Brexit: UK-EU Security (EUC Report)
Lord Rosser Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I fear that most, if not all, of what I want to say has already been said a number of times this evening; nevertheless, I still intend to say it—in somewhere near 10 minutes, I hope.
Along with other noble Lords who have spoken, I, too, express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and her sub-committee for their very helpful and comprehensive report. The committee pointed out that it was only two years ago that many of the EU measures we are now due to leave with our exit from the European Union were deemed vital by the then Home Secretary, to the extent that, having exercised a block opt-out from police and criminal justice measures from December 2014, we promptly opted back in to 35 of them from the same date, accepting, as well, that the enforcement powers of the European Commission and full Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction would apply in respect of those 35 measures.
The Government’s recent White Paper declares an intention, after we depart from the European Union, to,
“continue to work with the EU to preserve UK and national security, and to fight terrorism and uphold justice across Europe”.
The Government also state in paragraph 11.7 of the White Paper that they will,
“look to negotiate the best deal we can with the EU to cooperate in the fight against crime and terrorism”,
and that:
“Public safety in the UK and the rest of Europe will be at the heart of this aspect of our negotiation”.
That is not, of course, the same as saying that public safety will be paramount or the number one priority.
The report from the EU committee sets out some of the issues that will have to be addressed if the Government’s objectives are to be achieved. Most significantly, the report states in its introductory summary:
“We caution, however, against assuming that because there is a shared interest in a positive outcome, negotiations will unfold smoothly. Even with the utmost good will on both sides, it seems inevitable that there will be practical limits to how closely the UK and the EU-27 can work together on police and security matters if they are no longer accountable to, and subject to oversight and adjudication by, the same supranational institutions, notably the Court of Justice of the European Union. There is, therefore, a risk that any new arrangements that the Government and the EU-27 put in place by way of replacement when the UK leaves the EU will be sub-optimal relative to present arrangements, possibly leaving the people of the UK—and their European neighbours—less safe”.
Do the Government agree?
The committee also goes on to say in the summary of its report that in leaving the EU, we will lose the platform from which we have been able to exert influence on the development of EU agencies, policies and practice in the field of security and policing, and that this will result in an attendant risk to our ability to protect our security interests in future. The committee goes on to say that accordingly,
“the Government will also need to examine what structures and channels it should remain part of or find substitutes for in order to influence the EU security agenda, which will inevitably have implications for the UK’s own security”.
Do the Government agree?
The committee also says:
“There must be some doubt as to whether the EU-27 will prove willing to establish the ‘bespoke’ adjudication arrangements envisaged by the Government”,
that this issue may prove particularly difficult in the negotiations on our future relationship with EU agencies such as Europol, and that it may also affect the likelihood of maintaining mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. The Government told the committee that in future laws would be made in Westminster, not in Brussels, and would be interpreted by British courts, not the European Court of Justice. As a result, the Government had concluded that any new arrangements that have to be put in place, or which may be put in place after our withdrawal from Europe, would have to be the subject of bespoke adjudication arrangements which, as the committee pointed out, rather begs the question of whether the EU 27 are likely to be willing to devise such arrangements in order to facilitate co-operation with the UK.
In the light of this, the committee considers it conceivable,
“that the Government will encounter a tension between two of its four overarching objectives in the negotiation—bringing back control of laws to Westminster and maintaining strong security co-operation with the EU”.
The committee’s view was that the safety of the people of the UK should be the overriding consideration in attempting to resolve that tension, and it urged the Government in its report to ensure that this is the case. Could the Government say clearly whether that would be their stance in such a situation?
The Government have a responsibility to provide firm assurances that our nation’s security and our ability to combat crime within our borders will not be compromised by our decision to leave the EU and what flows from that. I invite the Government to give that assurance tonight, not by saying that that will be an overarching objective, but by saying that it will actually and definitely be the case. The security threats we face are not confined to our national borders any more than they are in other European countries, which is why there is the current level of co-operation between European countries on security, policing and criminal justice issues. Whether we are confronting international terrorist networks, tracking down those seeking to evade justice, obtaining vital information on the activities of suspects abroad or seeking to maintain effective border controls, it makes more sense to act together.
Our ability, on our withdrawal from Europe, to continue to participate in the European arrest warrant arrangements, our continued future relationship with Europol and our future access to Europe-wide crime prevention databases, including the Schengen information system, are key issues affecting our nation’s security and are among the matters addressed in the committee’s report. Since the European arrest warrant was introduced in 2004, the United Kingdom has used it to bring more than 2,000 individuals from outside the UK to face justice, according to my information. We will have hurdles to overcome if we are to maintain the current arrangements when we are not in the European Union. The alternative is that we fall back on previous extradition treaties that are far more cumbersome and far less effective.
The committee says in its report that its witnesses were unequivocal in identifying the United Kingdom’s future relationship with Europol as a critical priority. However, that does not necessarily appear to be the Government’s stance, since the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said in the House of Commons a few months ago, when asked whether we could maintain our membership of Europol, that the Government’s objective was simply to preserve the relationship with the European Union on security matters as best we can. The recent White Paper does not appear to take us much further forward, except to say:
“We are driving, or co-driving, almost half of Europol projects against serious organised crime”.
That could be interpreted as the Government’s stance being that other European nations will therefore be clamouring to give us whatever we want in respect of our future relationship with Europol. Perhaps the Minister could say whether the Government share the unequivocal view of the witnesses to the EU sub-committee that our future relationship with Europol is a critical priority. If so, what criteria would have to be met for the Government to deem acceptable our future relationship with Europol once we have left the European Union?
Access to pan-European databases is particularly important for our police. Can the Government say whether we will still have access to these databases when we are outside the European Union, and if so, on what basis, bearing in mind that the most recent Home Office annual report said that strengthening data exchanges with our European allies was essential to combating terrorism?
We have real concerns that it will become more difficult for us to protect our citizenry when we leave the European Union because the complexities of maintaining the current cross-border co-operation between our police and security services will become greater. That will certainly be the case if the Government intend to stick rigidly in the negotiations to each and every one of their top four overarching objectives—particularly the control of laws having always to be at Westminster and always being interpreted by British courts, whatever the consequences. The Government need to remember that although the people of this country voted to leave the European Union, they did not vote to put at risk either their own personal security or that of the country as a whole.
Brexit: Customs and Border Staff
Lord Rosser Excerpts(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The figures differ at various times. I can say to my noble friend—and I am sure he will agree with me—that we will be well equipped to deal with our borders when the time comes.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, what exactly do the Government mean when they say that under Brexit we will have control of our borders? Does it mean that people who should not do so will not enter this country? If so, how will the Government achieve that, bearing in mind that we are not in a position to stop illegal immigration at present—as the road haulage industry makes clear—despite the present level of co-operation with the French authorities?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there is more than just the French authorities to consider, although we have worked very hard and in good co-operation with the French. Control of our borders means just that—control of who comes in and who goes out. However, I accept that no system is perfect.
Policing and Crime Bill
Lord Rosser ExcerptsWednesday 18th January 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 91-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reasons and amendments (PDF, 109KB) - (17 Jan 2017)
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve. If anybody is in any doubt about the need for Leveson 2, which was intended to be an inquiry into the potential for corrupt practice between the police and the press, let me say that, with the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, the then leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, and the former Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, I met with the family of Milly Dowler. The Sunday before that series of meetings took place, Mr Dowler received a phone call from Surrey Police to tell him that the News of the World had told Surrey Police at the time of Milly Dowler’s disappearance that it had hacked into Milly Dowler’s voicemail and retrieved information from it. Surrey Police did nothing at all to prosecute the News of the World over that issue, and it was only the day before that series of meetings that Surrey Police told Mr Dowler that it had known all along that the News of the World had hacked into Milly Dowler’s voicemail. This is the sort of matter that we have not got to the bottom of yet, and Leveson 2 should be held in order to establish what happened.
On financial privilege, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve. Parliament has already committed to the expenditure for Leveson 2; the amendment simply says that it is Parliament itself that should decide that that money should not be spent. The amendment would not involve additional money which has not previously been committed.
However, there is an issue with the wording of the amendment. Our reading of the amendment, if correct, suggests that as the chair of the inquiry, Lord Justice Leveson could override the view of both Houses of Parliament, in that if both Houses voted not to hold Leveson 2 but Lord Justice Leveson himself disagreed with that, the inquiry would still go ahead. We feel that that is a defect in the amendment. Clearly, there will be an opportunity for that to be corrected if we support the amendment today and it goes to the other end, but I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that carefully in considering whether we are on firm enough ground to divide the House on the amendment.
I cannot stress strongly enough from our side how important we think Leveson 2 is and how it needs to take place. We will take every opportunity we are offered to ensure that the Government hold the Leveson 2 inquiry.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Like, I imagine, many other Members of this House, I have received an email from Margaret Aspinall in her capacity as chairwoman of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, asking me to support this amendment. I will not repeat the terms of the email, which I believe has been widely circulated, but it is an indication of the widespread and heartfelt concern that Leveson part 2 might not proceed.
The Leveson inquiry was set up with cross-party agreement and firm commitments from the then Conservative Prime Minister that Leveson part 2 would take place. Let us be clear: Leveson part 2 was in the agreed terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry. The words in the terms of reference for part 2 conclude with:
“In the light of these inquiries, to consider the implications for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities, and relevant regulatory bodies—and to recommend what actions, if any, should be taken”.
When the Lords amendment on Leveson part 2 was considered in the Commons last week, the Government said that,
“given the extent of the criminal investigations into phone hacking and other illegal practices by the press that have taken place since the Leveson inquiry was established, and given the implementation of the recommendations following part 1, including reforms within the police and the press, the Government must consider whether proceeding with part 2 of the inquiry is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/17; col. 247.]
Those are words with which we are uncomfortable. They sound like the words of a Government who have already decided they do not wish to proceed with part 2 and are looking for their public consultation, which has now concluded, to give them a cloak of respectability for going back on previous firm pledges that part 2 of Leveson would take place.
The inquiries under the terms of reference of Leveson part 2 have not taken place, and thus neither have we had, nor, I would suggest, if this Government think they can get away with it, will we have the considered implications, in the light of those inquiries, for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities and relevant regulatory bodies with recommendations on what actions, if any, should be taken, called for and provided for under the terms of reference of Leveson part 2.
The Government appear in effect to have decided that they already know what would emerge from the Leveson part 2 inquiries and, likewise, what the recommendations would be without those inquiries taking place and recommendations being made. Frankly, it begins to look as though some powerful individuals and organisations behind the scenes know that they have something to hide and are determined to stop Leveson part 2 and, with it, the prospect of it all coming out into the open.
When the Lords amendment on Leveson part 2 was considered in the Commons, the Speaker certified it as engaging financial privilege, and that is the reason the Commons has given for disagreeing with it. Whether the amendment before us today would likewise be deemed as engaging financial privilege is not something on which I have any standing. However the amendment, which I saw for the first time only at a very late stage, does say that Leveson part 2 proceeds unless both Houses of Parliament and the chairman of the inquiry agree that it should not.
We are thus in a situation where, if both Houses decided that Leveson part 2 should not proceed—I sincerely hope they would not so decide—that decision would mean nothing if the chairman of the inquiry was not of the same view. I think that however strongly we may feel that Leveson part 2 should proceed, we are in difficult territory if basically we say that the view of the chairman of an inquiry that Leveson part 2 should proceed can override a decision by both Houses of Parliament that it should not proceed, particularly when at heart the issue is whether a clear and unambiguous promise made by a Conservative Prime Minister, with cross-party agreement, that Leveson part 2 would proceed can be tossed aside. That is the kind of issue that Parliament has to address and determine.
We feel very strongly that Leveson part 2 should proceed and that cross-party agreements and associated prime ministerial promises should be honoured and not ditched by this Government. We are unhappy with the wording of the amendment. However, whatever the outcome, we will continue to pursue all credible opportunities to ensure that the pressure is maintained and that Leveson part 2 takes place.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, many victims of phone hacking, harassment and press intrusion are relying on part 2 of Leveson to proceed and to provide answers to suspicions of corruption between the press and public officials, including the police. Many noble Lords will have received correspondence from the Hillsborough Family Support Group and from Jacqui Hames. Those letters are quite concerning and show the need for further understanding of what happened and what went wrong so that we can appreciate whether adequate measures are in place to ensure that that kind of activity does not happen again.
My family has an interest in part 2 being carried through, as promised by our previous Prime Minister. Dozens of other families and individuals have been affected and also want answers. It does seem fair that we have the inquiry. The misinformation by some newspapers leading up to the close of the consultation may indeed have led to a very large number of formulaic responses. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will have the wisdom and moral courage to stand up for what is right in this situation and to go through with part 2. I find it very difficult to believe that financial privilege is really the reason for the current caution in this matter. I support the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, when we last debated what is now Amendment 96 on Report in December, I pointed to its potentially significant financial implications. The House of Commons has disagreed with the amendment on the basis of financial privilege. Given the normal conventions of your Lordships’ House, I trust that noble Lords will not insist on it.
However, let me assure noble Lords that this is by no means the end of the matter. While, in the usual way, the House of Commons has cited financial privilege as the only reason for disagreeing with the amendment, it has never been our contention that this is the sole ground for our believing that the new clause should not be added to the Bill. The Government’s view remains that the amendment is premature in that it pre-empts the outcome of the review by Bishop James Jones into the experience of the Hillsborough families and the Government’s subsequent consideration of Bishop Jones’s findings.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others have argued that the issue goes wider than Hillsborough. We do not dispute that, but the experience of the Hillsborough families, which will include the issue of legal representation at the original and subsequent inquests, is highly relevant to the broader question and it is right therefore that we take Bishop Jones’s current review into account in deciding this question.
As noble Lords may have seen, the review’s terms of reference were published earlier today. They state:
“The Review and Report will cover the history of the Hillsborough families’ experiences throughout the whole period, ranging from the conduct of past police investigations, through their engagement with public authorities, to the current investigations”.
The report will therefore cover a wide range of issues, including, as I have said, the families’ experiences of the various legal proceedings. Bishop James Jones will present his final report to the Home Secretary, including any points of learning that he may choose to highlight for the Home Secretary’s consideration.
It is envisaged that Bishop Jones will complete his review and produce his report in the spring of this year. I can assure the House that the Government will then give very careful consideration to his conclusions and any points of learning contained in his report.
In the knowledge that this issue remains firmly on the Government’s agenda and that there will, I am sure, be opportunities to debate it further in the light of the report, I invite the House to agree to Motion B. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I accept that the Commons Speaker has also certified the Lords amendment on this issue of parity of funding as engaging financial privilege and that the Commons reason for disagreeing with the amendment is that it would involve a charge on public funds. I want nevertheless to raise one or two points with the Government in light of what the Minister has said.
During consideration of the amendment in the Commons last week, the Minister there referred to the report by Bishop James Jones and said:
“Our view remains that we should await the report, expected this spring, from Bishop James Jones on the experiences of the Hillsborough families. The Opposition have argued that this issue goes beyond Hillsborough. I do not dispute that, but the experiences of the Hillsborough families will have significant relevance for other families facing different tragic circumstances, and the issue of legal representation at inquests will undoubtedly be one aspect of those experiences. Bishop James’s report will provide learning that could be of general application, so it is entirely right that we do not now seek to pre-empt his review, but instead consider this issue in the light of his conclusions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/17; col. 249.]
Those words make it pretty clear that Bishop James Jones has not been asked to look at the general issue of representation and funding at inquests where the police are represented, which was the subject of the Lords amendment. He has been asked to look at the experiences of the Hillsborough families. The Minister in the Commons stated that the report would provide learning that could be of general application.
Will the Minister say quite clearly one way or the other whether the Government consider that the terms of reference which Bishop James Jones has been given require him also to look at the issue of representation and funding at inquests generally where the police are represented? Alternatively, if the Government consider the terms of reference to be ambiguous on this point, has Bishop James Jones now been asked by the Government to address in his review the issue of representation and funding for families generally and not confine himself to the experiences of the Hillsborough families? Bearing in mind the way the Government have used the existence of the Bishop James Jones review and the forthcoming report as an argument for not going down the road of the amendment that was passed in this House, which deals with the position at inquests generally, I think there will be some concern if, when the report comes out, it is clear that it relates only to the experiences of the Hillsborough families and that the issue of whether it should or could have wider implications for representation and funding for families at inquests generally has not been considered. I would be grateful for some very clear and specific answers from the Government to all the questions I have just asked.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I notice that in Amendment 134A the proposal is to increase the penalty from seven to 14 years for what is described as an offence,
“which consists of a racially or religiously aggravated offence under section 4 … of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997”.
Before we agree to this increase in the penalty, will the Minister enlighten us about what, particularly, a religiously motivated offence might be? Specifically—and I have asked this before in Written Questions and had unsatisfactory Answers from the Government—could such an offence be caused by a Christian preaching the supreme divinity of Christ and therefore denying the supremacy of Muhammad? Would various assembled Muslims be free to regard that as a religiously aggravated offence under this section?
Lord Rosser
I shall be very brief and say that, unlike, apparently, some noble Lords, we welcome the Commons Amendment.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, I shall make a clarification. Muslims accept all religions that preceded Islam and accept all the texts that preceded it. Therefore, there would be no likelihood of such an event occurring.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Brinton and associate those on our Benches with her remarks on Jill Saward. The Minister acknowledged in her remarks that there are legitimate concerns about the victims’ code, and that is why there was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment for a new victims’ law to ensure that the victims’ code is given effect. That is what my noble friend is trying to achieve through the amendment. We trust that the Government’s review will result in more effective protection for victims and more compliance by the police and the other agencies with the victims’ code. If the Minister can give that commitment, we will be prepared to accept the Government’s intention to ensure that the victims’ code is not simply a matter of words but will have some effect and that victims will be better cared for by those agencies in the criminal justice system.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we, too, support the objectives behind the amendment that was moved so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the reasons that she herself set out. We also associate ourselves with the comments made by the noble Baroness about Jill Saward.
The issue is that the current victims’ code is not legally enforceable and there is clear evidence that it is not being applied and acted on by the relevant agencies to the extent that was clearly intended—to the detriment of the victims it was intended to help. The amendment provides for victims’ rights to be placed on a statutory footing and for the Secretary of State to address the issue of training for all relevant professionals and agencies on the impact of crime on victims.
I share the view that the Government, in the statement made by the Minister today, have been considerably more helpful and constructive in their response than they were during consideration of the Lords amendment in the Commons last week.
Finally, I, too, express my thanks to the Minister for her willingness to meet us. I hope that we have reached a stage at which there will be some accord on this issue.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not think that there was a lack of accord. In fact the whole way through these discussions I felt that we were seeking the same ends; it was just a matter of how we got there. I add my tribute to that of the noble Baroness to Jill Saward. I read about her the other day, and what she went through was absolutely heart-breaking as well as devastating while her father and then fiancé were downstairs. How she gathered the strength to not only waive her right to anonymity but help so many other people is quite inspiring and not something that everybody would feel able to do.
Following discussions today, yesterday and previously, we have reached a consensus on this and I hope that the words that I read out have given noble Lords confidence as we move forward to publishing this strategy within the next 12 months. I thank all noble Lords for their part in this debate.
Pitchford Inquiry
Lord Rosser Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there is a strict code of ethics on how people’s photographs are held if somebody has not been convicted. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord further on the matter that he has raised.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government accept that it is possible that the findings of the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing could lead to revisions or amendments being needed to the recently passed Investigatory Powers Act?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I will not anticipate the outcome of the inquiry, or indeed the report that is due in the spring of next year. Nor will I therefore predetermine what might or might not be in terms of the IP Act.
Prevent Strategy
Lord Rosser Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly take the point made by the right reverend Prelate about religious illiteracy, which all sectors have to be very mindful of. I am happy to come and meet him and I pay tribute to the work of the Church on promoting integration in society.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, obviously we on this side also wish to express our shock and horror at the latest atrocities. As I understand it, in certain areas of the UK the number of far-right referrals now outnumbers cases involving Islamic extremism. Does this not suggest that the Prevent strategy has not been sufficiently focused on challenging far-right attitudes and that it has been caught napping by what is now happening?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that far-right cases are on the increase, but Prevent does not preclude tackling them. As he will know, because we debated this last week, we have for the first time proscribed a far-right organisation.
Policing and Crime Bill
Lord Rosser ExcerptsMonday 19th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 68KB) - (16 Dec 2016)
Lord Rosser
“(1A) Material published under sub-paragraph (1)(d) must include— (a) copies of each document provided by the commissioner;(b) copies of each representation made for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1);(c) a summary of the views expressed to the commissioner for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1);(d) the commissioner’s response to those representations and views;(e) the commissioner’s representation of why the benefits of a proposal under paragraph 1 cannot be achieved by other forms of collaboration.(1B) The consultation period must last for at least 56 days.(1C) Before the start of the consultation period the commissioner must—(a) produce a draft public proposal for the purposes of paragraph 1;(b) schedule public meetings with reasonable publicity;(c) invite written submissions.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 12 is in essence the same as our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report, which we withdrew in the light of the Minister’s response. In accordance with that response, I have since received a letter from the Minister that covers guidance on a PCC’s business case and consultation arrangements, and on the terms and conditions of fire personnel transferring to PCC fire and rescue authorities and to chief officers under the single-employer model.
My purpose in tabling this amendment at Third Reading is to ask the Minister to cover the content of her letter to me in her response today so that it is on the record in Hansard. The letter said that government Amendment 11 on Report meant that,
“the PCC would always be required to publish a response to their consultation, regardless of whether they have local agreement or not”,
and, crucially, that,
“the guidance will fully reflect the issues covered by your amendments 12 and 14”,
on Report, which are now reiterated in Amendment 12, which we are now discussing at Third Reading. The letter also said:
“Whilst this guidance will be owned and issued by APACE”—
the Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives—
“Home Office officials are part of an advisory group that has been set up to steer the development of the guidance and are working closely with the authors to ensure that it reflects Government’s expectations”.
In other words, the guidance reflecting the Government’s expectations will fully reflect issues covered by our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report, which are repeated now in Amendment 12, which we are now discussing at Third Reading.
If the Minister can place on record in Hansard the key parts of the letter that she sent me following Report, then from my perspective that would achieve the purpose of this amendment. In particular, confirmation of the points that I have just made, and which are referred to in the letter, about the guidance fully reflecting the issues covered by my Amendments 12 and 14 on Report, and the fact that the guidance will reflect the Government’s expectations, would be extremely helpful.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has dealt with the matter as he has and has sought to have the points put on record. I wonder whether, in replying, the Minister can confirm that in paragraph 3(d), the requirement on the commissioner to publish,
“in such manner as the commissioner thinks appropriate”,
is consistent with the description that the noble Lord has just given—and that, within statute, one cannot think something “appropriate” without it also being “reasonable”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained his amendment and the reasoning behind it. I am very happy to repeat the assurances that I laid out in my letter so that they now appear in Hansard.
I recognise the important principles behind the amendment and I agree that it is imperative that PCCs afford sufficient time during the consultation process to allow people properly to express their views and to provide sufficient material for them to form a proper opinion. However, it would not be appropriate to prescribe how PCCs should go about their consultation in the Bill; nor would it be appropriate for the Home Office to issue guidance on such matters. PCCs are locally accountable, and it would not be appropriate for Whitehall to dictate matters or fetter local flexibility.
I hope that the noble Lord would therefore agree with me that the points he has raised are properly a matter for guidance rather than for primary legislation—I think that was clear from what he said. As I set out on Report, the circumstances of each local consultation will be different, so we should not unduly fetter local flexibility to put in place proportionate arrangements that recognise the nature of each local business case. The amendment, while well intentioned, risks cutting across the local accountability of PCCs and risks Whitehall dictating matters that should rightly be left to local leaders.
In response to the noble Lord’s important concerns, I can, however, be very clear about the Government’s expectation that the PCC’s consultation will be undertaken in an appropriate manner and of an appropriate duration to allow local people to express their views and for the PCC to have taken them into account. There is plenty of case law relating to consultations of the kind that PCCs will be undertaking on their local business cases, and to discharge their formal statutory duty, PCCs will need to have regard to proper principles of consultation. We would expect PCCs to secure local legal advice prior to commencing a local consultation to ensure that their plans comply with the legal requirements set down by existing case law. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about consistency, I reiterate what I said privately: I think there is consistency.
To further strengthen the advice available to PCCs, we are also working with the Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives to ensure that its practice guidance on fire governance business cases covers the points that the noble Lord has listed in his amendment today and his previous Amendments 12 and 14. This includes comprehensive guidance on the duty to consult, the manner in which consultation should be carried out, its duration, and what arrangements PCCs should make to publish their response to the consultation.
The Government expect the guidance to address the matters to be covered in the PCC’s business case. By its nature, this must set out the PCC’s assessment of why he or she considers that it would either be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or in the interests of public safety, for a Section 4A order to be made. If the PCC’s proposal is based on the first limb of this test, it would follow that the business case needs to address why other forms of collaboration, outside of a governance transfer, cannot deliver the same benefits in terms of improved economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The guidance is currently being drafted by a working group that includes representations from fire and rescue authorities and the Local Government Association. The Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives is aiming to publish the first version in January 2017, shortly after Royal Assent. The document will continue to be updated to reflect the lessons learned from the first PCCs to develop and consult on their proposals. As it will be sector guidance, it will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure but, as I have just explained, it will be in line with the Government’s expectations. I commit also to sharing a copy of the guidance once it is finalised.
I hope that in light of these further assurances the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her reply. I take it from what she has said that the guidance will reflect the Government’s expectations, which are that the guidance will fully reflect the issues covered by our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report and our Amendment 12 at Third Reading. Will the Minister confirm that once again?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise for being slightly distracted by the last thing the noble Lord said, so could he repeat it?
Lord Rosser
I understand that the Minister confirmed, as stated in the letter that she sent to me, that the guidance will reflect the Government’s expectations and included in those expectations are that the guidance will fully reflect the issues covered by our Amendments 12 and 14 on Report and now repeated in Amendment 12, which we are discussing, at Third Reading. If the Minister will confirm that that is the correct interpretation, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I did just say, but perhaps not very clearly, that it will be both in line with the Government’s expectations and with the points made in the noble Lord’s Amendments 12 and 14—now Amendment 12. I am happy to reissue that reassurance.
While I am on my feet I wonder whether the noble Lord will indulge me because there is one aspect in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on reasonableness that I did not address. PCCs would be expected to act reasonably when determining how to consult locally on their proposal and we would expect them to have regard to relevant case law and to practise the guidance issued by the Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives. If there is a view that the PCC has acted unreasonably when determining what appropriate local arrangements should be, there would be an option to challenge the decision via the local consultation process or ultimately through legal challenge.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for repeating that reassurance. We have taken this matter as far as we can, and in light of her reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
The House agreed to Amendment 157 on Report on the parity of funding at inquests, which does not appear to be covered by the existing Long Title. Accordingly, this amendment is to cover Amendment 157, and comes within the Third Reading principal purposes as tidying up the Bill. I trust the Government will feel able to accept the amendment in the light of the decision of this House on Amendment 157 on Report.
My name is also attached to Amendment 16 in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, cannot be in the House today, but the House agreed to Amendments 188 to 193 on Report on support for victims and victims’ rights, which do not appear to be covered by the existing Long Title. Once again, this amendment to the Long Title is to cover Amendments 188 to 193 and comes within the Third Reading principal purposes as tidying up the Bill. I trust that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment in the light of the House’s decision on those amendments on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 15 is a tidying amendment to the Long Title and consequential to stalking offences. When I moved the amendment that was adopted by this House last week, I regret that I was not aware that it was encompassed by the Long Title, so I apologise for any inconvenience caused. I take this opportunity to say that I very much hope that the Prime Minister will look at this amendment. She has been terrific on violence against women and girls and, if she had a look at it personally, she might agree to accept it.
Lord Rosser
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In moving that the Bill do now pass, I shall not detain the House for long. I have felt the Bill to be a very constructive process, and in particular I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as well as the genius of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. If I ever need representation, I know where to go, as long as I have a lot of money! I particularly thank the officials, because they are not just from the Home Office; there are officials on the Bill from the Department for Transport, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministries of Justice and Defence and the Department of Health. Last but not least, I thank my noble friend Lady Chisholm, without whom I could not have got through the Bill in such a cheerful manner. She has kept me upright sometimes late into the night and has worked so seamlessly with me. It has been an absolute joy. I wish her well. I know that she is not retiring—she is just taking life a bit more sensibly—but I shall desperately miss her by my side in the next Bill that I do.
Lord Rosser
I shall be very brief, but I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for the courteous and open way in which they have listened to and sought to address, within government policy constraints, the issues raised during the passage of the Bill. I seem to have received a deluge of letters, for which I am genuinely very grateful, but it rather tests the statement that somebody, somewhere is waiting for a letter—that may no longer be the case in this instance. Actually, the number of letters that we have received in the light of the debates that have taken place is a reflection that the issues have been raised, considered and responded to, and I am very grateful for that. I thank the members of the Bill team for their help. I also thank all my noble friends, especially my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and other Members of this House who have contributed to the debates. We too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, a very successful time, presumably on the Back Benches, from where I am sure she will continue to make her views known.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baronesses—the Ministers—for the way in which they have conducted proceedings on the Bill, and the members of the Bill team for the help and co-operation that we have received from them. My next offer of thanks is rather controversial and probably not in accordance with protocol but I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, for the way in which we have discussed matters, which has helped the Bill’s passage
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016
Lord Rosser Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016
Lord Rosser Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
That this House regrets that the Government have laid the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 with insufficient explanatory material to allow the House to gain a clear understanding of the instrument’s policy objective or intended implementation; that they have not provided the House with key guidelines needed to direct how provisions are to be interpreted; and that there has been no prior consultation for a significant change in practice for courts and tribunals considering the restriction of freedom of movement. (SI 2016/1052) 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I want to go through in some detail what has led me to table the Motion and why I think an explanation from the Government is required. It relates to the findings in two reports: the 14th and 17th reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I am not sure that the Motion can be regarded as a surprise. To put it in context, the Home Office is something of a regular offender when it comes to getting on the wrong side of the committee. In its final report of the previous Session, it included a section on the annual work of the committee. Paragraph 36 stated that as a result of the number of deficient Explanatory Memoranda, a new ground for reporting an instrument had been introduced at the beginning of the 2014-15 Session:
“the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation”.
The paragraph concluded:
“There are, however, still far too many EMs that use obscure jargon or tell us what the instrument does without giving us sufficient context to judge whether the change is significant or appropriate. The Home Office, Defra, DWP and the Ministry of Justice have been particular offenders in this session”.
The Home Office provided two of the 13 instruments reported for inadequate information last Session: the statement of changes in immigration rules and the Asylum Support (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2015. The regulations which are the subject of my regret Motion are apparently one of only two instruments reported on the ground of insufficient information so far this year. I am advised by the Committee Office that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee does not report in this way to the House when there are just minor glitches. It is done only, as with these regulations, when the missing material is vital to a proper understanding of the policy.
So what are the issues raised by the committee? First, Schedule 1 sets out for the first time a non-exhaustive list of the “fundamental interests of society” which a court or tribunal must have regard to when considering restricting the right of EU citizens and their families to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states. The committee states:
“We are surprised that so significant a change should be implemented by a negative instrument, and also that it was undertaken without any prior consultation”.
Paragraph 8 of the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum, on consultation, asserts:
“The 2016 Regulations in large part consolidate and clarify the provisions under the 2006 Regulations, modernising the language used and simplifying terms where possible in line with current drafting practice. Therefore, no external consultation has been undertaken”.
That would be a convincing explanation of the need for no external consultation, but for the reality that what it says about the regulations is questionable, and clearly did not convince the Secondary Legislation Committee.
I move on to the other issues raised by the committee. In a letter to the Minister of State for Immigration at the Home Office, the chairman of the committee, on the committee’s behalf, stated that it had,
“significant concern about the open-ended character of some provisions in the Regulations and whether they could be interpreted consistently and objectively”.
In that context, the chairman referred specifically to,
“the decision as to whether the residence of a British citizen and another family member in an EEA state is ‘genuine’ (regulation 9); and ‘preventing social harm’ or ‘protecting public services’ under Schedule 1”.
Paragraph 9 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the Home Office will be issuing guidance. In his letter to the Minister, the chairman of the committee asked the Minister to,
“tell us how the guidance will support understanding of these and other similarly broad expressions contained in the Regulations”.
The chairman went on to say:
“We would also be grateful if you could send us a copy of the guidance with your response and confirm that it will be available to Parliament without delay so that it can be taken into account should these Regulations be debated”.
There was also a reference in the letter to the fact that, under subparagraph 7(h) of Schedule 1 to the regulations,
“numerous lesser offences can be aggregated”.
The committee chairman added that,
“we would welcome clarification about what sort of offences are intended and how many will qualify a person for removal”.
In his reply, the Minister, Robert Goodwill MP, referring to the use of the word “genuine”, said:
“Guidance will set out how caseworkers should approach the ‘genuine residence’ question and the other conditions of regulation 9. The guidance will be published on Gov.uk on 25 November when the changes to regulation 9 come into force. We will notify the Committee when it is available”.
On the references to the wording in Schedule 1, such as “preventing social harm” and “protecting public services”, the Minister said in his response:
“The Regulations need to be able to relate to a broad and varied array of circumstances in which an individual may pose a threat and so it is inevitable that some of the provisions are somewhat general in nature”.
Under the offences referred to under subparagraph 7(h) of Schedule 1, the Minister said:
“There is … no prescribed list of the offences that will fall under subparagraph 7(h) of Schedule 1, nor is there a threshold to the number of offences that must be committed in order to qualify a person for a decision to be made on the grounds of public policy or public security”.
The Minister went on to say:
“These Regulations will be accompanied by guidance to assist with the interpretation of the provisions. This will provide more detail on the sorts of circumstances which could be considered when making a decision on the grounds of public policy and public security. The guidance will be published on Gov.uk on 1 February when the provisions come into force. We will notify the Committee when it is available”.
Not surprisingly, the committee was unimpressed with the Minister’s response. It said in its 14th report, published on 17 November, that the Home Office guidance to accompany the regulations had not been available to it for its,
“initial scrutiny and nor was a draft”.
It referred to the fact that it had written to the Minister about this and that his reply,
“simply refers us to the guidance which, we note with disappointment, will not be published until the very day the legislation comes into effect”.
The committee went on to say in its report:
“We reiterate our strongly held view that if guidance is intended to direct users on how specific terms should be interpreted or how decisions should be made, it should be laid with the instrument and be available to Parliament throughout the scrutiny process. It would be even better if such definitions were clearly set out on the face of the instrument”.
The committee wrote again to the Minister, Mr Goodwill MP, on 16 November. In its 17th report, published on 8 December—that is, just a few days ago—it said:
“The Minister’s reply of 24 November was again unsatisfactory. He was invited to provide a fuller response which he did in a letter dated 5 December”.
That was the Minister’s third attempt at a letter. The committee continued:
“Although this second response goes some way towards addressing the points we originally raised, it fails to deal with the Committee’s core concern that such open definitions may be inconsistently applied in different parts of the country and result in injustice for individuals”.
The committee’s report goes on to say:
“This instrument exemplifies our more general concern that guidance is being used to supplement secondary legislation with material that should have been included in the legislation itself. In this case, the Home Office has told us that the relevant guidance will not be published until February 2017 when the legislation comes into effect. Our concern about the late availability of the guidance, which we expressed in our 14th Report, has since been aggravated by the publication by the Home Office of guidance in relation to determining the ‘genuineness’ of a marriage (which forms another part of the same instrument) which includes a number of redacted sections which are ‘for Home Office use only’. We question how the courts and individuals can assess their position correctly if a number of the determining factors are kept from them”.
I have a page from the guidance to which the committee is referring. It is page 35 of 44, published for Home Office staff on 25 November 2016. At the top of the page it says:
“Official—sensitive: start of section. The information on this page has been removed as it is for internal Home Office use only”.
Then, right at the foot of that page, the same text appears again. It is no wonder that the committee chose to draw attention to that state of affairs. The report goes on:
“The Minister’s letter of 5 December provides some information about the meaning of ‘protecting public services’ in that he says the expression ‘could be interpreted as benefit fraud or tax evasion, though these examples are not exhaustive’. He fails entirely, however, to address our concern that the term could also be interpreted in a number of less obvious ways, creating a problem for the courts and potential inequality among individual cases. It would, in our view, be more appropriate for such definitions to be fully set out in the Regulations; and, if not, then, as we said in our 14th Report, the relevant guidance should be laid with the Regulations and be available to Parliament throughout the scrutiny process. This is not a new concern, in relation to the Draft Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, for example, we said, when ‘guidance is so material to the House’s understanding of how the system will operate for individuals, rather than on a theoretical level … proper scrutiny is not possible if the guidance is not published’”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will certainly take that point back because, if the noble Baroness cannot find it, lesser mortals would really struggle.
In conclusion, the Government believe that the changes made in the 2016 regulations do not fundamentally change the legal position set out in the 2006 regulations and that the measures are proportionate. I hope with those words and with my explanation on the noble Lord’s questions, that he will feel free to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Rosser
I want to raise one or two points about what the Minister said. The response we have had from the Government is basically a repetition of what has been said in three letters from the same Minister, one of which I understand followed a meeting with the chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I find it rather puzzling that the Government or the Home Office do not think it rather odd that, if their case is so persuasive and that in effect there has been no real change at all, they have been unable to persuade the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of that fact. Why does the Minister think that is the case? Could it not be that the Home Office has got it wrong and that it has been making changes?
I noticed in her reply at one stage the Minister said, “We have made some changes”. Did the Home Office ever think that maybe it is wrong and that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is right? If we are at a stage where, after a report like this from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Minister in the department concerned is still prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box when challenged and say, in effect, the scrutiny committee has it wrong and we have it right, it makes you wonder what kind of esteem the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is held in by the Home Office.
I wonder whether the Home Office is seeking to make any arrangements to offer to meet the committee to talk through this issue of whether there have been significant changes or not, and whether the committee is justified in the really quite serious criticism that it has made. I have not heard anything from the Minister to suggest that the department is willing to offer to discuss this with the committee as a whole.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as a Member of your Lordships’ House, I believe that the scrutiny committees of both Houses should be taken equally seriously. I will take back the point made by the noble Lord about the Home Office engaging with the committee.
On the date of the guidance, I do not think that I can provide any further information at this point. On the length of the document, as I have said, the list would be quite exhaustive. However, I can provide the noble Lord with further detail in writing on all of these points in due course, if that is acceptable to him.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her reply and for being willing to respond to the points that I have raised by writing subsequently. I thank her too for her comments about the relationship between the Home Office and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Perhaps I may make it clear that I was not put up here by the committee to say that perhaps there might be a meeting or at least some method of talking things through, so I hope that I have not put my foot in it on behalf of the committee and that its members would welcome such a meeting, just as the Minister would.
Again, I thank the noble Baroness. I have attempted to put across the concerns of the committee, which I have to say that I agree with, and I am grateful to her for her response. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2016
Lord Rosser Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have one concern, which I did not expect to have until I read the Explanatory Memorandum. This is of course the second temporary order in respect of MPA, and the memorandum tells us:
“The Secretary of State has received a recommendation from the ACMD that an order should be made on the basis that this substance is a drug that is being misused”—
we have heard about that—
“and that the misuse is having harmful effects”.
However the Explanatory Memorandum goes on to report the ACMD’s,
“difficulty in finding any significant data relating to harms, seizures and prevalence”,
of MPA since the first order. Can the Minister comment on that? I do not of course advocate the use of any drug, but if the ACMD has not been able to show evidence of harm, is there a danger that by banning this drug we might be pushing people towards harm from another drug that is used instead of it, rather than protecting them from it? It seemed an interesting pairing of comments, if you like, in the Explanatory Memorandum. Since we are talking about temporary orders, and the first temporary order has not apparently provided the opportunity to do what we would have expected it to do, it would be helpful to have a comment on that on record.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose of the order, which we support. As has been said, it replaces the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 3) Order 2015. That order provided for temporary controls on the drug methiopropamine, known as MPA, which made it an offence to produce, import, export, supply or offer to supply it. The 2015 order expired after 12 months. This order replaces that 2015 order and continues the controls for another 12 months.
As has been said, the Secretary of State has the power to make a temporary class drug order as long as two conditions are met: first, that the drug is not yet classified as a class A, B or C drug, and, secondly, that the Secretary of State has consulted with or received recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and has determined that the drug in question is being or is likely be misused, has harmful effects and should be subject to controls.
MPA is a psychoactive substance similar to methamphetamine. Controls were placed on MPA at the recommendation of the ACMD. The ACMD’s assessment was that MPA was dangerous and had side-effects including anxiety, panic attacks and difficulty breathing, and had apparently been implicated in 22 deaths between 2012 and 2015. The ACMD also reported that MPA had become an injecting drug of choice. Following 12 months of temporary controls, however, the ACMD has reported anecdotal evidence that usage has declined. Police Scotland has reported reduced instances of injection, and the ACMD has pointed out a number of other reasons for believing that its use may be in decline, to which the Minister has already referred and which I do not intend to repeat.
The ACMD has also reported that currently there is insufficient evidence on harms, seizures and prevalence of MPA for it to make a permanent recommendation. That is why it has recommended that the drug, in all its variations, be subject to another 12 months of temporary control to allow it to gather and consider more evidence before it makes a substantive recommendation.
I hardly imagine that the point I wish to make is one that the Minister will be able to answer, but I will raise it nevertheless. We support the order, as I say, but we do not appear to have been provided by the ACMD with any reason why it believes, since sufficient evidence has not come to light in the first 12 months of an order, that sufficient evidence is likely to come to light in the next 12, which this order would cover. I merely put that point to the Minister but I imagine that, quite justifiably, she will say that that is something for the ACMD to comment on. Still, it seems a slight weakness in the letter from the ACMD to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, which contains its recommendation, that it remains rather silent on why it believes that that evidence may become available in the next 12 months, bearing in mind that it has not been available in the 12 months to date.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for their comments, wisely asking why the ACMD thinks it can gather evidence in the next 12 months when it could not in the previous 12. In fact it has had only six months to gather evidence. I have gone through some of the harms, side-effects and problems as well as the results of the temporary order in Scotland. The evidence of the harms, to bolster the ACMD advice, will be available shortly, but the reality is that it has had only six months to gather the evidence, which is why it is asking for a further 12.
On the noble Baroness’s point about displacement activity, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 should deter displacement to other drugs. With those explanations, I beg to move.
Immigration: International Students
Lord Rosser Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right to bring up exit checks. The Home Office continues to analyse and assess the element of the exit check data which has been in place since April last year in relation to specific cohorts, in order to understand the extent to which the estimates provided are statistically robust. That level of detail is not yet available but the noble Lord is right to raise this issue.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We do not believe that international students should be included in the Government’s target to reduce migration to tens of thousands. Given that many people may think that over, say, a five-year period the number of international students coming to study in the UK would roughly match the number of such students departing the country in accordance with the terms of their visa, thus having little impact on the net migration figure over that period, can the Government tell us—I fear the answer will be no—the number of international students who came to study in the UK last year? Based on previous experience, how many of those students are likely to overstay their visa, or any authorised extension to stay, and remain in this country after the date by which they should have left? One would assume that the Government know the answer to that question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think that that was several questions. However, the National Audit Office reported that in 2009-10, up to 50,000 international students may have come to work, not study, and, before our changes, international student visa extensions were running at more than 100,000 a year, with some serial students renewing their leave repeatedly for many years.