HMT “Empire Windrush”: 80th Anniversary
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The answer to the noble and learned Baroness’s question is that the specific projects for Windrush 80 will be confirmed in due course. We are having further discussion across government and with the Windrush 80 steering committee. Whatever the legacy will be, it is critical that it is designed by the community. The Government are clear that Windrush 80 should leave a legacy that endures beyond 2028. I hope that answers her question.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for campaigning on this issue. Yesterday, with her, I had the privilege of meeting victims of the Windrush scandal at a round table. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments about improvements to the compensation scheme, we heard that families are still struggling with an overly bureaucratic system and a lack of available legal support. If the Minister, with Home Office colleagues, will meet my noble friend, can we ensure that one of the ways of recognising the anniversary will be to ensure that, at that point, there are no longer any outstanding claimants to receive the justice that they deserve?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I think what we all want to see is that the claimants’ claims are processed quickly and in the most straightforward way possible. I am very happy to meet the group that the noble Lord met yesterday. It is clear that compensation cannot undo the harm that was caused, but the Government remain committed to improving the Windrush compensation scheme to ensure that it reflects the lived experiences of communities and that it can be accessed simply and in a straightforward manner. The fact that 94% of claims have been dealt with now shows some progress in this area.
Chinese Embassy
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord, so I will say that it would not be appropriate to comment on a live planning application. He would expect me to say that and I say it on behalf of the whole Government, not just MHCLG. National security is the first duty of government more generally. All relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making a decision in this case.
As the noble Lord knows, the Government regularly engage with representatives of foreign Governments, including the United States, to discuss a broad range of issues. Details of those discussions are not made public.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it is a material circumstance that this will be the largest Communist Party of China building in Europe? It will co-ordinate transnational repression in the United Kingdom and espionage on an industrial scale, including electronic and human surveillance, and initiate bounties on British passport holders resident here in the United Kingdom. When the Prime Minister visits Beijing, instead of congratulating China on having planning approval for its embassy, should he not inform the Chinese authorities that we will put China on the foreign influence registration scheme, prosecute those putting bounties on British passport holders resident in the UK and tighten international repression laws here in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand noble Lords’ frustration about our not yet being able to answer some of the questions about which material considerations have been taken into account, but they will be when we determine the application. This is a decision for planning Ministers, independent of the rest of government. Planning Ministers must take decisions following the quasi-judicial process that is completely right and correct for those decisions and based on evidence and planning rules. On transnational repression, we will not tolerate attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially in the United Kingdom.
Chinese Embassy Development
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the specific question from the noble Baroness, may I update the House? The inspector’s report was received on 10 June by the department. Parties have been notified a decision will be made on or before 9 September 2025. As the report has just been received, we have not yet begun to assess the case. The inspector’s report will form part of the final decision and will be released alongside it. Until that point, neither the recommendation nor the report will be made public. I hope that update is helpful to noble Lords.
Turning to the noble Baroness’s question, because we now have the report and we will be considering it, it would not be helpful to comment on any specific security issue raised in the application while it is under active consideration by the department. However, all decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, setting out full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national policy, which is likely to include a wide variety of material planning matters that may include safety and national security.
On the specific issue of cybersecurity, as I have said, no decision has been made on the case. Ministers will come to a decision based on the material planning considerations I have referred to, in line with the established process that these cases follow.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
That update from the Minister is most helpful.
We know from public warnings from the director-general of MI5 that China has been operating on an “epic scale” in its attempts to obtain political influence in the United Kingdom through educational arrangements and the use of state funds. That is why these Benches are disappointed that the Conservative Opposition have agreed this week with the Government to exempt China from the foreign influence registration scheme in respect of educational arrangements and the use of sovereign wealth funds.
We also know that, through its embassy in the UK, China has been co-ordinating transnational repression of people who are carrying out normal activities in the UK but who have bounties on their head. I shall not ask the Minister about any technical planning or security considerations, but what statutory provision can there be in the embassy to prevent foreign influence from the Chinese embassy on our political processes, and to help prohibit transnational repression of those living in this country?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
National security is, of course, the first duty of government more generally. On the specifics of the case, the inspector’s report will consider the application against all the national, local and regional issues, according to planning policy. Safety and national security will be taken into consideration to make sure that we have considered fully all the issues that may relate to this planning application.
It is difficult to answer general questions about the relationship with China in the same space as a planning decision, which has to be taken according to a fixed process. But noble Lords should be assured that we very strongly consider national security to be our first duty.
English Language Learning
Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his knowledge of Cornish. Of course, it is important to have language skills so that you can stay close to your community.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Government have made 154 statutory instruments on the coronavirus crisis, the vast majority under emergency legislation. How many of those have included an insistence that this emergency information, which is essential and life saving for our communities, is disseminated to those whose first language is not English or who have English language or other learning barriers, as my noble friend Lady Benjamin highlighted? How many of those emergency pieces of legislation have been able to be communicated clearly?
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord about the precise number. Where I have had a choice, we have made sure the provisions have been made available in numerous languages.