Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness who moved this amendment and her supporter to consider the actual conditions of refugees who have passed through Europe and managed to get somewhere near our shores. They usually face closed frontiers. They probably live rough over a considerable period, being chased, for example, by the French police and the garde républicaine de sûreté. They are tear gassed, pepper sprayed and so on. Can they always be expected to have retained their correct documentation?

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been following this Bill since its inception. I have not spoken up to this point, but I have been increasingly concerned about the effect of this particular legislative initiative and its potential impact on our reputation internationally, which had been very good in this area up to now, largely because of our role as one of the founding signatories of the refugee convention.

The present situation is one about which the Government are clearly not being frank with the public and the House. My noble friend Lord Rosser quoted chapter and verse very effectively just now when he quoted the Minister saying that at one point she was in favour of, and at another point against, having reciprocal return agreements with other countries. If she wants me to give way to her, I am happy to do so. We should know the answer to that. We should know the answers to things we do not know the answer to. For example, in this country, are we committed to not breaking up families? Can we assume it is a guiding and regular principle that we will not break up families? If we do break up families of asylum seekers or otherwise, we shall be acting completely outside the pale of civilised behaviour. That would be extremely worrying to an awful lot of us.

The Government are known, in international rumour, to be in negotiation with a number of African countries—Rwanda, for example—on establishing some sort of camp or facility to take failed asylum seekers from this country, but we do not know what the terms of such an arrangement would be. The Government have not been frank enough to tell us. There are a lot of rumours going around, most of which are very unattractive. I hope the Government might do something about that.

There is a fundamental weakness at the root of what the Government are trying to structure here. People who have come in small boats and hidden in lorries have been accused of coming here illegally. Logically, one can see the reason for that accusation, but there is no way in which they can come legally, as far as I can see. The Government should think about setting up an office in, say, Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer so that there will be some direct contact with these potential illegal immigrants. It would not cost that much. They could make some progress in filling out forms and getting an initial reaction from the bureaucracy to their claim. That might be helpful all round.

The fact is that the Government are proceeding in their own way and have not always been very straight- forward with us. I hope that changes. I think all of us remember from our school days the Spartans in ancient Greece. They led a terrible life and were third-class citizens.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, with great respect, is the noble Lord actually referring to the specific amendment under discussion?

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

I am endeavouring to do so but I shall not stand here for very long.

The ancient Spartans were helots. Their problem was that they had no rights—they had a growing population but no rights at all. I am very much afraid that if we take on board illegal immigrants and send them to some place in Africa, they will have no legal rights. It would be very worrying to have a population with no rights at all in a country that believes that that is firmly based on the law.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom has a long history of being open to the world. That includes providing sanctuary to people fleeing conflict, tyranny and oppression. There are countless historical examples of this country extending the hand of friendship to men, women and children in their hour of need and several Members of your Lordships’ House are alive today only because of that.

However, I will not delay the House with a history lesson, not least because this is not only a matter of history; it is also about what we are doing right now. Since 2015, we have resettled more than 25,000 people, half of whom were children, and our family reunion scheme has seen a further 39,000 people settle in the UK. Over 88,000 British national (overseas) status holders and their family members have chosen to apply for the BNO route, with over 76,000 granted so far.

Some 15,000 people were airlifted out of Afghanistan to the UK from mid-August under Operation Pitting, over and above the earlier transfers of around 2,000 locally employed staff and their families under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. Our Afghan citizens resettlement scheme aims to welcome a total of 20,000 people.

Against that background, and right at the outset, I want to make two important points. First, providing sanctuary and refuge is not inconsistent with a fair asylum and immigration system; such humanitarian measures are possible only if we have a fair asylum and immigration system, capable of providing both welcome and integration. Secondly, an approach to immigration which refuses admission to anyone under any circumstances is obviously inhumane. However, the corollary must also be rejected. Being humane does not mean allowing everyone in, and I remind the House that there are some 80 million displaced people around the world today.

I will start with a basic reality: the current system is not working. It is not working for those people who genuinely need protection and refuge. Those in genuine need and in places of conflict should be our priority, not those who are already in safe countries such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Nor is the current system working for the people of this country—so the status quo is not a viable option.

That is hardly surprising, as there have been radical changes since the current system was put together. The prevailing legal framework was not designed to cope with the type—and certainly not the scale—of the mass migration we have seen in recent years. But some things have not changed: the British public remain generous and kind and there is no question about that.

However, that generosity and kindness does not mean that they are willing to accept uncontrolled immigration—and nor should we expect them to. The truth is that we cannot hope to properly control our borders unless we address illegal entry. That requires comprehensive reform of the asylum system and this Bill is fundamental to delivering the change that is so badly needed.

Some people—and I respect their honesty, although I think they are profoundly misguided—are opposed to any form of immigration control whatever. That position is intellectually coherent, albeit pragmatically incoherent. But for everyone else, who recognises that we have to control our borders, we must also recognise the reality that this means addressing, tackling and reducing illegal entry.

Too many people profess a desire to control our borders but then, when it comes to putting that professed desire into practice, oppose any and every measure designed to do so. That is what one might call a Marxist approach to the problem—not Karl, but Groucho:

“Whatever it is, I’m against it.”


Because, if you will the ends, you cannot oppose all the means, all the time. So I look forward to contributions to this debate which, if they disagree with the Government’s proposals, set out precisely what steps should be taken to achieve the objective of controlled immigration that many profess to support.

When we talk about illegal entry, the illegality does not begin—and certainly does not end—with the migrants themselves, who have often been exploited by criminal gangs. These days, illegal entry is a business. It is run by criminals, who exploit vulnerable people and profit—in the form of hard cash—from human misery. It is a growing business. There were more than 25,000 irregular arrivals in 2021—a fivefold increase over 2018.

Your Lordships have seen the TV pictures. We know all too well that these crossings are often dangerous and sometimes fatal. The loss of those 27 lives in the Channel in November laid bare in devastating fashion why we must do everything possible to make this route unviable. We must reduce the pull factors which lead people to leave other safe countries and risk drowning.

But beyond this, the system is under strain in terms of numbers, time and cost. In the year to March 2021, the UK received more than 33,000 asylum applications, which is more than at the height of the European migration crisis in 2015-16. Because of Covid, efforts to move people through the system, and to remove them from the country, have both been slower.

As a result, waiting times are on the rise. At the end of June last year, there were more than 120,000 cases categorised as “works in progress” in the asylum system, including cases awaiting appeal decisions and some 40,000 failed asylum seekers who are subject to removal from the UK but have not yet left or been removed. This includes foreign national offenders who have been found guilty of serious crimes such as murder, rape and child sex offences. The cost is also considerable. The asylum system now costs more than £1 billion a year to run. So, on any reasonable analysis, the status quo is not sustainable. An overhaul is long overdue. Inaction is simply not a responsible option.

This Bill has three key objectives: first, to increase both the fairness and the efficiency of our system; secondly, to deter illegal entry to the UK; and, thirdly, to remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. I shall speak to each of these objectives in turn.

First, it is high time we took action to make our immigration and asylum system fairer and more efficient. Again, fairness and efficiency are not inconsistent. An inefficient immigration and asylum system is fair to nobody. So we will introduce a new form of temporary permission to stay in the UK for those who do not come directly to the UK or claim asylum without delay once here, but who have none the less been recognised as requiring protection. This status will afford only basic entitlements, while still meeting our international treaty obligations.

We will establish accommodation centres for both asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who require support, so that they have simple, safe and secure accommodation to stay in while their claims and returns are processed.

A new and expanded one-stop process will ensure that asylum and any other protection matters are made and considered together, ahead of any appeal hearing. This will prevent repeated, last-minute claims that are often devoid of legal merit but are designed to frustrate proper removal, with the result that people with no right to be here are still here months and even years later.

At the same time, we will expand provision of legal aid to support individuals who have been served with priority removal notices, so that all relevant issues can be raised at one time. We will also set out in primary legislation for the first time the circumstances in which confirmed victims of modern slavery will receive temporary leave to remain. This will give them, for the first time in domestic primary legislation, clarity on their entitlements.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way for just a moment. On the important matter of accommodation centres, who will be responsible for assigning a particular place or centre to an immigrant or failed immigrant? Will it be possible for the applicant or failed immigrant to leave an accommodation centre, or will he or she essentially be forced to remain in that centre?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am setting out the general principles. I have heard his question and my noble friend Lady Williams will deal with both those points in her wind-up speech.

I said that confirmed victims of modern slavery will receive temporary leave to remain. We will be clear through the Immigration Rules and guidance what “temporary” means in this context. Temporary leave to remain will be provided for any length of time necessary to enable victims to engage with authorities to help bring their exploiters to justice. Taken together, these measures will ensure protection for those in need, while weeding out those who seek to abuse this route. We will also bring in a range of age assessment tools, in line with many countries around the world, to ensure that we protect children in need of support, while rooting out adults who masquerade as children under 18. We will also reform nationality law to make it fairer and to address some historic anomalies.

Secondly, as well as making the system fairer and more efficient, we need to send a message that illegal entry will not be tolerated. In the Bill, criminals who engage in people smuggling will face new life sentences. The maximum penalty for entering the country illegally will rise from six months to four years in prison.

We are also providing Border Force with additional powers: to stop and divert vessels suspected of carrying illegal migrants to the UK and return them to where their sea journey to the UK began; to search unaccompanied containers located within ports for the presence of illegal migrants using them to enter the UK; and to seize and dispose of vessels that are intercepted. We will also crack down on other dangerous routes. Drivers will face a fine for every illegal entrant concealed in their vehicle, regardless of the steps that they have taken to secure that vehicle. We will use the electronic travel authorisation scheme, similar to what many noble Lords will recognise—the USA’s ESTA scheme—to stop the entry of those who present a threat to the UK. We will make it possible to remove someone to a safe third country, where their asylum claim will be processed.

Thirdly, failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals cannot be allowed to stay here indefinitely. Such an approach would rightly be unacceptable to the public. It would also undermine confidence in our immigration system. Ultimately, the system depends on the public’s confidence in it. When someone has no right to be in the UK, it is entirely appropriate for the Government to seek their removal. So the Bill contains a number of measures designed to strengthen our ability to do that.

We will confirm that the UK may remove people, including foreign criminals, to a safe third country. Expedited processes will enable the rapid removal of those with no right to be here, while visa penalties could be imposed on countries that do not co-operate on removals. We will also ensure that failure to comply with the asylum or removal process without good reason must be considered in deciding whether to grant immigration bail. We will widen the window in which foreign national offenders can be removed from prison under the early removal scheme for the purposes of removal from the UK.

We will also make a change to the long-standing power—and it is of long standing—to deprive someone of British citizenship in the most serious incidences of terrorism, war crimes or fraud to ensure that the power can still be used when, because of exceptional circumstances, it is not possible to notify the person of that decision. But that is not a policy change: the grounds on which that decision can be taken and the statutory right of appeal from it remain unchanged.

Before I finish, I want to emphasise a point that that should need no emphasis but I am going to emphasise it anyway. We remain fully committed to our international treaty and other obligations, including the refugee convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and international maritime law.

The principle behind this Bill and the New Plan for Immigration is simple. It is based on fairness—first and foremost to those fleeing persecution, of course, but fairness also to the British public, on whose support the legitimacy of the system ultimately relies. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers, and no one should be able to jump the queue and place themselves in front of people who really need our help. There is no overnight fix. These are long-term problems, but the need for reform could not be clearer. The public are not prepared to accept the current situation, and neither are the Government. Through this Bill, we will deliver a system that works in the interests of the UK. We will keep our doors open to the highly skilled and to people in genuine need, and we will break the business model—because that is what it is—of the evil people-smuggling gangs.

I end on a more personal note. I need no persuasion as to the importance of asylum or the benefits of immigration. There are some in this House who can trace their family’s presence in this country back many centuries; in some cases to a date even before this House first met. Many others, like me, are descended from, or are, more recent arrivals. I hope that my family and others like us have contributed to, as well as benefited from, this country. I want to live in a country where others, yet to arrive, can similarly contribute positively to the UK. My background makes me all the more aware of the importance of providing sanctuary and refuge. I want others to have the opportunities that my family has had, and from which others in the Chamber today have also benefited, but that will not happen, at least not in any fair and proper manner, unless and until we reform the current broken system.

I end where I began. Providing sanctuary and refuge are not only not inconsistent with a fair asylum and immigration system; they are only possible under a fair asylum and immigration system. For those reasons, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a most interesting debate. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, refer to a consensus emerging on this subject this afternoon. There has certainly been no consensus in the debate I have listened to; rather, a set of very different, diametrically opposed views based on different moral assumptions. There is nothing inherently wrong about that, but I think we have discussed the matter pretty comprehensively.

It is quite difficult to draw clear conclusions as to the central indicators thrown up by a debate such as this, but there are one or two things that stand out. First, it is very important that we have a policy that is humane, that we can be proud of and that we can defend around the world because it clearly is humane. Secondly, it follows that we have to make sure that we do not split families. It seems to me that there should be an overriding criterion that we should do everything possible to keep families together. That does not happen at the present time, but it should. Thirdly, it is very important that the policies we come up with are coherent—in other words, they are not in contradiction one with the other. We should not have a situation in which you win on the left-hand side but lose on the right-hand side at the same time.

There are some very peculiar things about our law at the present time, not least that you have to be in this country already in order to make an application for asylum here. That does not make any practical sense at all to me, because it is impossible to come into this country and be here for five seconds without being an illegal immigrant, breaking the law and risking a four-year prison sentence. Therefore, in my view, that has to be changed. We must change that system to have a policy that we can reasonably defend.

It is also terribly important that what we say is said in good faith. If, for example, we want to argue that we do not have any space for immigrants, it is no use, in my view, using the argument, as happens at the present time, that there are just terrible delays at the Home Office and we cannot do anything about it, or that there is just a large queue of people waiting to be looked after. That is not the case and it should not be used as an excuse. We instead should make sure that the Home Office becomes a bit more efficient. Efficiency in government is a good thing in principle, and there must be ways of making sure that you can reduce the time taken to process applications in the Home Office, or indeed other ministries.

We really must be prepared to get rid of and replace the extraordinary system we have at the present time under which you have to be resident here when you make an application for asylum, which is surely unnecessary—and incredible. If you get rid of that, you have to ask yourself what you would do instead. I think that means that you take these applications as they come, make sure that you maintain a minimum standard for response times and make sure that your officials live up to that by accepting targets and perhaps receiving bonuses that are subject to achieving the targets, or that sort of thing. That is and ought to be a part of good government in many areas.

Finally, a good solution that has elements of all these things would be for the Government to set up some office in different parts of the European Union—the obvious places would be Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer—where officials of the Ministry of Justice or the Foreign Office could examine applications, come to a preliminary conclusion, discuss matters with the applicant where necessary and make some progress, which is not happening at the present time, in the solution of individual cases.

Licensing Act 2003: Post-Legislative Scrutiny (Licensing Act 2003 Report)

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on the committee. I greatly enjoyed the experience and found it very instructive, and there was a very good and productive relationship among the members of the committee. All of that was made possible, largely, by the extremely sympathetic but also efficient way in which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, presided over our activities.

The subject is not entirely unimportant. A very large number of people are employed by the entertainment industry in this country, if you take pubs, clubs, bars, discos and so forth, and it is an important part of many people’s social lives. We had a lot of evidence, as the noble Baroness has just said, that the strong tendency in the last 10 years has been to move from purchasing alcohol and consuming it in a bar or pub to purchasing it in a supermarket, rather more cheaply, and taking it home—probably to drink it watching a screen and often, I fear rather sadly, alone. The running down of pubs in this country and their replacement by people drinking at home is not necessarily a happy change in our society. However, it is not for us in a free society to tell our fellow citizens how they should conduct their private lives; it is merely our job as legislators to see whether there are any problems which affect the interests of third parties and therefore may need to be dealt with.

On that point, when anybody talks about licensing, you soon find that although the group does not split—we certainly did not split and there were no extremists on our committee—it develops two different tendencies. On one side, there are always those who see themselves first and foremost not so much as protectors of morals—which would have been the case 100 years ago when licensing was being discussed and was a matter of great political controversy, as your Lordships will recall at that time—but certainly as protectors of health, public order and other things. On the other side are the more libertarian-minded people who feel that the entertainment industry is above all meant to make sure people have a nice time or some happy occasions and that regulations should be imposed reluctantly and with a relatively soft touch if at all possible, although obviously serious abuses have to be dealt with and the public protected from malefactors of different kinds.

That tendency duly emerged in our committee, as might have been foreseen. One lively discussion led me to recall that wonderful play of Shakespeare’s, which I think is his most amusing although not his greatest, “Twelfth Night”, and the dialogue between the puritan, Sir Andrew Aguecheek, and the bon viveur, Sir Toby Belch. They had a slightly angry discussion on this precise matter, which ends with Sir Toby Belch saying:

“Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?”.


I do not think any members of our committee thought there should be no more cakes and ale, and we came to a good consensus on our main recommendations, which the noble Baroness has outlined. Clearly, I do not need to repeat what she said on airports, as there is absolute agreement about that.

She mentioned something very important: we came to the clear decision that we should not add to the criteria for obtaining a licence to run a pub. There has been quite a lot of agitation in the country in favour of a public health criterion, but after considerable debate there was complete consensus that that would not be a good idea; it would be taking regulation rather too far.

The most important recommendation that we came to was that licensing committees should be merged with planning committees. You might think that that was a common-sense proposal; after all, it is pretty ridiculous—we had evidence that this has happened on a number of occasions—for a local authority planning committee to decide that yes, it is a good idea to have a pub in a particular location and give planning consent, while simultaneously the licensing committee says no, it would be a bad idea and it will not give licensing consent. Does the developer have consent to build his pub in those circumstances? No, he does not. Does he perhaps think he has, and does he spend money on that basis when he gets planning consent, assuming that there will not be incoherence within the public authority and that the licensing committee will not say something else? Yes, he could well do. That is an abuse and a bad situation. There is a much greater potential risk of it happening than any actuality but it does happen, and anyway it is simply a bad area of law. Our job, above all, is to make sure that the law is sensible, clear and coherent and has the respect of the public, and none of those causes is well advanced by a mess and muddle of that kind.

I was very disappointed, therefore, that the Government did not accept that recommendation. My strong impression was that their rejection was on the purely bureaucratic basis, which we all know too well, that it was not invented here. The arguments in the Government’s response are purely bureaucratic, such as that one of those committees—I cannot remember which—is set up on a statutory basis and the other on a non-statutory basis. That was not relevant at all to the functional issues at stake; if anything needed to be amended to put both committees on a statutory basis, that could be done with one line in a statutory instrument, so that was not a convincing answer. The Government did not really address that issue in the way that I hoped they would, and the issue remains very much on the table.

The experience persuaded me that a retrospective review of legislation is an excellent idea. When you have something like the Licensing Act, which affects an awful lot of people, after a decade or so—more than a decade has gone by in this case—it is a good idea for Parliament to look systematically at what it has done and whether it is right, and to draw conclusions and report to the public. That is something we should continue to do. It is a good use of our time and the various talents and expertise that this House can bring to bear for the Lords to take on that task from time to time. I hope we continue to do it.

Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, this is a modest amendment that is grouped with around 58 other amendments which deal with unexplained wealth orders, a new form of legislation in this country. Those 58 other amendments have been proposed by a bevy of talent, including several by my noble friend on the Front Bench, so after a few introductory remarks I propose to focus on the narrow issue which is the subject of my particular amendment. Before doing so, I should remind the Committee of my interests as declared in the register. I understand that it is now no longer approved procedure just to make a general reference and that we are supposed to be more specific. I should also remind the Committee that, while I am no longer an authorised person under financial services legislation, I remain the chairman of two companies that provide services to the financial industry.

At Second Reading I said that I strongly support the direction of travel of this Bill. I am well aware of the impact and the deleterious effect of the worm of corruption on society as a whole. However, I pointed out then and I point out now, as we begin Committee, that new regulation is by no means always the answer. Better use of existing regulation may well be equally effective, as encouraging and rewarding better behaviour to create the right climate may be. We need sticks but we also need carrots. The most important carrot is that people believe that what they are being asked to do is proportionate, fair and worth while, and that the information they are being asked to provide will be used and used effectively.

That should not be taken as my being in any way lukewarm about what we are discussing in the Bill and its purpose, but I shall want to be reassured now and as we go through Committee on three things: that the new powers being sought are required and required in the form it is proposed they should take; that those powers will be used, will be used effectively and will not sit on the shelf; and that they are likely to have a proper impact on the reduction of financial criminal activity.

With those introductory remarks, I turn to my amendment. As I said, this first part of the Bill is concerned with the introduction of an entirely new power for the authorities to obtain a court order to investigate what is called in the Bill “unexplained wealth”. I am no lawyer, but that seems a fairly broadly drafted phrase capable of quite a varying range of interpretations. I accept, however, that such broad phrasing may be necessary to cover the many forms that criminal financial activity may take, but equally, when I read that the provision will involve a reversal of the burden of proof—that is, under an unexplained wealth order I will have to explain why I should have this wealth, rather than the authorities explain why I should not—I wonder whether the right balance has been struck in the drafting.

In particular, in the group of amendments that we shall discuss, government Amendment 8 in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench proposes to reduce the amount above which an unexplained wealth order may be sought from £100,000 to £50,000. If the Committee was minded to accept this amendment, quite small sums and probably quite legally unsophisticated individuals may be swept up in the new regime. It could be argued that such people need and deserve a higher level of judicial protection. With my amendment I seek to redress and improve the balance by imposing an additional duty on the court in the case of unexplained wealth orders. Clause 1 requires the court, under new Section 362A(1) merely to be,

“satisfied that each of the requirements for the making of the order is fulfilled”.

My amendment would raise the evidential bar a little by requiring the court not merely to be “satisfied”, but to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” by inserting those three words in line 13 of page 1.

In summary, I argue that, if the authorities want the burden of proof reversed, the citizen is entitled to a high degree of protection from the court against possibly vexatious activities by regulators. My noble friend on the Front Bench may argue that government Amendment 6 would achieve the same purpose. Again, I am no lawyer, but the Government’s phrase,

“there is reasonable cause to believe”,

seems a good deal weaker than my phrase in Amendment 1, “beyond reasonable doubt”. I will await reaction from other Members of the Committee who have more legal experience than me as to whether my fears are justified or groundless. My noble friend may also argue that I should have tabled a similar amendment to deal with Scottish unexplained wealth orders under Clause 4. She would be absolutely right but my response is that, for today at least, this is a probing amendment to enable a broad discussion on the point to take place.

Other noble Lords will no doubt wish to discuss the practicalities of how the UWOs will work and whether the target category of politically exposed persons will be able to be dealt with effectively because of personal and functional immunity—we have had quite a lot of briefing on these matters. My amendment is about trying to achieve the right balance.

Before I sit down, I want to ask my noble friend one last question. It is about legal privilege and client confidentiality under the new unexplained wealth order legislation. As I understand it—again, I say that I am no lawyer—legal privilege does not exclude a legal adviser from the provisions of the suspicious activity, or SAR, regime. If a legal adviser becomes aware as a result of discussions or communications with his or her client that activities that would be capable of being caught by the SAR regime are occurring, they are obliged to report them and to do so without informing their client—indeed, informing their client would be an offence. Can my noble friend in due course make clear what the position is on a legal adviser whose client becomes the subject of a UWO? Is the construction of legal privilege changed in any way? I do not think that unexplained wealth orders or the suspicious activity regime will necessarily walk hand in hand. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has said that his amendment is merely probing. Clearly, the purpose of a probing amendment is above all directed at trying to influence the Government, but the other purpose is to see whether anyone else in the Committee rather agrees with the line of it, which may also be useful information for Ministers when they are taking final decisions on what the shape of the Bill should be.

The noble Lord made a very good case. We all know that legislation of this kind is essentially a matter of balance. On the one hand, we are imposing on people constraints and breaches of privacy and liberty. We are also imposing on them costs, because it is likely that to be able to respond to orders such as these they will have to pay accountants to do work. As the noble Lord said, we may be talking about amounts of wealth that are a substantial portion of the portfolio of the individual citizen being investigated. To respond to the investigation, the individual may need to spend significant amounts of money on accountancy or other professional advice. We should be very careful and aware of the costs of doing such things. We should also be aware that there is always a temptation for an authority, if it has a power, to use it and say, “There’s no downside. Let’s just put in a request to the High Court to have one of these investigations”. The noble Lord is therefore right to emphasise the need to protect the citizen to make it absolutely clear that an authority before making such a request, or a court before acceding to it, must be really convinced that there is a case for doing something quite exceptional—the state asking an individual to declare his or her private affairs. I therefore agree with the sense of the noble Lord’s amendment and I hope the Government take it seriously.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords—

Brexit: UK-EU Security (EUC Report)

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, particularly in a debate on Europe, on which he knows so much and has so much experience. But I thought on this occasion that he was rather more optimistic than I was about the chances of the Government coming to some satisfactory negotiation with our European partners. I find rather more convincing the analysis that we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown.

I add my voice to those who have already paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and her committee. It is an excellent report. It is not too long, thank goodness, which most reports in this House are. It is very lucid and well written, as most reports in this House are. It is decisive, which is essential, and it has given rise to a very useful debate.

Well, here we go. Not a week goes by without us suddenly having a new insight into the costs of Brexit and the wanton damage and destruction that this process will bring about for our country if it goes very much further. There is pretty much unanimity in the House this evening on the matter of the costs of Brexit in this area. I think that in their analyses everyone has agreed in principle with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who said that anything less than the status quo will lead to a diminution of the security of all our citizens. That is an extremely serious matter. We are facing the prospect of actually diminishing our security. People’s lives will be at risk, and it is quite extraordinary that any responsible Government of an ancient country like ours should seriously contemplate measures which run that risk, but unfortunately that is the truth. I think it is a truth which has been accepted by all speakers in the debate, sad and difficult though it is for many to acknowledge it, but it is a consensus to which I add myself.

I have to say that I do not share the view of most colleagues who have spoken on both sides of the House that we should just despair of this. There has been a sense of hopelessness: “Well, perhaps the British public did not look at the facts, and maybe they did not have the facts they should have had at the time. But it is too late now, it has happened and we have to make the best of a very bad job”. I have never shared that view in politics. If one is heading for a disaster, if you can see that you are sailing into a storm, you change course. Moreover, if you believe in popular sovereignty, you must believe in the right of the people to change their mind if they wish to do so, and in the right of all of us to try to persuade them to change their mind if we think it is important that they should do so in our long-term national interests. I have no inhibitions about that.

I shall go briefly over the points that are most at stake in this case. I do not ask the House to accept my words. I shall rely entirely on the testimony offered to the committee, which is now before every Member of the House, and indeed the Government’s own statements on the subject. Let us take first the issue of Europol because we all know how important it is. The report states:

“Our witnesses were unequivocal in identifying the UK’s future relationship with Europol as a critical priority. They also made clear that an operational agreement with Europol akin to those that other third countries have negotiated would not be sufficient to meet the UK’s needs”.


That is a decisive and extremely well-thought-through conclusion. The report goes on:

“Achieving it, however, may be problematic”.


In other words, we have a great asset in Europol since it is both useful and vital, but the Government are putting the whole thing at risk and we may not get any kind of deal which even begins to substitute for the utility of the asset we currently have.

Let us move on to some of the other issues about information exchange between police officers, which is obviously very important. I refer to the Schengen information system, known as SIS II. It was described by the National Crime Agency as,

“an absolute game-changer for the UK … It is linked to the Police National Computer so that officers can stop a car with French plates and Hungarian nationals in it, undertake checks and find details of stolen property, wanted people, alerts and the like”.

It is clearly an enormously useful instrument for policing which we may be on the point of losing. I turn now to the Prüm measures, which ironically came into force only just last year:

“The Prm Decisions require Member States to allow the reciprocal searching of each other’s databases for DNA profiles (required in 15 minutes), Vehicle Registration Data (required in 10 seconds) and fingerprints (required in 24 hours)”.


Here again we risk taking away from the British police. I also refer to Professor Peers, who commented on SIS II.

The report is equally clear about the European arrest warrant, stating,

“the Government suggested that ‘Norway and Iceland’s Schengen membership was key to securing even this level of agreement’, and that ‘there is no guarantee that the UK could secure a similar agreement outside the EU given that we are not a member of the Schengen border-free area’”.

The European arrest warrant, which we have heard is so important to policing, is itself at risk. The committee’s view, which it is giving to the House this evening, is that there is no real likelihood of our being able to get anything as good as we have at present in any of these three areas.

In those circumstances, I put to the Government two questions. First, what is stopping us remaining part of this home affairs and justice system—of Europol, the Prüm system, the information exchanges and part of the European arrest warrant? Secondly, if nothing is stopping us, why do the Government not want to remain part of it? Is there a pragmatic reason in terms of national interest why we should not remain part of a system that, in the views of everybody who has expressed a view this evening, including some very expert people, is clearly essential to our security in those areas? If the Government are saying there is no practical reason why we cannot be a member of the system and it is simply that we do not like the European Court of Justice or the politics, I am afraid they are contradicting themselves. This has already been quoted many times, but the Government said in 2014 that they would,

“never put politics before the protection of the British public”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/14; col. 1224.]

If they are saying, “We have a very good system here protecting the British public—the best we have ever had. We want to get rid of it not for practical reasons, but mainly for political reasons”, by definition they are in contradiction of their own commitment. I could use non-parliamentary language to describe the situation in which they proceed directly in contradiction with the description of their activities that they have given to the public.

Those two questions are very important. What is stopping us remaining full members of these institutions? If it is simply because the Government do not want to join them, why do they not?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee for producing its report, Brexit: Future UK-EU Security and Police Co-operation. In answer to some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I say that the Government will respond specifically to the report. I am grateful to those who have spoken during today’s long debate and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for securing it.

A wide range of views have been expressed from across the Chamber, but I am reassured by the broad consensus across the House that the Government should continue a high level of co-operation with our EU neighbours on security and policing matters. The Government are committed to strong practical co-operation on security, law enforcement and criminal justice now and after we leave. We will work with our European partners as we negotiate our exit to find solutions that promote security in the UK, across Europe and beyond. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Wasserman is optimistic about the future.

The perpetrators of crime and terrorism do not respect borders, and the threat that they pose is becoming increasingly transnational. We know that international organised crime groups exploit vulnerabilities such as inadequate law enforcement and criminal justice structures. Furthermore, threats such as cybercrime and online child sexual exploitation are by definition international in a technically interconnected world. In the face of these common threats, it is difficult to see how it would be in anyone’s interest for exit negotiations to result in a reduction in the effectiveness of security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation.

Our relationship with the EU currently centres on a number of practical co-operation measures that have been developed in response to the changing shape of the EU and the evolving threat of international crime. We continue to value our co-operation and information sharing through measures such as the European arrest warrant, which so many noble Lords have mentioned, together with Europol, the European criminal record information system and the second-generation Schengen information system, in our effort to fight crime and prevent terrorism. The UK will continue to participate fully in all these measures while we remain a member of the EU.

Leaving will of course mean that our relationship with the EU will have to change. In the UK we are examining the mechanisms now in place to support practical co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism, to help to identify potential options for how we might work with our EU partners in future. Looking ahead, we need to negotiate the best deal that we can with Europe, including thinking about the tools and mechanisms for co-operation with EU member states that help to keep all European citizens safe. The UK’s future access to the practical mechanism through which we co-operate with the EU will form part of the wider exit negotiations. The UK is in a unique position, having taken a leading role in developing—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The Minister says that when we leave the EU our relationship with the institutions in the justice and home affairs field will have to change. Will they have to change because the Government want them to change, or in her view will it be because our European partners will insist that they change?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, they will change because that is an inevitable fact of leaving the EU. We will no longer be members of the EU.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

That is not an answer.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Well, that is the answer that I am giving the noble Lord. Perhaps at this late hour he will indulge me until I get to the end, and he might be a bit more satisfied by the time I have finished.

Looking ahead, we need to negotiate the best deal that we can with Europe, including thinking about these tools and mechanisms with EU member states that help to keep European citizens safe. We are in a unique position, having taken a lead role in developing the practical co-operation measures now in place across the EU, and our expertise and drive for high standards are valued by our EU partners. That is why we will not seek to adopt a model currently enjoyed by another country; we are looking for a bespoke approach that works for the UK as well as for the EU.

Those negotiations will be complex and lengthy, and it would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome. I know that many noble Lords are anxious to understand the detail of the relationship that we may agree with the EU but, although the Government are keen to provide clarity where we can, it is also important that we do nothing to undermine our negotiating position.

What is absolutely clear is that this Government are committed to ongoing co-operation to keep all European citizens safe—a point that noble Lords have made—and that the desire to do what is necessary to keep our people safe is not one-sided. My ministerial colleagues have spoken to their counterparts in several EU countries, and I am reassured to hear that there is a shared understanding of the importance of effective ongoing co-operation.

I will now respond in more detail to some of the points that noble Lords have raised this evening. All noble Lords have talked about our relationship with Europol. As noble Lords have said, Europol’s prime objective is to strengthen and facilitate co-operation in preventing and combating serious organised crime and terrorism. By providing a platform for members to share intelligence and information, and through a strong analysis function, it offers unparalleled opportunities to prevent serious crime and protect EU citizens, including those in the UK. The UK plays a lead role in Europol; indeed, the UK staffs one of the largest national desks in the organisation and is one of the biggest contributors of information to Europol systems. We value our participation, and will continue to play a role while we remain in the EU. The recent decision to seek to opt into the new Europol measure is testament to that.

As I said, our future practical co-operation will be subject to negotiation, and it is too early to say what shape our relationship with the agency will take after we leave the EU. The models of co-operation enjoyed by other countries, such as the US, illustrate the breadth of agreements that can be achieved with Europol, but the UK will be in a unique position as a former EU member with our history of working with Europol, so we will not be looking to replicate any other nation’s model.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised the point that while the report was in preparation a bespoke arrangement was agreed for Denmark, and wanted to know more about it and how relevant it might be for the UK’s future. Denmark’s situation is different from the position that the UK will be in once we leave the EU. It is a member state that does not participate in the new Europol measure but is seeking a special agreement from within the EU. Obviously, that presents a different set of challenges for the parties concerned. The Government are exploring options for Europol once the UK has left the EU, but it is early to speculate on what they might look like.

The noble Baroness and other noble Lords also asked about the relevance of the 2014 opt-in decision. The justice and home affairs opt-out in 2014 gave us the opportunity to consider the value of certain measures to the UK. While that decision provides a reference point, it is important to be clear that the situation following the outcome of the EU referendum means that the context is now different. To state the obvious, we will no longer be a member of the EU so, unlike the 2014 decision, the question now is not whether we seek to rejoin certain measures as a member state; instead, we need to consider how we should interact with the EU security measures from outside the EU.

Quite a few noble Lords asked about Prüm in the context of my right honourable friend David Davis in the other place. During debate, he said that we were making new arrangements for data-sharing. The Prime Minister has been clear that one of her 12 negotiating objectives is to continue to work with the EU to preserve European security, fight terrorism and uphold justice across Europe. She is quite clear about that. As part of the negotiations, we will discuss with the EU and its member states how best to continue co-operation on security, law enforcement and criminal justice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, also asked about what we should read into the fact that the Government’s White Paper says that in paragraph 12.2 the EU institutions are listed among the entities that will be part of a “phased process of implementation”. The Prime Minister has been clear that she wants us,

“to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two year Article 50 process has concluded. From that point onwards, we”,

expect a,

“phased process of implementation, in which”,

Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that exist between us. It will,

“give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements”.

It is in no one’s interests for there to be a cliff edge for business or, indeed, for the rest of the country, as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the EU, but that does not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status. That would not be good for Britain and it would not be good for the EU. As the White Paper says,

“the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation”.

The noble Baroness also talked about the precedents for adjudication mechanisms and international arbitration in trade agreements. Again, we need to negotiate the best deal that we can for Europe, including thinking about the tools and mechanisms for co-operation with EU member states.

The noble Baroness also asked about the great repeal Bill and made the point about the Government’s intention that, wherever practical and appropriate, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after we leave the EU as they did before. She asked about how I envisaged the process of converting EU law into domestic law would work in the area of criminal justice. All government departments are currently reviewing the issues and opportunities arising from exit, including the requirements for legislation in addition to the great repeal Bill. We will bring forward a White Paper on the Bill, which will set out our approach to give effect to withdrawal on the domestic statute book, and we will ensure that it is published in sufficient time to allow Parliament to digest its contents in advance of introduction of the Bill in the next Session.

The noble Baroness also asked about Article 50 negotiations. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the arrangements relating to the UK’s withdrawal are to be made between the UK and the EU in a withdrawal treaty. The content of the treaty will be a matter for negotiation and our efforts will be focused on getting the best deal possible for the UK in negotiations with the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, made the point about needing to have a special relationship with the EU and needing new mechanisms for co-operation. As the Government have made clear, one of the 12 objectives of the negotiations ahead will be to establish a new relationship which enables the UK and the EU to continue practical co-operation with other member states to tackle cross-border crime and keep our people safe. We are in a unique position; we are a valued partner in the EU and have played a leading role in the development of a number of the EU’s security measures that are in place. That is why we will not be following any other nation’s model.

The noble Lord also asked how we will operate outside the ECJ’s jurisdiction. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that after withdrawal—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, articulated—our laws will not be made in Brussels but in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The judges interpreting those laws will not sit in Luxembourg but in courts in this country. The authority of EU law in Britain will end. Until we exit the EU, we remain a full member of the Union and the CJEU will continue its work.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about sovereignty versus security and suggested that we face a choice between the two. That is possibly overly simplistic. The UK is in a unique starting position, and we will need to negotiate the best deal we can with Europe while recognising that this process will not be brief or straightforward.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, asked how we will secure a good enough relationship on Europol—that is, better than other third countries. We absolutely value the role of Europol in helping law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate investigation on cross-border crime but, looking ahead, we need to negotiate the best deal we can with Europe. We are in a unique position, but it is very early to speculate on what that will look like.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, made the point that the EAW is worth signing up to the ECJ and surrendering sovereignty for. As always, he set out a typically forensic and well-informed analysis on the question of sovereignty and the UK’s future relationship with the EU, especially as pertaining to the European arrest warrant. I listened carefully to what he said, but it is too early to speculate at this stage on exactly what our relationship with the ECJ will be after we leave the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, asked how we create a flexible future relationship with the EU. Are we underestimating the challenge of doing so? However, as the Prime Minister has made clear, one of the 12 objectives for the negotiations ahead will be to establish a new relationship which enables the UK and the EU to continue practical co-operation with other member states to tackle cross-border crime and keep our people safe.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about trafficking and drugs and the fact that crime is international. In the modern age, we must cede some sovereignty and work with international institutions. I refer back to my answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on sovereignty versus security not being a binary choice. The Prime Minister has been clear that, after withdrawal, our laws will be made in Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast, and the judges interpreting those laws will sit not in Luxembourg but in courts in this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, identified the value of SIS II, Prüm and the EAW. He asked what is stopping us from remaining part of these and if there is nothing why the Government do not want us to join them. The UK’s exit from the EU will put us in a unique position, seeking co-operation on security and law enforcement as a former EU member. We must now work with the EU to agree the way we co-operate on both security and law enforcement after we leave. Although the Government are absolutely committed to future co-operation, I cannot set out a unilateral position ahead of negotiations.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, talked of the risk of a cliff edge on the day we leave, with no plan B. We need to agree budgetary contribution and dispute resolution and we need a living solution to avoid a static relationship. The noble Lord identified some of the issues that would need to be considered before and during the negotiations. The UK and the EU have a shared interest in effective co-operation while we remain a member state and after we leave, and the negotiations will need to consider the full range of options. It will be in all our interests to avoid any cliff edge in negotiating with the EU. We will need to reach agreement on a range of matters such as dispute resolution, and we will seek a relationship that is capable of responding to the changing threats that we face.

I am running out of time and I have three more noble Lords to respond to, which I will do in writing. In fact, it is two noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in respect of his final point.

The Government recognise the challenge in negotiating a new relationship. However, we are absolutely committed to finding innovative solutions to enable us to continue to work together to keep our citizens safe and to achieve collective security in Europe and globally. Finally, I again thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at “severe”. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning.

We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise it. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the full range of terrorist activities. The group that we now propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is National Action. This is the 21st order under Section 3(3)(a) of that Act. This is the first time we have laid an order for a right-wing group. Proscribing this neo-Nazi group sends a strong message that we will not tolerate terrorist activity here, regardless of what motivates it.

As noble Lords will appreciate, I am unable to comment on specific intelligence. However, I can provide a brief summary of the group’s activities. National Action is a racist, neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK, which conduct threatening street demonstrations and activities aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are aimed particularly at recruiting young people.

National Action’s ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent “race war”, which the group claims it will be an active part of. The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived “race traitors”. National Action has links to other extreme right-wing groups abroad, including in Europe. In May 2016, National Action members attended Buchenwald concentration camp, where they carried out Nazi salutes and posted images of this online.

The Government’s counter-extremism strategy challenges extremism in all its forms. Alongside this and our Prevent work, we will continue to monitor whether extremist groups have crossed into terrorism.

This is a relatively small group which has only been in operation in the UK for a few years, but the impact of its activities has been felt in a number of UK communities. Since early 2016, the group has become more active and its activities and propaganda material have crossed the threshold from extremism into terrorism. National Action’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language. It condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes two tweets posted by the group in 2016 in connection with the murder of Jo Cox, which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act. One states, “Only 649 MPs to go”. Another contains a photo of Thomas Mair with the caption, “Don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain. Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”. The group has also disseminated an image which was doctored to condone and celebrate the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in which 49 people lost their lives, and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit.

There are people who may have become aware of these messages who could reasonably be expected to infer that these acts should be emulated; therefore, such propaganda amounts to the unlawful glorification of terrorism. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes a number of factors into account, including the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Proscription in effect outlaws a listed organisation and makes it unable to operate in the UK. Proscription can also support other disruptive activity, including prosecutions for other offences, and acts to support strong messaging to deter fundraising and recruitment. Additionally, assets of a proscribed group are liable to seizure as terrorist assets. The Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on an organisation. This includes open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in this decision-making process. A decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the particular case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.

Proscription of this group will prevent its membership growing and help to prevent individuals who might be vulnerable to radicalisation, and possibly at risk of emulating the terrorist attacks that National Action glorifies, being drawn into the group’s extreme ideology. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the Government are doing the right thing with this organisation and the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for having set out in some detail why action is necessary. I have just one question. The noble Baroness rightly said that if an organisation of this kind is proscribed it is possible to seize its funds, but I take it that any organisation that knows it is going to be proscribed would takes its funds out of the jurisdiction, or otherwise distribute them so as to put them beyond reach. Has it been possible in this case, and would it normally be the Government’s practice, to freeze these funds in some way before the announcement of the proscription?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the purpose of the order. The order was, as I understand it, agreed by the Commons yesterday and we hope that it will be agreed in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. We welcome and support the order. As the noble Baroness said, it amends Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 by adding the neo-Nazi National Action to the list of proscribed organisations concerned in terrorism. The Minister also set out the provisions of the relevant parts of the 2000 Act, as well as the relevant part of the 2006 Act, which amended Section 3 of the 2000 Act. I do not intend to repeat those provisions.

Alcohol

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government are not saying they are not going ahead with it because that is not the situation. We are keeping the issue under review in the light of what happens in Scotland.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not entirely sure whether the Government are planning to introduce calorie labelling. I know that there is calorie labelling on some drinks. I will have to get back to the noble Baroness because I do not know the answer to her question. However, I will find that out because I certainly think that it would deter Guinness drinkers, as that is very calorific.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords—

Immigration Act

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, to answer the noble Lord’s last question first, any child at risk of sexual exploitation—that might include trafficking—will be a top priority, no matter what country they are from; ditto any child aged 12 or under. On the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, there have thus far been more than 3,000 people transferred, and half of those are children.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, what is the Government’s budgeted average cost for relocating in this country these vulnerable children? What provision is being made to support local authorities, on which the bulk of this expenditure will, presumably, fall?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have increased by a third the funding to local authorities. I cannot give a specific figure for a specific child because it will depend. It is around about £32,000 per child, but that is an average figure. I cannot give a specific figure for a specific child because it will be different in different cases, depending on whether the child is to be fostered, taken into local authority care, or here as part of a community sponsorship scheme. It is different in every case. I hope the noble Lord takes what I am saying in a qualified way.

Immigration

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we want students here who will contribute to this country the skills that we need. In fact, there has been an increase of more than 39% over the past few years to Russell group universities. We have taken successful steps to clamp down on some of the bogus colleges that do not provide that sort of training.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Why, oh why, are students classified as immigrants? They are not immigrants unless they stay here beyond their courses. When they stay beyond their degree or other qualification, they could and should be classified as immigrants. The present artificial classification is causing all sorts of quite unnecessary problems, not least, as has already been said, for our universities.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, they are classified as students because when they come here they use our services and they generally come here for more than a year. That falls within the definition.

Cyclists

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend raises the issue of identification and is right to do so. As I said, we need to encourage education for cyclists and responsibility in cyclists. When they ride on pavements or jump red lights, they break the law, and there is a need to review with the police how we can apply the law effectively to cyclists as well as to any other road users.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a continuing string of tragedies involving cyclists being crushed by lorries, often while turning at traffic light intersections. What progress is being made—I think the European Commission was considering a directive at one point—in making it a matter of law that all lorries should be fitted out in such a way that the driver has vision of the full length of his or her cab from the cab itself?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, we have seen investment being made in this. The noble Lord points to a particular type of mirror, which is being encouraged by the Government. Right here in London, we have seen separate areas created for cyclists to ensure their security and safety. As I said, any death on the roads, whoever it is—whether a cyclist, a pedestrian or any other road user—is one death too many. We should seek to ensure safety and security for everyone.