Security Threat to UK-based Journalists

Lord Lee of Trafford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As to that latter point, I really cannot go any further, I am afraid. It is subject to ongoing scrutiny and I know there is a significant amount of advice currently being considered in that regard. I can say no more.

The first part of my noble friend’s question is, of course, completely right. Any activity in government has to be across agencies and across departments. Part of the reason why these threats are evolving, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, just pointed out, is because the nature of the threat is evolving and the nature of the reporting of the threats is evolving. The world is changing very rapidly. So it would be foolish for just the Home Office to be looking at this when there are obviously online aspects and Treasury aspects. These are things that we deal with in this House all the time; they come together periodically in economic crime Bills and in national security Bills. I hope noble Lords will continue to support the passage of those Bills because they will target this sort of activity.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, this situation is something of a national embarrassment, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. What message does this send out to the rest of the world? I would like to ask the Minister one or two specific questions about the new studio for Iran International because he said next to nothing about it. Could he give us some indication of the timing of the development of the new studio, when it is likely to be completed, the cost and who will pick that up? Will we, as a nation, be contributing anything to the cost of the new studio? Then there is the whole question of the siting of the new studio. Will it be on a separate site, or will it be part of an existing, well-defended site—perhaps an existing military site or similar? Really, nothing has been said about this and I would be grateful if some indication could be given about the site, timing and cost.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I reject the premise of the question, that this is in some way a national embarrassment. I think this is actually a robust response by the counterterrorist police to an evolving situation, as I tried to explain earlier. I cannot go into details on the new site—I think it would be unwise to do so, for lots of security reasons—and I am afraid I have no details about the costs and who will be paying for it. The thing I can say about the existing site is that the police decided, having responded to a large number of threats, that it was in a difficult place to secure. Therefore, something needed to be done sooner rather than later. I think they should be praised for that.

Brexit: EU Nationals’ Right to Remain

Lord Lee of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will confirm whether those non-British European Union nationals employed in the agriculture, caring and hospitality sectors will be given the right to remain in the United Kingdom following Brexit.

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

My Lords, the Prime Minister has been clear that she wants to secure the status of EU nationals already living here. The only circumstance in which that would not be possible is if British citizens’ rights in other EU member states were not protected in return.

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

Is it not time, though, that the Government dropped this ridiculous pretence that there is a trade-off here? The reality is that significant sectors of our economy, such as caring, hospitality and areas of agriculture, would virtually collapse if non-British nationals did not remain and work here. There is massive anxiety out there in the country, among employer and employee. Is it not time that the Government did the right thing, both morally and commercially, and gave these individuals the right to remain?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government have been absolutely clear that we will seek to reach an agreement on this issue at an early stage of negotiations with the EU. I totally dispute the notion of a trade-off, because the EU’s refusal to guarantee the status of UK nationals elsewhere in the EU prior to negotiations shows that the Government have been absolutely right not to give away the guarantee of status for EU citizens in the UK. As the Prime Minister has said, that would have left UK citizens high and dry.

Visas: Chinese Visitors

Lord Lee of Trafford Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the effect of current visa restrictions on visitors from China to the United Kingdom for tourism and commerce.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

There has been continued and significant growth in Chinese visitors coming to the UK, demonstrating that we support growth through the visa system. In 2012, UKBA processed almost 300,000 visa applications from Chinese nationals, and the number of visas issued to Chinese nationals increased by 7% in the year to December 2012.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

The reality is that between 2004 and 2011, while the United States saw a growth in Chinese visitors of over 400%, we managed just over 50%. Overall, the United Kingdom’s share of Chinese tourism has declined by one-third during the past 10 years.

Turning to non-tourism activities, is the Minister aware that, for example in our superyacht-building sector, the chief executive of the British Marine Federation said recently:

“Chinese tourist restrictions are a straitjacket on the UK marine industry which is harming businesses, sapping the economy, and costing local jobs”.

The president of Sunseeker said:

“Sunseeker’s Chinese clients and potential buyers are having extreme difficulty in obtaining a visa to visit the UK, being laborious at best and often declined”.

When is the Home Office going to get real and stop disadvantaging UK tourism and UK commerce?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to exhort us to greater effort, but he should be well aware of the work that is being done through our network of BritAgents throughout China and indeed our partnership with British Airways, which is opening a new route from Chengdu to London this year. This partnership and the way in which we are building our relationship with Chinese visitors are proving successful. Indeed, the most recent International Passenger Survey data revealed a 24% increase in the number of Chinese visitors in 2012 compared with 2011.

St Paul’s Cathedral

Lord Lee of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to offer St Paul’s Cathedral any assistance in maintaining the right of access and passage to the cathedral.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, of which St Paul’s is a member.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, everybody has a right to peaceful protest, but that right comes with responsibilities, including respecting the rights of others. I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has asked protestors to leave and so enable the cathedral to reopen. The Government believe that the protestors should comply with this request. The police are working closely with the cathedral as they monitor the situation, and the Government are being kept informed of developments.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but there is a clear difference between a normal protest and a permanent encampment. For some years we have had the national embarrassment, which still continues, of the permanent encampment in Parliament Square. Now we have a situation where one of our major cathedrals, an icon, is closed and the surrounding traders are suffering severely. Is it not time that the Government actually came out on this and took new powers to deal with these permanent encampments? If they are not dealt with at this stage, I fear that they will spread.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the two issues are slightly different because the ownership of the land involved in Parliament Square and at St Paul’s is different: at Parliament Square the land belongs to the local authority whereas at St Paul’s it belongs to the church and the City of London. We have taken measures to deal with the Parliament Square problem, which were covered in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, and I hope that we will be able to deal with that problem shortly. As regards dealing with demonstrations of this sort on private land, I note what my noble friend says about the need to look at changes in the law. Certainly, if problems like this persist, and if we have problems like this that are likely to disrupt the Olympics or whatever, it is certainly something the Government will have to look at in due course.