Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Taverne Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, I believe this Bill is one of the most inhumane Bills yet put forward by the Government. I will discuss the attitude of the Home Secretary towards people seeking asylum.

Even before she was responsible for them, this country treated people seeking asylum worse than most other western democracies. In the United Kingdom, people seeking asylum cannot work for the first 12 months and are forced to rely on state support of little more than £5 a day. The right to apply for work is much less restricted in most European countries, Canada, Australia and the United States. Several allow them to work and earn a living.

Under the Bill at present, the position of people seeking asylum in Britain and how they are treated will become even worse. In a New Year video message posted on social media this week, the Home Secretary spoke of a so-called legal merry-go-round of spurious asylum claims. I stress the word “spurious”. In effect, she accuses those who seek asylum of doing so under false pretences—in fact, fraud—yet the official figures show that most asylum claims are accepted either at first instance or on appeal. She also said that 70% of individuals on small boats crossing the Channel are single men who are effectively economic migrants and not genuine asylum seekers—the boat people are also frauds. Again, no evidence has been produced that these asylum claims are illegitimate. Analysis by the Refugee Council shows that more than 90% came from 10 countries where human rights abuses and persecution are common. They include Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and Yemen. In recent times, a majority of these claimants have eventually been recognised as refugees who need international protection.

That is not all—apart from the fact that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees believes that the Bill breaches international law. Others seeking refuge will now become criminals: under Clause 39, someone who knowingly enters the UK without the necessary entry clearance will face a possible four-year prison sentence. Who are these supposed fraudsters and criminals? They are people fleeing torture and persecution who have made desperate, traumatic journeys to come to the United Kingdom, many to join relatives. In fact, this is no longer open to them as a legal route. Some are unaccompanied children.

To describe these people as “fraudsters” and make some of them criminals is unbelievable—indeed, it is unspeakable. It shows that the Home Secretary has not an ounce of compassion in her character. Indeed, for other reasons she should no longer be a Minister; she should have been dismissed from office when the Prime Minister’s then adviser on the Ministerial Code ruled that her bullying behaviour at work had breached the code. She survived because she is a loyal supporter of the Prime Minister, who simply ruled that she was not in breach.

I was fortunate that my first ministerial post was as a junior Minister to Roy Jenkins, probably the greatest reforming Home Secretary of all time. I never thought that I would one day see the worst Home Secretary ever kept in her post by someone who is likely to go down as the worst Prime Minister in our history.

Cycling

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for raising this question, because this House does not seem to like cyclists. Some noble Lords hate cyclists and seem to object to their very existence. Every time the subject is raised at Question Time, some Peer will almost explode at their experience of the terrible behaviour of some cyclist that they have witnessed. Others complain about special separated cycle lanes blocking the road at the expense of space for cars, and generally about the inconvenience they cause to those invariably well-behaved, law-abiding, environment-enhancing motorists.

I remember at one Question Time, when the Question was on safety after another young woman had been crushed to death by a heavy lorry, the majority of follow-up questions were complaints about cyclists talking on their mobiles. Of course there are cyclists who are rude and who break traffic laws. Their behaviour is to be deplored. But do car drivers never behave rudely, break traffic laws and talk on their mobiles? At least cyclists do not kill people.

My wife and I gave up our car in 1974. We could do so because we live in central London. It was a liberation: no worry about finding a parking place or about drinking if you go out to dinner—as long as you do not get drunk so you are not safe on a bike. There was no more sitting exasperated in traffic jams, or arriving late or even missing meetings because you could not find a taxi. By bike you can get where you want to be on time and you do not suffer the annoyance of discovering someone has dented or scratched your car.

Cycling, even in London, enhances life’s pleasures. You can look around you as you travel about wonderful London. Fellow cyclists, even policemen, talk to you at traffic lights. Beautiful days make it a pleasure to be out in the open. On rainy days you are snug in your rain gear while cars are snarled up in traffic jams and public transport is unpleasantly overcrowded. It helps to keep you fit, and, not least, we improve the environment: we reduce congestion and air pollution. So, for very good reasons, our family motto is, “Two wheels good, four wheels bad”.

Safety? My wife and I have each had one relatively minor accident in more than 40 years. A comparison on an actuarial basis done some 10 years ago showed that for every life-year lost through accidents, 20 are gained through improved health. Since then, the ratio will have improved because the more, the merrier, as the noble Lord said: the more people cycle, the more the proportion killed or injured falls. Increasing the number of cyclists is probably the best thing we can do to improve safety. So, nationally, let us disregard the perverse view common in this House and follow the example set by the Danes and the Dutch: we have a lot to learn from them.

Immigration Bill

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with and admire the excellent speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and many other critics of the Bill.

I will restrict myself to three concerns. One is deportation before an appeal is heard. It is an appalling denial of justice that an appeal that may make the difference between life and death, which in Britain would have perhaps a 50/50 chance of success, may be conducted when the appellant is thousands of miles away from the legal advisers familiar with the details of his or her case. In the debate on the Bill in the other place, Wes Streeting MP gave the following example of a case in his constituency:

“One of the many cases my office is dealing with at the moment is that of a Sri Lankan Tamil whose application has been refused and who bears the mental and physical scars of torture. His application is now on appeal. If the Home Secretary’s proposals had been in place, he would already have been returned to Sri Lanka, where, given the human rights situation there, his life would potentially be at risk”.—[Official Report Commons, 13/10/15; col. 212.]

I am rather doubtful about the safeguards that are sometimes mentioned by the spokesmen on behalf of the Government.

My second concern is the position in which some whose asylum appeal is refused are left. I have recently been involved, through the Refugee Council, in a case of a young Afghan who was an unaccompanied child refugee from Afghanistan at the age of seven. He was well looked after at first, and did well enough at school to be offered a place at a college of further education. However, when he was 17 and a half he had to apply for asylum, which was refused. It must be very difficult for someone who was seven years old when they became a refugee to prove that they would be persecuted. For four years, while his status was uncertain, he lived in fear of deportation back to Afghanistan, where he knew no one and had no prospects of a job; indeed, he was no longer familiar with speaking an Afghan language.

Deportation is not often carried out, but Channel 4 showed a memorable film of a young man in a similar plight who was deported and taken away from loving foster parents, ending up as a drug addict living under a bridge in Kabul. My reasons for concern are increased by the fact that the Government seem to take the view that Afghanistan is now safe, which is not a view shared by former ambassadors.

While his status was uncertain, my young Afghan lived without means of earning a living and dependent on support from friends until finally he was given permanent leave to remain. People seeking asylum do not have permission to work in the UK and thus are forced to rely on support provided by the Home Office. This consists of accommodation given on a no-choice basis and just £5.28 a day to cover food, clothing, toiletries, travel, communication and all other necessities.

Even under the current system many refused asylum seekers in the UK do not currently qualify for the limited Home Office support or have to wait for long periods to access this support. Others are sometimes erroneously denied support that they may be entitled to. While they wait, they are destitute, forced to rely on whatever ad hoc support is available to them from friends, charities and faith-based groups. I am told that the British Red Cross has supported thousands of asylum seekers and their dependants in this situation in the United Kingdom so far this year.

My third concern, which I shall refer to very briefly, is the extraordinary proposal to make illegal employment a crime not only for the employer but for the employee. What illegal employee will dare to reveal the condition of near slavery in which he or she is employed if they fear that they will be prosecuted or will lose whatever meagre earnings they may have saved? Control of illegal employment will be infinitely more difficult.

This is another in a series of ineffective immigration Bills. It tinkers with the system and leaves large areas of uncertainty and denial of justice. As an SNP Member in the other place observed, it is a case of,

“if at first you don’t succeed, legislate and legislate again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/15; col. 220.]

Cyclists

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend raises a very important point about statistics. I will write to him on the first two issues. I think we acknowledge that the number of cyclists injured on the roads is increasing, but when we compare 2008 to 2014, the number of deaths on the road has not significantly increased. For example, 104 cyclist deaths were reported in 2008 and 113 in 2014, which is an increase of four on 2013 figures. Nevertheless, it is 113 deaths too many and we need to eradicate this problem.

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will provide the figures that he says he will provide and make them available in the Library, although the serious injuries caused by cyclists must pale into insignificance when compared to those caused by motorists. Does he not agree that everything possible must be done by the Government to encourage and support cycling, as was splendidly shown recently with the opening of the cycling superhighway route in London? After all, bicycles are the most efficient machine yet invented for turning energy into motion. Indeed, the bicycle has been accurately described as a kind of green car, which can run on tap water and tea cakes and, moreover, has a built-in gym.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises the benefits of cycling, about which I agree with him. I am sure he recognises that the Government have committed more than £100 million between now and 2021 in improving investment in both walking, for example through walking paths, and cycling. I have already alluded to the schemes that the Government are supporting, such as Bikeability.

Immigration Bill

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, a great deal has already been said that I was planning to say, and all I plan to do now is add a few details. At the very start of the debate, many hours ago, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said that there had been concern about immigration before and that this was nothing new. I do not entirely agree. At the moment there is a very ugly mood of xenophobia in Britain, much stronger than anything that existed before. The Daily Mail, the Daily Express, UKIP and even some Conservative Back-Benchers have created a picture of immigration that poisons the discussion of a very serious subject. It is a picture of a huge wave of immigrants who come to Britain to take our jobs, thus increasing unemployment and depressing wages, to abuse our National Health Service and to take advantage of our social services—in a word, to scrounge on our welfare state. It is now suggested that millions of Bulgarians and Romanians are coming to invade us. It is a mood that says, “We want our country back” and “Keep out the foreigners”. It is a very dangerous mood because it is coupled with a total rejection and mistrust of all politics: illustrated by Russell Brand and, “We shouldn’t vote”, “They’re all the same” and “They’re all in it for themselves”. It is a very dangerous mood indeed.

It could worsen because at the moment it is foreigners who are the objective. This mood is behind the strong rise in support for UKIP. At the moment, it is foreigners who they single out, but there could be others soon. It could in time be different races or ethnic minorities. It could be Jews. It has happened before in the history of other countries.

As my noble friend Lady Hamwee and many other noble Lords pointed out, there is a need for leadership. The European Commission has complained that there are Ministers who seldom provide that leadership. A lot of the speeches and rhetoric about immigration are based on myth. This is certainly part of the perception abroad. The Government lead the way, but there are some voices in government who seem to pour fuel on the flames. One of the examples given by my noble friend Lord Teverson and others was the appalling, terrible bus advertisement. That was fortunately withdrawn. It suggested that there is a far greater problem with illegal immigrants than there is—we do not know exactly how big it is—and the whole tenor was thoroughly nasty and anti-immigrant.

Recently, the Prime Minister shelved the report on migrants commissioned by the Home Secretary. It was supposed to be an answer to the Commission’s complaints about the way that the topic is being dealt with in this country. The Commission has said that there is concern in many countries, but nowhere is the debate so full of distortion. It seems that the report was completed by the Home Office at the request of the Home Secretary, but it has been shelved. Why? What on earth is the reason? Is it perhaps because its answers did not stand up? If it is suppressed, it will add to the suspicion that there is more than just a whiff of xenophobia in the Home Office itself. There have been too many cases of officials in the border agency being condemned because of their treatment of people due for deportation and their insensitive and unjustified refusals of applications by asylum seekers. My noble friend Lady Barker referred to the kind of questions asked of gay asylum seekers from Uganda fleeing from the persecution there. There is a very nasty whiff of xenophobia as well as anti-gay prejudice.

As many noble Lords have said, this Bill should ease worries about immigration, but instead it may well increase the chance of injustice being suffered by immigrants. It will need very careful scrutiny and serious amendment. One of my sadnesses, which is shared with my noble friend Lord Teverson, is about Labour attitudes. In the other place, during the passage of the Bill, it seemed that the Labour Party was interested only in making restrictions on immigrants tighter. It was not so much concerned about the libertarian issues at stake.

The other subject that has come up, which has been very eloquently explored, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, is the question of students. I am rather mystified about the position of students because I now understand that there are separate statistics about students and non-students but that we cannot exclude students from the official immigration figures because of some international objection. What about the Americans, the Australians or the New Zealanders? What happens in their case? Why have they been able to say that they exclude students from the immigration statistics? It makes a huge difference, not only because the way we have approached the question of students has led to the extraordinary situation that the numbers are marginally declining. It is an appalling situation and most unexpected.

Everybody has now said how important students are to this country. It is not only the billions—lots of different figures in billions have been given—that they bring to the Exchequer but that they add enormously to the attraction of our universities by their presence. When they return home, as most of them do, which is why they are swelling the immigration figures, they are ambassadors for the services this country has to offer, and if they stay they are enormously important not only to the health service but to industry which needs the skills which are in short supply. My first question is: what about these immigration figures? Why is it that we cannot follow the example of America, Australia and New Zealand? It seems an obvious example to follow. Secondly, is there going to be some way, as some noble Lords have suggested, in which we can exclude students from this Bill because that would be a wonderful achievement?

Finally, I want to say something about appeals. It has been said that the reforms will clog up the immigration tribunals because of all the cases of judicial review. Clause 4 substitutes for 17 previous grounds of appeal against decisions such as refusal of leave to enter or to remain or decisions to deport only three grounds: refusal of a protection claim or a human rights claim or a decision to revoke a person’s protection status. An immigration expert I know tells me that the effect of these changes will be that many will now rely on human rights grounds of appeal, which will make for many more complicated cases and will swamp the work of tribunals, so two factors may swamp them: the increase in judicial reviews and human rights cases. If grounds of appeal are constricted and so many of the appeals succeed, officials will have even less incentive to be circumspect because they will know that their judgment is absolute and final and cannot be challenged.

It is clear from the many points made in this debate that this Bill needs the kind of scrutiny which it did not get in the other place. It needs serious scrutiny and serious reform, and I hope there will be success in substantially amending this Bill.

EU: Free Movement of Labour

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can certainly reassure the noble Lord on his latter question. As regards our negotiations with the EU, although we support the principle of free movement we continue to give high priority to preventing the abuse of free-movement rights. The Home Secretary has repeatedly raised questions about free-movement abuse at European level and, as I said, we are getting increasing support for our position from other member states, including Germany.

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister argues eloquently for the completion of the single market and for its extension to services, which would greatly benefit this country, but is there not a transparent inconsistency, and is it not obviously counterproductive, to seek at the same time to modify the free movement of labour, which is one of the pillars of a single market?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I accept that the noble Lord is quite right in saying that free movement was one of the founding principles of the European Union, and we in this Government support it. Although the vast majority of individuals coming to the UK reside here lawfully and make a positive contribution to our society, a small minority abuse these rights by either becoming a burden on their local communities or turning to crime.

Drugs

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. The debate was not necessarily promising because of the five-minute time limit for such an important and complex subject. In fact, however, the contributions have been invaluable, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and also with the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Manzoor.

There is one area on which nearly everyone is agreed: we should transfer the primary leadership on this issue from the Home Office to the Department of Health. It should be treated as a medical rather than criminal problem. There was also, not total agreement, but a majority of recommendations that possession of drugs should not be treated as a crime. Some 42,000 people a year are sentenced for drug offences, and 12,000 are given jail sentences for drug possession. There is no evidence whatever that this deters drug abuse. Indeed, it discourages going for treatment because, as many speakers have pointed out, of the stigma involved in such a conviction. The last thing that those who are addicted want to do is to acquire a criminal record, which would have all sorts of disadvantages. Nor is there any evidence that longer sentences help. There has been a gradual drift towards longer sentences for all drug offences, and there is no evidence that this has helped at all.

Apart from the bodies that have been referred to, a recent report was issued by the UK Drug Policy Commission, which is headed by Dame Ruth Runciman. It is an expert commission and a very important report, but the Government do not seem to have commented on it. The Government’s approach to evidence-based policy has often shown considerable shortcomings. Take, for example, the classification of drugs, to which many noble Lords have referred. The way the Home Office has neglected evidence is appalling. There is no particular evidence that the present classification is any good, but it is absurd to classify cannabis together with drugs such as heroin, cocaine and crack.

That is not the only unsatisfactory aspect. Several noble Lords have referred to the dangers of addiction to prescribed drugs. A number of bodies have warned about the excessive reliance in treatment on methadone tablets, which can easily be sold on the illicit drug market and can often lead to a relapse in people who have been trying to come off the drug. However, when they find that they can sell what has been officially prescribed, and that the methadone is easily sold, that is an incentive to relapse from treatment. As many noble Lords have pointed out, buprenorphine is a better alternative, especially when it is combined with naloxone. It is in common use in other countries, but has been neglected in this country.

All these contributions come to one conclusion, which is that the Misuse of Drugs Act is now 40 years old, the drug scene has changed dramatically since 1971, and it is high time that it was fundamentally re-examined.

Alcohol: Minimum Pricing

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Taverne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the number of alcohol-related deaths among women in their 30s and 40s, whether they will reconsider their policy on alcohol unit pricing.

[Lord Taverne]

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 a trustee of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs.

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

My Lords, last week the Government published their response to the recent consultation on the alcohol strategy. This sets out our next steps for reducing alcohol-related harm. These include banning the sale of alcohol below the level of duty plus VAT and tightening up restrictions on irresponsible promotions. Minimum unit pricing will not be taken forward at present but it will remain a policy under consideration.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, alcohol has been shown to be much the most harmful of all the addictive drugs if one takes into account its social as well as its physical impact. As the latest figures show, the physical impact is becoming more serious and it seems likely that liver disease will soon overtake heart disease as the biggest killer. In 2008, the Government’s own research department showed that increasing the price of alcohol led to a steep decline in alcohol consumption and was a most effective way of dealing with it, and lots of other research confirms that. Why, then, have the Government changed their mind? They announced their intention to increase alcohol pricing and it was widely welcomed. Why do they ignore the evidence on this urgent issue when there is scientific evidence showing that action would save lives, reduce hospital admissions and reduce crime?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the Government are not ignoring the evidence; in fact a study published recently by Sheffield University is very interesting in this subject area. That is why the Government have introduced the whole business of duty plus VAT—so that, for example, low-alcohol beer cannot be sold below 40p a can and strong lager below £1.15. This has been a long-standing problem which Governments of all types have not been prepared to deal with. This Government have a strategy now to deal with it and I hope that it has the support of the House.

EU: Police and Criminal Justice Measures

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I, too, would have voted for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, if the Motion had remained in its original form. Now it is one which I can support because it commits the Government to opting in as their official policy to the measures which matter most. However, the history of where we have got to needs to be borne in mind because it is a reason for exercising a certain amount of caution. When the negotiations started between Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander, the Government—at least the Conservatives—were absolutely clear that certain red lines existed, including the European arrest warrant and more jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice. There was strong opposition from Open Europe and, naturally, from the UKIP tendency inside the Conservative Party, but there was also opposition from leading figures in the Conservatives such as Dominic Raab, who kept on explaining that you did not need Brussels at all and that you could organise a whole lot of separate bilateral negotiations. Fresh Start said that it would not opt back into anything. However, matters have changed and we are now in a position whereby, on the face of it, the Government are committed to serious opt-back-ins.

However, the House of Commons debate was not exactly reassuring. In particular, the speech by the Home Secretary was in my view pretty disgraceful, reiterating the claim that this was the first step in the major repatriation of powers because 100 measures would be left opted out of. It was in fact one of the ablest of the Europhobes, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, who completely exploded that idea by asking which were the important measures that we were no longer going to opt back into. In addition, the whole tone of the Home Secretary’s speech was one of trying to appease the Europhobes. She assured them that they did not have to worry too much because they always had the right to vote against the opt-ins when they came to Parliament again.

I want an assurance from the Government, which I believe the Minister will give, having talked to him on this issue very recently. We need an absolute assurance that the Government will not yield one further inch towards the Europhobes. It is not a happy history. The Prime Minister had made a number of pro-European remarks but when the going has got tough he has always given in. That is why he bought peace with the promise of a referendum in 2017, which is a ridiculous commitment because by 2017 we will not yet know what sort of Europe—which is in a state of flux—we will either have to stay in or leave. Therefore we need an assurance that there will be no further surrender and that there will be a strong Whip in the House of Commons and not be endless speeches that would delay the whole procedure—because every single opt-in measure will be challenged by the Europhobes, who will not give up their opposition.

If the Government stand firm, I think this is a good result. I am not as worried as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, about a legal challenge. Having looked at this, I do not think that there are grounds for a legal challenge. However, the tactic of judicial review could be used to try to delay a decision. I am more worried about that than about the merits of a challenge. If the Government stick to it, this will be a good result. It will be the first defeat for the UKIP tendency and for UKIP and I hope that there will be many more. I hope that in the 2014 elections all the parties—or at least those that support these opt-in measures—will expose UKIP’s position as that of a party which is soft on crime and does not want measures that can deal with people traffickers, money launderers, porn merchants and all the rest. We should seize that opportunity provided that the Government stick firmly to what they have now promised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I speak as a member of the sub-committee of the European Union Committee and as one who participated in the inquiry that resulted in the 13th report. I do not speak on behalf of the committee.

It is perhaps desirable not to proceed with undue haste in making a decision on this matter. No decision is required until May 2014. The Government are arguing that they need the additional time for negotiations, but it might be wise to contemplate the fact that, as other noble Lords have said, some of the consequences of the opt-out, if matters proceed as indicated, may be less than favourable for the United Kingdom. If the decision is made, on 1 December 2014 the Court of Justice and the European Commission will have no powers in respect of these matters over the UK, but the pre-Lisbon measures will remain in effect in the other member states. If the decision was made, then until—or perhaps unless—we rejoined we would have no access to a number of processes and facilities that expedite the fight against crime and terrorism.

We would cease to have access, as has been said, to the European arrest warrant. We would cease to have access to Europol, led by Rob Wainwright, who has been described by the Home Secretary as doing a very good job as director. We would lose access to the EU judicial co-operation unit, which costs just £360,000 a year and provides centralised facilities for liaison in The Hague. Instead, we would have to have bilateral arrangements with the judiciary in each member state. We would lose our capacity to be involved in joint investigation teams. The Government told the committee’s inquiry into the EU internal security strategy that they considered these joint investigation teams to be a valuable tool, and the Government supported the Commission’s plan to expand their use.

I could go on and on describing the benefits that we would lose if the Government were to opt out, or even to fail to opt back in within a limited period. The Home Secretary said that the Government are acting on the grounds of principle, policy and pragmatism in making this decision. The EU Committee took extensive evidence, as noble Lords have said, from a wide range of witnesses in the course of the inquiry. Overall, the response was one of massive concern about damage to the UK’s interests. I refer the House to paragraph 157 of the 13th report, which states:

“The Lord Advocate told us that he would have ‘real concerns’ if the UK were to opt out of the EAW and the DPP told us that to do so would result in a poorer deal for victims of crime. ACPO … emphasised the significant percentage of EU nationals from other Member States that were arrested in London each year and suggested that it would be more difficult to return them to their Member State of origin”.

It also suggested that,

“withdrawing from the EAW would be a mistake and could jeopardise justice and public safety … the President of Eurojust told us that it would make it harder for the UK to tackle cross-border crime”.

JUSTICE and Justice Across Borders stated that,

“criminals would exploit any differences that arose between any different extradition arrangements … and others suggested that it could result in the UK becoming a ‘bolt-hole’ or ‘safe haven’ for criminals … organised crime or terrorism”.

The report concludes that the European arrest warrant is the single most important pre-Lisbon measure and that it is inevitable that the extradition process would become more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.

No system is perfect. International co-operation on criminal justice measures will always require amendment to make them work as well as possible. Even the criticisms that have been made of the European arrest warrant relate mainly not to the warrant itself but to the consequences of people being sent to certain countries in terms of long periods of pre-trial detention et cetera.

Withdrawing from protocols or exercising the opt-out will not enable us to have any influence to improve matters in that respect. In his review of the operation of the European arrest warrant in 2011, Sir Scott Baker concluded that it had improved the scheme of surrender between member states and that broadly it operates reasonably well. He made recommendations and the Government committed to work with the Commission and other member states to improve the situation.

At a time when we are fighting international terrorism with all its devastating consequences for individuals, national economies and the general global situation; at a time when international organised crime is growing rapidly and when levels of people trafficking, smuggling and white collar crime represent a significant threat, there can be no logic in withdrawing from existing arrangements that work in the interests of the UK, even if we hope to rejoin on our terms—something which may not be available to us.

In all the evidence we took as a committee, very few witnesses drew our attention to any specific measures that they considered to be detrimental. The committee concluded:

“We therefore consider that there are compelling reasons of national interest for the United Kingdom to remain full participants in most of the measures … As to the remainder we have identified no persuasive reason for the United Kingdom to withdraw from them”.

We need an extradition process. We need to continue to have access to Europol and Interpol—as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, says—and other national and international intelligence-handling operations so that we can become aware of suspected threats of crime or terrorism, and so that we can act accordingly. We need the benefits of joint investigations with all their logistical support mechanisms. We need to be able to take advantage of these measures. The Government of course recognise this and state that they will opt back in. However, it will not necessarily be as simple as that. As the committee stated in paragraph 223 of its report:

“While in our discussion with the Commission we found no inclination on their part to obstruct or make the process of opting back in difficult, seeking to rejoin particular measures would not necessarily be automatic or straightforward. Either the Commission, or where appropriate, the Council, may seek to impose conditions on such requests”.

The Home Secretary, in evidence to the Committee, accepted that the Commission may make it a requirement that the UK rejoin or opt into a particular measure to preserve the coherence of the totality of the policing and criminal justice measures. The Commission made clear in its evidence that it considers coherence to be a matter of paramount importance.

All this is happening in the context of debate about the current European arrangements and our membership of the European Union. Other noble Lords have spoken quite passionately about that on occasion.

For Northern Ireland and for the UK as a whole, the issue of continued involvement in these measures is critical. There is still a terrorist threat from republicanism in Ireland, north and south. There is also a threat from international terrorism. Today, according to the Government, the situation is that in mainland Britain an international terrorist attack is a strong possibility, and in Northern Ireland a terrorism-related attack is possible but not likely. In Northern Ireland, an international terrorist attack is a strong possibility and a Northern Ireland-related attack is highly likely.

It may be that the Government are relying on the interests of other member states in our participation in these arrangements to force Commission acceptance without undue conditions on the UK’s request to opt back in. I have heard and seen extensive concern being expressed both internationally and within the EU about what the UK is doing and its potential damage not just to our country but to other countries’ interests. However, while the Commission will make the majority of the decisions, the Commission of course comprises commissioners from member states who are required by virtue of their position to act in the interests of the European Union rather than in their national interests. Notwithstanding that, it would be unwise to anticipate that the Commission will simply accede to requests for re-admission. It is surely necessary to ensure that our anti-terrorist, crime prevention and detection operations are as strong as possible.

The biggest number of European arrest warrants to the UK over the period from 2009 to 2011 were from Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain. In Ireland and Spain there are a significant number of terrorist incidents.

[Lord Taverne]

Five minutes.

[Baroness O'Loan]

If noble Lords will just bear with me, I am nearly done. Of all surrenders to the United Kingdom, 70% were from those three countries. I am not scaremongering in drawing these matters to your Lordships’ attention. I have lived with terrorism for 36 years. I have worked in many countries seeking to make good the damage from it. The evidence that the committee on which I was privileged to serve received was both compelling and overwhelming. Let the Government take more time to respond and to contemplate the consequences of the proposal. It is never wise to act when one does not have a full understanding of the possible consequences of such action. We do not yet know the consequences of what the Government are now proposing.

EU: Justice and Home Affairs

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, my main concern so far is on the block opt-out. I could never see any real justification for this, and my feelings were strongly confirmed by the report of the House of Lords committee. Therefore, I thought I would look at the way in which the Government have approached the pre-2013 opt-outs and opt-ins and the ones now up for consideration. Like other speakers, I very much welcome the report as the proposals appear to be extremely pragmatic and the relevant cases are judged on their merits.

I wish to cite a few examples on which I have concerns. The proposal at page 14 of the report for a directive on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation is welcome in principle. However, the Government very sensibly say that they want to see how it works out and will participate fully in the negotiations to enable the proposal to be better progressed. That seems to me a very sensible, practical proposal, and I am surprised that that attitude was not taken on the European arrest warrant, the merits of which appear to be extremely plain. The obvious way in which to influence these proceedings is to take part in the negotiations and see how they can be improved.

I have questions about the proposals on page 17 of the report regarding the internal security fund. The Government have not reached a final decision on this matter and state in the report:

“We need to be absolutely sure that the value benefits or cost savings we will secure from the Programme outweighs the cost of participation”.

It is obviously desirable that we should participate, so what are the costs involved? Are they really substantial or are they fairly unimportant in this context?

A further regulation,

“establishes a single Justice funding programme which combines three previous programmes”.

That is very sensible, but the Government raise the question of value for money. What sums are involved?

Finally, I have some questions as regards,

“the need to harmonise the offence of money laundering at EU level”,

mentioned on page 33 of the report. Again, it seems to me that it would be extremely sensible for the Government to look at this further.

It seems to me ludicrous not to support the proposal to combine Europol and CEPOL. It is obviously sensible to rationalise in this case, but it depends on our final decisions on Europol and the training college. It seems that the Government’s attitude has changed during the course of the negotiations between the coalition partners whereby a much more pragmatic mood has been created, but it would be absurd if we were not to remain members of Europol. We have the president of Europol and the college here in Britain, which brings in a considerable income. Obviously, the proposals depend on us remaining part of Europol.

I am pleasantly surprised by the pragmatic spirit in which these questions have been proposed. All the matters up for decision in 2013 seem, in principle, to be welcome, and I hope that we will continue to judge them entirely on their merits. I end by saying that I hope that this new mood of pragmatism, a mood that has always been there in particular areas, will prevail and that in the end we will find that we are full, participating partners in co-operation on criminal justice and crime in Europe.