific examples. How the orders are framed is one issue. Their purpose must not be to restrict reasonable behaviour. The PSPO is there to tackle behaviour that is having a detrimental effect on people’s lives and is persistent and unreasonable. That is quite clear. Those are the tests set out in legislation and they must be met before an order can be made. There are also issues about how they are enforced—again, it must be in a proportionate and reasonable way. I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out some potential solutions, and we will look very carefully at the points that he made.

It is important that we do not go too far in restricting the freedom of local partners to take effective enforcement action, but I do not think that that is what he is suggesting. We know that there are examples of good practice in councils and I want to place on record my praise for them. In refreshing the guidance, I hope that if we have another debate on this this time next year, we will see that it has been greatly strengthened and probably helped by the questions put by noble Lords, in particular those of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

Does the noble Baroness have anything to say about the terms “nuisance” and “annoyance”? As I said in my speech, the way that PSPOs are being applied shows that they are being used very much as a lever.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Earl made a good point; I hope that I covered it when addressing the speeches of other noble Lords. There has to be proportionality in this. “Nuisance and annoyance” could be someone walking their dog, but clearly that would not be proportionate. I think that that is what the refreshed guidance will cover, and I will be pleased to hear from the noble Earl if he thinks that we have not struck the balance right. Indeed, one person’s nuisance is something that another person does not even notice. I thank him for his comments.

Immigration Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment to remove Clause 15 from the Bill. A system of internal review is not a substitute for the right of appeal. The right to appeal confers a right to a decision by an independent adjudicator, but it is more than that. There is a public hearing with witnesses and with submissions on both sides. There is a public reasoned decision as a result of the process. I fear that, without independent appeals, the already poor standards of administration in relation to immigration decisions—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has referred to the lamentable figures—will get even worse.

I do not think that another layer of internal decision-making through an administrative review can possibly be as effective a mechanism for improving standards and ensuring correct decisions as an independent and public appeal process. I welcome, of course, the Government’s decision to invite the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to review the new administrative review process. This will introduce some independent scrutiny of the process, but the chief inspector is not going to assess the substantive merits of individual cases in the way that the tribunal does.

The Government have emphasised that an individual dissatisfied with the internal review process—and there will be many of them—will have legal redress by way of judicial review. But of course a judicial review, unlike an appeal, is not an assessment of the merits of the case; it is a limited assessment of fair process and of legal errors. In any event, I simply cannot understand any more than the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, why the Government are seeking to push these cases—and there will be many of them—into judicial review when, at the same time, the Lord Chancellor is bringing forward legislative proposals to reduce the number of judicial reviews. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, explained in speaking to the previous amendment, the whole thrust of reform in recent years has, rightly, been to remove immigration cases from judicial review and to have them decided before tribunals.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—like other noble Lords, I am very grateful to him for having meetings and correspondence on these issues—has previously emphasised that administrative review is cheap and quick. He is right, but there is nothing to stop the Home Office introducing a quick, cheap and effective process of administrative review. If it were to do so, no doubt it would find that a very large proportion of appeals would become unnecessary. My objection to the clause is the removal of the right to an independent appeal in cases which are not adequately addressed by a process of administrative review. That is why I oppose Clause 15.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having spoken before on this Bill. I will be brief. I have put my name to this amendment and want to talk about fairness.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned, we had an excellent debate on immigration last week in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel. Much of that debate was full of individual cases. Someone afterwards said that it was a sad debate because of the frustration felt on all sides of the House for those they knew or knew of who suffered difficulties or injustices as a result of the immigration system or regulations as they currently stand, or as likely from mistakes being made. The large proportion of appeals that succeed is testament to that.

Those who work in the area of our domestic legal process, which has developed over centuries, understand well that the system is not perfect, that it can be improved, that mistakes are made and, more than that, that significant safeguards need to be built in that are, crucially, an open aspect of the system. As a society, we are by and large grown-up and realistic enough to accept that. Surely those principles that currently exist in relation to immigration appeals and have now stood for more than four decades should in the same way be, at the very least, preserved and protected. The Government may baulk at the openness of the tribunal system when so many mistakes are clearly revealed to the public, but if the process is taken back in-house—as it were—as an administrative review, we will lose that openness, independence and accountability that we currently have, as my noble friend Lord Pannick said.

The Government wish to replace the current system with one that will be more complicated and inefficient. In addition to limiting the process, it will fragment it and be desperately unfair for the person concerned because that person would quite rightly—this should be a democratic right—want to hear the entirety of their case presented at a tribunal. I can understand the desire of the Government here. They are under considerable pressure to get immigration right, get a grip on it and put an authoritative stamp on it. However, if that is a spurious authority, which, through lack of independence, institutionalises mistakes—that is what will happen—it will be worthless. Whatever good intentions the Government may have, Clause 15 remains on Report a threat to our fundamental notions of fairness in this country. There is a world of difference between aiming for a perfect system, which is laudable, and attempting to construct in the here and now a system that assumes perfection. If we so significantly limit the right of appeal to tribunals, we will surely set off down the latter, dangerous and misguided, road.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I was not sure whether to speak yet; I was looking for a Bishop. Amendment 14 in this group is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Avebury. I have been torn over this issue. Of course, the lawyer in me wants to see access to the courts or tribunals but the pragmatist in me says, “Get it right first time”, especially when it is something where arguably the person involved does not start with having rights. I distinguish between human rights interests, family interests and, at the other end of the spectrum, perhaps permission to come and work in a different country. At issue here is a very wide range of types of decision. Also, of course, the pragmatist says, “Find ways to improve the process to get it right”.

I have to assume that the Secretary of State is satisfied on the basis of the current out-of-country process that what is proposed will be “efficient”, “effective” and “fair”—in the words of one of the amendments. I hope that effectiveness always means fairness. I do not know that one can become satisfied that the process is efficient, effective and fair on the issue raised by the possibility of shadow working and the two systems working in parallel. I know that there are different views about that. Frankly, I doubt that it is practicable. At the previous stage, I raised the issue of reviews of procedures and—particularly important to me —independent oversight and reports to Parliament. I welcome government Amendment 12. Could my noble friend confirm, because it does not quite say this, that what is intended is a report on the first year? It says that, “Before the end of” a year the Secretary of State will commission a review.

My Amendment 14 would introduce a two-stage process, the second of which would be the chief inspector reviewing the first year of operation, and the first of which would be an opportunity for Parliament to consider the procedures after the Government have consulted on them. I am grateful to my noble friend for a letter that I received following Committee and which was copied to other noble Lords. I hope that this will be a useful opportunity for him to explain from the Dispatch Box the Government’s proposals for consultation on the proposed rules—a targeted consultation, as I understand it. There might be, if you like, a pre-consultation of noble Lords as to who might be involved in that process. I am sure we would all have ideas as to who could usefully contribute.

Since Committee, I have seen the information given to those who seek an administrative review out of country under the current procedure. I had been concerned about how representations could be made to the reviewer and what representations could be made. I can infer that from the current information but I am sure that there is scope for spelling it out more clearly. That is a matter for the practitioners, really. I was also relieved to see information on something that had popped into my head and bothered me a lot: whether there would be a charge for an administrative review. I see that that is not the case. That reminded me that this is another reason for the Home Office getting it right first time, as it will not be able to get any income from that administrative review. As it were, it funds it—rightly—from its internal resources.