Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, as a member of the International Agreements Committee I am very pleased to have this opportunity to follow our Chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I very much look forward to this debate, which will include several expert contributions that will be of particular value to the House, not only now, in the process of scrutinising this agreement, but perhaps more particularly in setting the scene for the engagement between the three parties to this agreement and the agreements to follow.

If I may, I will reinforce the point that our Chair made. The committee’s report essentially welcomes the agreement; we simply make one point that seems to have been taken for granted, as she said, by the Australian treaties committee: that further agreements and amendments to this agreement will be subject to further scrutiny. It literally said: “any action will be subject to further scrutiny”. If that is the case for the Australian Parliament, clearly, it should also be the case for this Parliament, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to make that simple and straight- forward commitment.

There is intended to be considerable follow-up activity on the agreement, so the substance of it is not so great that we can debate many details now. It is intended to initiate a wider co-operation not only on nuclear-powered propulsion systems for submarines but on areas of cyberwarfare, AI, quantum technologies and undersea technologies generally. I hope that today, we will hear a bit more about what the scope of that collaboration may look like.

May I say to my noble friend that I thought the agreement immensely encouraging in several respects? First, at the simple, mundane, practical level, it is encouraging that Governments in this day and age were able to negotiate something of a strategic and significant character, for several months and with deep engagement, with nobody leaking it. That is fantastic. We arrived at 15 September, and everybody was surprised, including the French. It is to the Government’s credit that they were able to do that.

Secondly, there seems to have been a particular skill on the part of the British Government in being right at the heart of this strategic negotiation, yet the French Government blamed Washington and Canberra and seemed not to blame London to the same extent and did not withdraw their ambassadors. The UK strategic engagement was central. Unless I am very much mistaken, the report suggests that the initial conversations were between the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Navy, so in a sense, the initiation of this agreement may have rested in the hands of the British Government rather than necessarily with the Australian Government —but that is only what I have read in reports.

However it came about—this is the most important point on which to applaud the Government’s agreement—we often hear about an Indo-Pacific tilt and the necessity of taking realistic and tough measures to counter the longer-term risks associated with Chinese aggrandisement and, here, for once, we are actually seeing something happening that is concrete, substantial and potentially of great significance. Certainly, it is a step change in the Australian defence capability, as a former Australian Defence Minister said. It also seems that it has not only important defence implications but very strong and positive geopolitical implications.

In our committee, we considered questions relating to the arguments about the nuclear proliferation treaty. It is clear that this is not a breach of any of the treaty obligations on the part of any of the participants in the agreement; nor can one realistically—as some have attempted to do—suggest that it somehow opens the door to the transfer of nuclear-powered propulsion technology to other countries. Other countries, such as South Korea, may wish to acquire it, but it has taken several decades for the Americans to agree to any further sharing beyond Great Britain. The White House briefing on the day of the launch was perfectly clear that they saw this as a one-off and they would not regard it as offering any precedent for any other country to be able to ask for the same thing. So, to that extent, we felt sure that we saw no need to express any reservations in that territory.

I should declare an interest as the UK chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. It is interesting that, not only do we now have the Quad—which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, may wish to say a bit more about, including on the progress that has been made in mutual understanding and assistance—but shortly after this agreement the Japanese Government entered into a reciprocal assistance agreement with the Government of Australia, which is only their second such agreement. The Japanese Government have made it clear that they would view positively the prospect of a further agreement of a similar character with the United Kingdom.

I know it is probably not within my noble friend’s brief to respond on that point today, but if she were able to write to me about it, I would be very interested to read it, following the increase in mutual assistance with Japan—not only literally troops on the ground and aircraft deployed for training purposes in Japan, but the visit of the “Queen Elizabeth” and other vessels. There are a lot of possibilities for extending our UK/Japanese defence collaboration to the form of an agreement such as that entered into with Australia.

Finally, I wish to reinforce a particular point that our chair made about the industrial and economic benefits in the United Kingdom. It was reported shortly after this agreement was signed that the British Government entered into a contract for early design work on a new nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine for the Royal Navy with BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. Can my noble friend say any more about that and how it might position the United Kingdom’s defence industry in relation to work on the Australian submarine fleet, in circumstances where it is reported that the American defence capability is fully occupied in meeting its own requirements?

In all those respects, this seems to me to be a very positive agreement. It is very useful for us at this stage to note some of the potential and to encourage the Government in directions in which they seem very willing and able to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her committee for their report and for calling this debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their genuinely interesting and very well-informed contributions.

Let me just reprise the salient features of the AUKUS information-sharing agreement. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who referred to it as being an agreement of strategic significance. My noble friend Lord Lansley made positive comments about the process and the agreement itself and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, offered a very insightful and reflective commentary. This agreement is based on existing information-sharing practices in place between the United Kingdom and the United States. It will remain in force for only a limited period, and it is necessary in order to enable this key piece of work on submarine nuclear propulsion to move forward.

It is a binding international agreement in law. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, raised the important question of what happens if there is a change of Government. None of us has the capacity to predict or control what properly elected Governments in other states do, but this is a binding international agreement. I think that everyone understands the significance and strategic importance of this agreement to Australia, and I therefore very much hope that the arrangement is secure. If there is a change of Administration in any of the three countries—I do not anticipate that happening in this country; let me make that clear—I would hope that the binding legal dimensions of this agreement would obtain.

In so far as the procedure within the United Kingdom is concerned, we laid the agreement before Parliament in November 2021 for scrutiny in the usual way, and I thank the committee for its role in that process. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was rather disparaging about the agreement. He thinks it is fragile. With respect, I disagree: I think it is robust and focused. There is very detailed work under the agreement now proceeding. He was unduly pessimistic in saying that he is certain it will go wrong. I disagree. I have every confidence, with the structures in place, that this is an important piece of work, not just for our international interests but also for our domestic interests. It is an exciting prospect, and I do not share his pessimism.

I thank the committee for its scrutiny of the agreement and for the report that it has produced. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked when we expect it to be ratified, and the answer is by the end of January. For future agreements, the Government would of course comply with any applicable requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The committee drew specific attention to amendments and whether they would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Understandably, a number of your Lordships raised this issue and sought clarification. As I have said, the agreement is based on existing information-sharing practices in place between the United Kingdom and the United States, and it will remain in force only for a limited period, enabling the initial programme of work. In these circumstances, the Government consider it unlikely that it will need to be amended during its time in force.

The terms of a binding international agreement, including those on the method of consent to be bound—for example, ratification—are subject to negotiation on a case-by-case basis with international partners. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Smith, focused particularly on this point, as did my noble friend Lord Lansley. The nature of what happens in the course of the discharge of the functions under the agreement dictates, to some extent, how these matters are approached. Certainly, they would have to be approached with trilateral agreement, and we cannot anticipate what might arise that would need adjustment. We cannot anticipate whether they would raise, for example, issues of commercial confidentiality or national security. The same applies to the nature and form of any follow-on agreement, but I make clear to the Committee that the Government have previously indicated their intention that the majority of important treaty amendments be subject to ratification and submitted to Parliament for scrutiny in accordance with CRaG. I hope that provides an appropriate level of reassurance to Members of the Committee.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Is it reasonable to infer, from what my noble friend has said, that if a follow-on agreement is subject to examination by the treaties committee in the Australian Parliament, it will also be subject to scrutiny through CRaG in this Parliament?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I wish to reassure my noble friend and the Committee that the spirit and intention of the Government is that scrutiny is important; it is at the heart of what they wish to see Parliament do, and it would be exceptional if scrutiny were denied. I hope that reassures my noble friend to some extent.

Moving on to the substance of AUKUS itself, it is a security and defence partnership between three like-minded, democratic allies to enhance security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region and globally. AUKUS is not a new treaty, it is not a mutual defence agreement, and it does not replace nor cut across other alliances, such as NATO or Five Eyes; it complements them and supports their aims.

As your Lordships will be aware, the main effort under AUKUS is the delivery of a nuclear-powered submarine capability to Australia. In September last year, an 18-month programme of work commenced to understand how we can best achieve this goal. I want to be clear that Australia asked for our help in acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine; we are meeting the request of a close partner with whom we have a long history of co-operation, including on submarines. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, spoke with authority on our long-standing United Kingdom/Australia relationship.

Our work to deliver this capability for Australia reflects the unique level of trust and co-operation between our three countries, and we can rightly be proud of that. This will help Australia to fulfil its defence and security responsibilities and to promote stability and security in the region, which this Government strongly support. As your Lordships will be aware, we have built and operated a world-class nuclear-powered submarine capability for more than 60 years. We bring deep expertise and experience to this partnership, as indeed do our American allies. AUKUS showcases the UK’s competitive and innovative defence industry and our role as a global leader in science and technology.

I emphasise, because a number of your Lordships alluded to this, that the programme of work will be fully in line with our international obligations. Australia has impeccable non-proliferation credentials, and it does not, and will not, seek nuclear weapons. It is important to reiterate that the proposed submarines will use a nuclear reactor uniquely as a power source. All three partners take their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty extremely seriously and have been in regular close contact with the International Atomic Energy Agency as this agreement moves forward into the next stage.

Let me try to deal with some specific points that arose during the debate. My noble friend Lord Lansley raised the Japan-Australia Reciprocal Access Agreement. We enjoy a close and growing bilateral security relationship with Japan. AUKUS does not replace or reduce the importance of any other strands of our relationship with Japan. Instead, through AUKUS, we intend to deepen, not limit, co-operation in the Indo-Pacific region. The Japan-Australia Reciprocal Access Agreement is for these Governments to comment on, but is a sign of their developing strategic partnership.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Liddell and Lady Smith, raised the transfer of intellectual property. The agreement provides protection for the originating parties under Article VIII. As part of the ongoing programme of work, we will further consider how to deal with the exchange of intellectual property.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the important issue of international relations, not least with France, Europe and China. We fully recognise the French disappointment. We are keen to move forward and are keeping channels of communication open. As the Prime Minister said to President Macron, we are committed to the United Kingdom-France relationship and we believe in the powerful role we can play together.

France is an important partner to the United Kingdom. We have a long-standing security and defence relationship with France that is underpinned by the Lancaster House treaties and by us being close NATO allies. We continue to consult each other daily on international defence and security matters, and that defence relationship remains strong. As was recently illustrated, our close collaboration on Afghanistan and our military deployments in the Sahel to tackle terrorism indicate that we are working together and consulting each other, just as we are working together to tackle global challenges such as climate change.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, focused particularly on China. I make clear that AUKUS is not aimed at a specific country; it is about supporting our allies and promoting stability in the Indo-Pacific region. AUKUS will work to protect our people and support a peaceful and rules-based international order. It is about the long-standing and deepening defence and security relationship between the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter, Lady Liddell and Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, specifically raised Five Eyes. That remains a unique and highly valued partnership. We have been sharing intelligence to address global threats and support international security and stability for over 60 years. We noted that Prime Minister Ardern of New Zealand welcomed the increased engagement of the United Kingdom and United States in the region. We compare notes and work together as five like-minded countries on a range of issues and in a variety of formats. Of course, each of us also has its independent foreign policy and works with different partners and in different groupings, according to context and need.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about devolution. In this context, defence and foreign affairs are matters reserved for the Westminster Government, so there is no specific devolved locus on this matter. When the MoD receives inquiries from representatives of constituencies in the devolved nations or from the devolved Governments, we respond and always do our best to co-operate and be helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, particularly raised the nuclear aspect to this and the responsibilities of the United Kingdom, United States and Australia. I give the reassurance that we want to reinforce the global non-proliferation architecture and set a precedent for the future that retains confidence in the fulfilment of our NPT obligations. We regularly update the International Atomic Energy Agency and are fully engaging with it throughout the 18-month feasibility study. We will continue to be transparent and consultative, especially on issues regarding nuclear materials, facilities and activities relevant to the IAEA.

The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Bilimoria, were interested in the inherent character of this new security partnership. That is what it is. I think they were seeking clarification and reassurance. This is a partnership focused on joint capability development and technology sharing. It reflects the unique level of trust and co-operation between the UK, the United States and Australia. It is about nuclear propulsion, not nuclear weapons and, very specifically, it does not include any obligation to consider an attack upon one as an attack against all participating states. That is not the character of this agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord West, sought detail about specific representation on various groups within the UK, the United States and Australia. I do not have specific information to that level, but I shall investigate, and if I am able to share information with him, I shall do so.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for bringing forward his amendment both on Report and now. I also thank my noble friend for the way in which she has responded. As she will recall, I did not participate on Report but I listened with care; we had subsequent conversations about this. I read with great interest the contributions made by a number of my former colleagues in the other place when our amendments were considered there last week.

First, while I agree with my noble friend and welcome the concessions that the Government have made, it is important for us to understand the nature of this further substantial shift. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who, in quoting part of Article 8(2) of the ICC statute, illustrated the wide range of potential crimes listed there. This gives rise to the concern that the chance of a vexatious allegation in relation to such a wide range of potential crimes is far greater than it is for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. However, as my right honourable friend Jeremy Wright, the former Attorney-General, helpfully said in the debate last Wednesday in the other place, by virtue of the exclusions that the Government have introduced, there is an increasing inconsistency as to which offences are relevant and which are excluded.

The truth of the matter is this: if we could be certain that the decisions made by prosecuting authorities on a relevant offence would exclude the potential of a further prosecution by the International Criminal Court—and that the decisions made by UK prosecutors would be sufficient for everybody’s acceptance—the UK would be able and willing to undertake a prosecution, even of a relevant offence, and this would be accepted by the ICC; my noble friend the Minister made this point in introducing the debate. The court could then proceed only if we were unable and unwilling, which we evidently would not be. I fear that there is uncertainty about this.

We have to balance, on the one hand, the uncertainty about exposing our potential servicepeople to the International Criminal Court—especially after the five-year period—against, on the other hand, not being able to reassure them that these offences have been brought within the scope of relevant offences for the higher prosecution threshold. The iteration between this House and the other House has helped enormously to understand that there is a balance to be struck.

Defence Estate

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I follow that question precisely. My noble friend’s Statement is very welcome, but he knows that in future forces, the Reserve Forces will play an enhanced and important part, so their ability to train on mobilisation is very important. Can he say a bit more about how capacity for their training can be supplied? In particular, Bassingbourn Barracks in my former constituency has lain idle for more than two years, is brilliantly situated and well-equipped to provide Reserve Forces mobilisation training.

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to my noble friend. In a sense, considerations for the Reserve Forces cannot be separated from those for Regular Forces because, with the whole force concept, training is now taking place with regulars and reservists side by side, which is entirely appropriate. I am aware that Bassingbourn’s future use has been the subject of a great deal of speculation, but I cannot inform my noble friend in detail about the site. Again, if I can enlighten him in writing I am happy to do so.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an immensely stimulating debate. I particularly appreciated the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell. As one who was a Cabinet Minister at the other end and who retired at the election last year, she, as well as anyone I have heard, illustrated how one can give up elected office but not give up the vision of public service and what can be achieved in this Parliament. I look forward to her further contributions.

I also appreciated listening to the valedictory speech of my noble friend Lady Perry, who I will be very sad not to see in this House so frequently in future. I look forward to seeing her in Cambridge, where she will continue to be one of our brightest stars, not least in the education world. We very much look forward to her leadership in Cambridge in the years ahead.

I will make three quick points, as time does not permit much else. Domestically, the gracious Speech reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to the National Health Service. Of course, the Bill for non-EEA migrants or visitors to this country to pay a proper contribution to the health service is welcome, but your Lordships have agreed today to investigate the sustainability of the NHS in future. One aspect of that is its financial sustainability. Frankly, in the last Parliament—as my noble friend responding to the debate will remember well—we set out to deliver substantial savings in the NHS, and did so. The so-called Nicholson savings of some £15 billion were achieved. The £5.5 billion of administrative savings were achieved, at considerable political cost. However, we never expected at the beginning of the last Parliament that in this one we would have to do not only that again but more.

To be realistic about that, we must recognise that in circumstances where the NHS employs more staff, the population is rising and the demography demonstrates increasing frailty and need, some of our underlying hopes that by this stage we would be looking after many more patients in the community are not being fulfilled to the extent that we expected. We need more innovation, preventative healthcare and digitalisation of healthcare, but, frankly, we also need the resources to transform community services, social care and the NHS. We will not be able to do that in the short run with the resources currently available. As a proportion of GDP, the NHS budget is falling. To be sustainable, we could easily set ourselves the objective that it should not fall any further. In a world where we can commit ourselves to 2% of GDP going to defence and 0.7% to international development aid, I am sure we could make a similar commitment of 7% or something of that order to the NHS as a floor for its future funding. That would be consistent with what was realistically included in the five-year forward view by the NHS for its own resources.

Secondly, happily I do not need to say much of what I might otherwise have done because the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, spoke for me as a Eurosceptic who believes we should remain in the European Union. In 1999, when I ran the Conservatives’ European parliamentary election campaign—very successfully, thank you—we fought on the principle of “in Europe but not run by Europe”. I still believe in that. With the Prime Minister’s most recent negotiation plus all that went before it, we are not in the euro, Schengen or a common asylum policy. We are in the things we want and chose to be in, on the environment, trade and the European arrest warrant. We are now in a situation that we never imagined we could get to, where we can be in a single market which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly said, still has more to offer us. This week we will probably hear more about e-commerce and the ability to create a single market in online trading. That is really important. We can do all this but do not have to sign up to a united states of Europe. That will not happen and we will not be in the euro. We will retain our essential sovereignty. That is what we always wanted in this Conservative Party for 30 years. Now, when we have that in our grasp, it seems utterly perverse to let it go.

Finally, today is the World Humanitarian Summit. I understand why the Prime Minister felt he had to fight the referendum campaign and could not be in Istanbul, but that is a pity. We have so much leadership to offer and there is so much that needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, spoke very well on this subject. It is important that we do not let the World Humanitarian Summit happen and people walk away saying, “Well, that wasn’t enough”. We must do more coming out of the summit in creating a much stronger professional and staffing infrastructure to handle not only immediate crises but follow-up on seeing how basic education and healthcare can be instrumental to handling such crises. Not least, we must recognise that we in Britain did more than our bit in trying to look after the refugees around Syria. As I saw for myself 18 months ago in Jordan, at that tipping point when they despaired of their ability to go back to Syria, there should have been a ramping up of international effort to give them the education, healthcare and commercial opportunities that would have ensured that they stayed in safe havens outside Syria rather than become so desperate that they started travelling across borders. It is a great pity that we did not invest, and that others did not invest like us, at that time.

Immigration Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Earl just told the House that he believes the Government’s position strikes the right balance. I hope that, in some fairly brief remarks, I can convince the House that that really is not so.

Unfortunately, because of the procedural timetable used in another place yesterday, it is impossible to find in Hansard any reference whatever to the extensive Committee and Report stage debates we had in your Lordships’ House, and the arguments made in favour of the six-month provision incorporated in the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House. It is therefore very difficult to know on what basis the Government have rejected both the six-month amendment and the amendment tabled today, which is an attempt to move a little further in the Government’s direction.

I am, therefore, disappointed that that truncated debate in another place led to the rejection of this proposal. To ask the other place to give further consideration, I have modified the amendment by inserting nine months instead of six. Before turning to its rationale, I declare my non-financial interest as a patron of Asylum Link Merseyside.

The amendment would grant asylum seekers permission to work if their claim has not been determined within the Home Office’s target time of nine months. I will briefly address the arguments made by the Government against the amendment. They have said that the policy will lead to an increase in unfounded applications. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, who is in his place, in responding for the Government repeated their long-held position:

“Earlier access to employment risks making asylum more attractive for those who are otherwise not eligible to work in the UK”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 851.]

However, the Government themselves have conceded that it “may be broadly true” that,

“there is little hard evidence that the change you propose (to allow asylum seekers to work after six months) would result in more asylum applications”.

So nine months would have even less impact on applications, if that is so. In fact, all the available evidence suggests that permission to work does not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers. That is reflected in the Home Office’s own research, and was confirmed by a review of the 19 main recipient countries for asylum applications in the OECD in 2011, which concluded that policies which relate the welfare of asylum seekers—for example, permission to work, support levels and access to healthcare—did not have any significant impact on the number of applications made in destination countries.

A total of 24 European Union countries allow asylum seekers to work after nine months or less if a decision has not been made on their asylum application, so what I am proposing is hardly revolutionary or without precedent. Twelve of these countries allow asylum seekers access to the labour market after six months or less of waiting for a decision on their claims. Those countries are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. The vast majority of these countries have had these policies in place for many years and none of them has had to change the policy because of any abuse of the asylum route by economic migrants.

In reality, those motivated to come to the United Kingdom for economic reasons are unlikely to make an asylum application and bring themselves to the attention of the authorities on the basis that they might be able to apply for permission to work after nine months. It does not make any sense, if you think about it. Even if this were the case, they would never have an opportunity to do so as the Home Office decides all straightforward claims within six months. Anyone making an unfounded claim for asylum would probably have this dealt with in a matter of weeks rather than months. It should be stressed that applicants cannot manufacture delays by—

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In response to a Written Question that I tabled in March, I was told that in 2015 of a total of 10,199 asylum claims concluded after six months, fewer than half were well founded. Therefore, the majority of those who are seeking asylum and would therefore be eligible for work after six months on the original amendment would not have made well-founded claims, and so would not have had a reason legitimately to be in this country in the first place.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, if they do not have legitimate reasons to be here, they will be deported in the normal course of events, so that argument does not stack up against the amendment, which encourages people to work rather than rely on state benefits. In other words, it encourages them to do what the noble Lord and Members on his Benches urge people to do—namely, to use their own efforts and resources to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to play their part in society. The figures that the Government gave me in reply to the earlier debates was that at the end of 2015 more than 3,600 asylum seekers were still waiting for more than six months for an initial decision on their claim, and that was despite the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, gave that delays that have happened before have been brought under control.

Returning to my remarks before the intervention, it should be stressed that applicants cannot manufacture delays by not engaging with the process, as they will have their claims refused for non-compliance.

The Government have defended their current policy, which effectively prohibits asylum seekers from working on the basis that asylum seekers are,

“provided with support and accommodation while we determine whether they need our protection and until they have exhausted the right of appeal”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 843.]

Those words, used by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in 2014, were quoted in the Chamber on 20 January. While it is true that asylum seekers are supported, it is highly questionable whether the level of support provided is adequate, as asylum seekers receive just over £5 a day to meet their essential living needs for food, clothing, toiletries and transport to pursue their asylum application. Of course, housing and utility bills are paid for separately for those who need it. An asylum seeker spends an average of around 18 months on Section 95 support. Many asylum seekers who have to survive solely on this level of support for extended periods will suffer a negative impact on their mental and physical health. At the end of 2015, more than 3,500 asylum seekers were still waiting for adjudication and settlement of their cases. In its most recent report on the work of the immigration directorates, the Home Affairs Committee stated that it was,

“concerned that the department may not be able to maintain the service levels that it set itself on initial decisions for new asylum claims within six months. To do so may require further funding and resources”.

Perhaps the noble Earl will comment on that finding in his response.

I have tried to move in the direction of noble Lords who have expressed concern and this is a compromise amendment. It means that the Government would have to significantly miss their target timeframe of six months for making an initial decision on an application before an asylum seeker would be given permission to work. For the small number of people affected, this would be a route out of poverty and an opportunity to restore their dignity by providing for themselves rather than leaving them dependent on handouts from the Government.

Is the current policy fair and proportionate? Is it balanced, in the way that the noble Earl suggested in his preliminary remarks? In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, said:

“The Government believe that the current policy strikes the right balance. If a claim remains undecided after 12 months for reasons outside their control, the person can apply for permission to work. That is fair and reasonable policy and is consistent with our obligations under EU law. It also assists genuine refugees”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 851.]

The question is: does the Government’s current policy strike the right balance? As matters stand, the UK Government effectively prohibit asylum seekers from ever working, because after 12 months they can apply only for jobs on the shortage occupation list, which are the skilled jobs where there is an identified national shortage. Even if an asylum seeker had the requisite skills for such a job, it is unlikely that they would be able to secure it, as they would have to have their existing qualifications recognised and they may well have become deskilled in the year or more that they have been unemployed. An extended period of exclusion from the labour market can have a long-term impact on a refugee’s ability to find employment. It is no wonder that a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people noted, in January 2013:

“Asylum-seeking parents are prevented from working, leaving families dependent on state support. This means parents are left powerless and lose their skills while children are left without positive role models. The Government’s own research has highlighted that this can lead to high levels of unemployment and under-employment once a family gains refugee status”.

I agree with that.

Early access to employment increases the chances of smooth economic and social integration by allowing refugees to improve their English, to acquire new skills and make new friends and social contacts in the wider community. All of this helps to promote community cohesion. The vast majority of asylum seekers want to work and contribute to society. They are frustrated at being forced to remain idle and dependent on benefits. Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, reducing reliance on the state and reinforcing the principle that we have a duty to work and contribute to society should appeal to all noble Lords, on whatever Benches they sit. The potential financial savings from allowing asylum seekers to work include reduced asylum support costs and increased tax revenue. In addition, asylum seekers will have increased disposable income which they can then spend in the wider economy. There will also be a number of indirect financial savings for statutory and voluntary agencies, including the avoidance of increased physical and mental health problems and the consequential financial cost to the National Health Service.

In conclusion, granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have been waiting for an initial decision for more than nine months will help to avoid the negative impact on asylum seekers of prolonged, forced inactivity and impoverishment and allow them to contribute to the economy. This will deliver financial savings to the Government and taxpayer, as asylum seekers who are working will not need to be supported. Allowing asylum seekers who have been waiting nine months for a decision on their cases to work has all of the benefits that I have been describing. The original amendment, on six months, was supported in your Lordships’ House. In the absence of a debate in another place on that amendment, it is right for this House to press on with this principle today, to give the other place the chance to consider the merits of the argument properly and come to a considered conclusion. I hope those arguments will commend Amendment 59B to the House. I beg to move.

National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I can give the noble Lord that assurance. We wish to see maximum collaboration with our friends and allies on the intelligence front. In the wake of the Paris attack, the question that we have asked ourselves is obvious: what are the capabilities that we need to counter such an event? We need the means to protect our transport systems, borders, critical national infrastructure and crowded places. We need systems that give us data in advance about people intending to come to this country so that they can be checked against our records. We need emergency services to respond to such incidents were they, God forbid, to occur. We need Armed Forces who are ready to provide support at very short notice in the event of a terrorist attack. Those are the questions we have asked ourselves over the past few months. The answers are contained in the report and I hope they will be reassuring to the House.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that in the national security strategy one of the greatest risks we face is from pandemic influenza or, indeed now, the spread of global organisms with antibiotic resistance. What he said about the availability of resources to support research in areas of infectious disease is extremely welcome. Can he confirm that will include support for that research in the United Kingdom at centres of world-leading excellence such as Porton Down and the research facilities being created at the Francis Crick Institute? Can he also say, in decisions yet to come and to be announced, that the public health capability in Public Health England and through local authorities will also be given, due regard in its ability to combat this particular great threat?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend, with his tremendous experience on this, knows that Public Health England will have to remain centre stage in the effort on major public health risks. However, I welcome his comments on the announcement around infectious diseases.

We are clear that the new £1 billion fund which will be rolled out over the next five years for R&D in products for infectious diseases—the Ross fund, which was mentioned in the Statement—will address the development and testing of vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, treatments and other technologies to combat the world’s most serious diseases in developing countries in particular. The Ross fund will more broadly target infectious diseases, diseases of epidemic potential, such as Ebola, neglected tropical diseases, which affect more than 1 billion people globally, and drug-resistant infections, which clearly pose a substantial and growing risk to global health. We look forward as a country to joining organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has been so effective in tackling those issues around the world.