Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Crosby and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, wish to echo the thanks to the Minister for his persistence and patience. I am also grateful to him for letting me know that he and his officials are discussing consultation with universities and students with regard to the guidance offered by the Minister. As it happens, I spent Friday with a group of young sixth-formers from, I suppose, every kind of ethnic and religious background, a substantial proportion of whom were Islamic. They all strongly took the view that it was very important to enable discussion and debate to take place at their age level. They suggested, very sensibly, that the Government could help by, for example, encouraging political parties and Cross-Benchers to suggest the names of people who might be willing to speak to sixth forms of that kind and to respond if a school asks for a speaker without itself having one in mind. That was a very good suggestion by these young men and women. I hope very much that the Minister will persist with his discussions with the officials. It is crucial that young people feel themselves involved and part of the whole effort to try to deal with terrorism in this country.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the latest amendments that he has tabled, which met very clearly points made by me and others in the debate on Report. I hope that he will not feel the need to answer too clearly the question put to him. In the professional field in which I practised for many years, clarifications were what you called changes of substance that you did not wish the Opposition to be able to say was a change of substance.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Crosby and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Monday 10th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, last week we had a useful debate about the negative impact of some aspects of the present Bill on overseas students, both undergraduates and postgraduates, wishing to come to this country. That debate took place on Amendment 26; today we are discussing Amendment 49.

Ministers can be in no doubt already of the depth of concern felt in all corners of the House about the damage being done by the cumulative effect of the Government’s immigration policy to what is, by common agreement, one of Britain’s most buoyant and valuable invisible exports, and of the strong desire that Ministers should think again before imposing any further charges or burdens on overseas students.

Last week we discussed the new appeals procedure; today we are considering what I would describe as the two most worrying aspects of the Bill so far as overseas students are concerned—the NHS charge and the provisions on accommodation. It is the aim of Amendment 49 to remove the threat to this very important part of our economy by, as it were, carving out full-time students from the application of those provisions.

I shall try not to weary the Committee with too much repetition of the general points and facts about the contribution of the higher education sector to our economy and the reasons for believing that it is already being harmed by the cumulative effect of the Government’s immigration policy, about which I have spoken—and that, I add, before any impact from the measures in the present Bill has taken effect.

I hope that the Minister can respond to this: what other British economic sector, bringing in more than £10 billion net a year and rising, is being put at risk by the Government’s own policies? Is there any other industry that we do that to? The latest statistics from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that we are losing market share to our main competitors—to the US, Australia, Canada and, perhaps not too far in the future, to France and Germany, where more and more courses are being offered in English.

Let me cite one or two of the findings from a National Union of Students survey carried out in January this year on a sample of 3,000 overseas students already in this country; that is to say, people who will not be directly affected by the measures we are discussing today. Some 74% of them said that the proposed NHS charge would have made it more difficult or impossible for them to study in the UK, while 82% of those with dependants, who are mainly postgraduates paying much higher fees, of course, said that free access to the National Health Service was important to their choice to study here. Some 40% said that the introduction of landlord checks would have negatively impacted on their decision to study in the UK, and that figure rises to 51% in the case of PhD students. Those are pretty sobering findings.

When it is suggested that overseas students should surely in equity make some contribution to any welfare costs, it seems to be completely overlooked that such research as there is shows that the costs incurred are substantively outstripped by the benefits that these students bring to our economy. Unlike what I will call genuine economic migrants—people who come here looking for work—these people bring with them over £20,000 a year in cash which goes into our economy. They are creating employment both at our universities and in the towns and cities that host those universities, as research by the University of Sheffield shows. They often enable our universities to maintain a wider range of important subjects, such as engineering, science and mathematics, than would otherwise be the case. I do not imagine that anyone supposes that taxpayers’ money is going to be available to fill any gaps that might be caused by a shortfall in the number of overseas students who would otherwise be attracted by the excellence of our academic establishments.

I hope that I and others who are to speak to this amendment will have demonstrated why removing full-time undergraduate and postgraduate students from the scope of these measures, as Amendment 49 proposes, is not just a piece of special pleading but justified as a rational analysis of our national interest. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached, along with others, to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I will speak briefly to make one or two points that perhaps are not so widely part of this debate, because, as I have rung up acquaintances of mine in universities—I know quite a few, having been an Education Minister—I have become more aware of the depth of the challenge to our university and higher education system and, at one remove, of the depth of the challenge to the front wave of our economy in terms of its dependence on innovation and invention. I will not detain the Committee for long, but I believe that what I am saying, although supplementary to what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, deserves a great deal of thought.

Let me begin by saying that what has attracted students from overseas to this country has been not only the English language and the excellence of our universities, but also a deep sense of our being an old and stable democracy. People have a sense of freedom of expression in this country, along with freedom of intellectual discussion and debate. There is no doubt that, rather surprisingly, in the fields of science and technological research, this country has continued to be a magnet for students from all over the world in a way that one would not really expect for a country of our size and one that is not in the very first rank of economies, like the United States at the present time. It is very important that the context of what attracts overseas students to this country is something that we maintain. In particular it means our marked ability to tolerate different points of view, and to tolerate people of different races, nationalities and languages. That has been a hallmark of studying in this country.

Anyone who reads the history of the United Kingdom will be more than aware that on three occasions we have benefited vastly from immigration. The first occasion was the immigration of German Jews in the 1930s, who brought with them an extraordinary level of understanding and knowledge of medicine and science, including a number of very distinguished Nobel laureates. The second great wave was immigration from the Caribbean in the 1960s without which, quite frankly, we would not have a working National Health Service today because of the huge contribution they have made to staffing that public service. The third wave, more recently, was of immigrants from Asia and east African refugees who came here in the 1970s and gave a tremendous boost to our commerce, business and research.

However, it is not the case that the concerns being expressed here are those only of overseas students, although I echo completely what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about the very disturbing information from the National Union of Students. He mentioned the fact that more than 50% of undergraduate students said that they would think hard before coming to us again. Perhaps even more significant and important is that no fewer than 66% of postgraduate students—half of our overseas students are postgraduates—said exactly the same thing. In light of the changes being made—the increase in visa fees, the health surcharge and all the rest of it, these students would think hard before coming here again. Let me say in passing that we do not seem to recognise our extraordinary dependence on these postgraduate students. I can give an example. Time after time we have recruited doctors from the Indian subcontinent to sustain our health service. A great bulk of them have been postgraduate students who came from India to study in the United Kingdom and then went on to work as postgraduates, and in some cases decided to become citizens of this country and continue to sustain the NHS.

I would add to that that there are people of great significance and wisdom who would associate themselves powerfully with the view that the discouragement of overseas students has a devastating effect on our economy, in particular the science and engineering sectors. I shall quote two of them. The first example is a quotation from the CBI which has said in a public statement:

“Despite the government’s assurances to the contrary, many businesses fear that complex recent work permit and visa reforms have created a perception that Britain isn’t open for business”.

That is often treated as something that is said by those who come from outside this country, but no, it is something that has been said officially by the CBI, the leading organisation representing industry in the UK. The second example comes from the president of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, who is a very great scientist indeed. Time and again he has pleaded with Governments to give a more generous reception to overseas students. I shall quote his words:

“The rhetoric from the Home Office, combined with the complexity involved with immigration rules and visas, has led to a perception internationally that the UK is not particularly welcoming”.

I have given these examples because no one can pretend that these are partisan statements made for political ends. They are statements by distinguished people who believe that what they are saying should be a warning for the rest of us.

European Union Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Crosby and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with half of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said and the very usual position of agreeing with absolutely everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said, which is not surprising because I have been doing that for a long time. I should like to make two or three points. First, the Government owe us a clearer reaction to the views of the Constitution Committee of this House on referendums in relation to this Bill. At Second Reading, we heard nothing about it whatever. We have not heard a single response from the Government to the report of 17 March. I really think that we must now ask that the Government state their position clearly. Of course, they stated their position on the Constitution Committee’s report of last October when we had a debate. It was rather a long time ago, so perhaps they could refresh our views on that.

This matter is important because the 17 March report stated that referendums should be used only for major constitutional issues. In the view of the Constitution Committee, a large number of the issues put into this Bill as having the potential for a referendum did not fulfil that criterion. I really think that the Government need to state why they are rejecting the advice of the Constitution Committee in that respect. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would say something about that.

Secondly, I am not sure how well it has sunk into everyone’s minds that this Bill in its approach to referendums is totally different from any legislation that has provided for a referendum in this country before now. Up to now, we have had referendums on the European Community in 1975, on Scotland, on Wales, on Northern Ireland and now on AV. Every one of those was a separate piece of primary legislation that laid down the precise conditions and circumstances in which the referendum was to be taken. However, this is a blank cheque for referendums—referendums a-go-go. Some of them are no doubt on matters of considerable importance and some of them on matters of lesser importance. The point is that if we pass this Bill in the form that the Government have proposed, we are taking a major step towards plebiscitary democracy and away from representative parliamentary democracy. We should have absolutely no illusions about that. It is completely different from the situation with the other referendums, and they cannot be quoted in any way to defend the Bill because this situation is quite different.

I would like to make a further point to the Minister and to his colleague, who is now unwell. I feel very bad about that because we gave him a rather hard time before the dinner break. Now that I know he was not well, I wish that we had not. However, he used this argument again and again, as did the noble Lord at Second Reading. I do not doubt the sincerity with which they say that the purpose of the legislation is to reconcile the British people with the European Union better than they are currently. Their analysis of the problem in this country is absolutely correct, but their prescription for a solution is completely incredible. It is just not believable that holding a series of referendums on the European Union is going to make the people feel more favourable about the European Union than they do now.

In fact, the exact contrary is likely to be the consequence. I know that it is not the consequence that the Government wish to see or which they are aiming for, but having lived through the saga of Britain’s relationship with the European Union for about the past 40 years, that is what is going to happen. We saw it in 1975 when the protagonists of the referendum, Tony Benn and others, assured us that once the referendum was over it would all be finished and we would be happy kittens in a basket. Two days after the referendum, they were campaigning for another one to reject any further integration into the European Union, or whatever it was. Frankly, this is not credible. The Government’s story does not hold water.

I accept that the solution put forward by my noble friend Lord Williamson is only a palliative, but it is an important one. It would meet the point that we were not slipping down the hill towards a plebiscitary democracy because we would leave Parliament in charge from the beginning of the process to the end. I am sure that, if there was a large majority from a large vote against something, there is no way in which the Government of the day would then ram the thing through. That is just not credible. But if the vote was small, it would be quite right for Parliament to take the final decision, and that is what the amendments tabled by my noble friend would achieve. I think that some combination of the thrust of his two amendments, to make the referendums advisory and to set a 40 per cent threshold, would be the best way of limiting what otherwise could be a serious attack on the way in which this country has been governed for several hundred years.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I add briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has said by making a couple of additional points. The first is that in many ways this Bill expresses a lack of confidence in representative democracy, which troubles me quite profoundly. Of course we know that we already have issues surrounding the faith and trust of the electorate in us. For Parliament itself to say that it cannot be fully trusted with issues of such importance when it has made a thoughtful and deliberate decision, when that decision has been subjected to discussion both in this House and in another place, and when constituents have been duly consulted so that all that can be set aside by a referendum that might have had a very small number of participants, is not only risible but is extremely dangerous politics. That is one of the reasons why the argument for 40 per cent is so strong.

The second reason is quite straightforward. The threshold of 40 per cent will simply discourage those who want to hold a referendum to suit their own special interests, and nothing wider than that. Rather than spend money on a referendum for which they cannot get a substantial turnout, they will decide not to press the issue.