Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2014

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 4 November 2013 be approved.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 31 March

Motion agreed.

Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Conditions) Order 2014

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the draft order laid before the House on 9 April be approved.

Relevant documents: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 26th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, the order makes provision for the introduction of a mandatory licensing condition banning the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty plus VAT. Some noble Lords will notice that the substance of this order has been debated previously, as the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2014. After some debate, the order did receive the approval of the House. Unfortunately, the process necessary for formal approval of the order did not take place, so we must give the order our consideration again.

The Policing and Crime Act 2009 amended the Licensing Act 2003 to confer a power on the Secretary of State to specify further mandatory licensing conditions relating to the sale and supply of alcohol. New Sections 19A and 73B of the Licensing Act allow for such conditions where the Home Secretary considers it appropriate for the promotion of licensing objectives. The order will apply to all licensed premises in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland are subject to different legislation.

The Government are committed to reducing alcohol-related harms. We have taken a decision to ban the sale of alcohol below the permitted price—that is, the cost of duty and VAT. This fulfils a commitment in the coalition agreement. It will ensure that the worst cases of cheap alcohol are banned from sale. The ban will prevent anyone selling alcohol at heavily discounted prices. A can—that is, 440 millilitres—of average-strength lager will now cost no less than 40p, and a standard bottle of 70 centilitres of vodka no less than £8.89. The ban aims to reduce excessive alcohol consumption and its associated impact on alcohol-related crime and health harms.

It is estimated that overall alcohol consumption will fall by 10.5 million units in the first year alone, resulting in 900 fewer crimes and 100 fewer hospital admissions. After 10 years, there will be 500 fewer hospital admissions and 14 lives will be saved each year. It is vital that we reduce alcohol-related harm, which is estimated to cost society £21 billion per year, with £11 billion of this being alcohol-related crime. In nearly half of all violent incidents the victim believed the perpetrator to be under the influence of alcohol. The most common type of anti-social behaviour experienced or witnessed—by one in 10 people—was drink-related. This measure will ensure that we take a step towards a much needed reduction in the £21 billion bill that this country faces as a result of alcohol.

In the previous debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, raised concerns regarding the evidence upon which we based the policy. I reiterate that the benefits of this policy have been assessed using the University of Sheffield’s School of Health and Related Research model. This is accepted as the best model available for estimating the benefits of this policy. I hope that the noble Baroness found helpful my correspondence following the debate setting out the modelling in more detail. More detailed information on the modelling used by the University of Sheffield can be found at annexe 3 of the impact assessment, which was published alongside the order.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is not in his place this evening, raised during the previous debate a question on minimum unit pricing and its effects in Canada. As I noted then, the context of sale in Canada is quite different from that in England and Wales. I hope that my noble friend found my subsequent response outlining the studies helpful.

The modelling from the University of Sheffield estimates that this policy is worth £3.6 million a year in crime reduction benefits in England alone. This figure was laid before Parliament in the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum. The health benefits have also been considered and again laid before Parliament. The Explanatory Memorandum notes an estimated benefit to the public sector in England alone of £1.15 million per year on average over the first 10 years. The impact assessment estimates the wider health benefits to society, as well as the public sector, to be £5.3 million per year.

While the reduction in average consumption is modest, this policy will impact the most on hazardous and harmful drinkers. We know that there is a direct link between the price of alcohol and the quantity consumed by the heaviest drinkers, who tend to favour the cheapest alcohol. We also know that hazardous and harmful drinkers generate the biggest costs for alcohol-related crime. What this policy seeks to achieve is 900 fewer crimes in the first year alone, with a reduction in hospital admissions from 100 in year 1 to 500 in year 10. Two consultations have been held on the Licensing Act and alcohol strategy, in 2010 and 2012-13. Following the results of the consultations, banning the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty plus VAT was considered to be the most pragmatic way with which to tackle the worst examples of cheap alcohol.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with the Government that the introduction of the ban is an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act 2003. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful again to the Minister for his explanation, and I admire his ability to keep going today, as this is the fifth debate in which he has taken part. I do not intend to repeat the comments I made previously when this matter was debated. He will recall—he alluded to this—that I challenged the Government on the robustness of the evidence he provided for the policy and its impact. Indeed, I used the 32nd and 35th reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I concurred with its conclusion that the effect of this policy, as outlined in the order, “appears to be negligible”. As I recall from the debate, he said that the level of reduction in alcohol consumption would be 10.5 million units in the first year. When the matter was considered further by the committee, it said that that was equivalent to one large glass of wine a year per individual. That does not have quite the same impact as saying 10.5 million units. There was no robust evidence to show that those who most needed to reduce their alcohol intake would do so under this policy.

The Minister alluded to the letter that he wrote to me following the debate. I admit that I had not expected this order to come before us again. Had it done so with no changes, my comments would be very brief, but there are significant changes and new evidence to which he did not refer today. It might be helpful if I did so. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 40th report drew attention to those changes. I share the committee’s disappointment that neither the Explanatory Memorandum nor the impact assessment was revised on being re-presented to your Lordships’ House in light of the strong and justified criticisms highlighted in the previous debate. It would have been helpful if those had been taken into account before re-presenting the Explanatory Memorandum and impact assessment to your Lordships’ House.

I will raise two issues on which I seek the Minister’s comments. In terms of new evidence, consideration of the Budget is important in assessing the impact of this policy. As was evident from the previous debate, there would be a marginal impact, which has failed to convince the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the costs to industry, which would be significant in implementing the permitted pricing policy, could be justified. The impacts would be low and marginal—one large glass of wine a year. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association claimed that the Budget would save the industry £175 million in additional duty payments. That, in turn, would bring down the permitted price at which alcohol would be sold. If the Minister is relying on a higher permitted price to reduce alcohol consumption, he perhaps ought to talk to the Chancellor, who has ensured that the permitted price will be reduced by the reduction and freezing of duty on alcohol.

Other evidence from the Cardiff University study was presented in the committee’s report. I do not know if the noble Lord has had an opportunity to read it, but it makes interesting reading around the reasons for a significant fall in violent crime. The study was unconvinced that alcohol pricing is the most significant factor. There was a 12% reduction in injuries from violent incidents in 2003 and, for the fifth consecutive year, the NHS has recorded a decrease in injuries from violence. This issue has to be looked at again, given the large implementation costs and the impact on the industry. What added value will this policy change brought forward by the order produce for the NHS and policing if you also take into account the economic and social factors, and the policing initiatives that have led to the fall in violent crime? What additional change will this order bring about?

Finally, the impact assessment suggests that doubling the level of alcohol excise duty will reduce alcohol-related mortality by an average of 35%, traffic-crash deaths by 11%, sexually transmitted diseases by 6%, violence by 2% and crime by 1.4%. Although the impact assessment does not specify the timeframe, it says that that would be the impact. That would be pretty impressive but it is not what this policy seeks to do. It is based only on maintaining the current level of excise duty, but the Chancellor reduced it in the Budget. Can we take it that we should now seek an increase following the reduction in excise duty?

We all want the harms from excess alcohol, to which the noble Lord referred in his comments on domestic violence, reduced. However, I have serious concerns.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

There is a coalition Government and it is pretty hard to be optimistic. It is not about minimum alcohol pricing; that would be a completely different debate. The Government have ruled it in, then ruled it out—it will happen, it will not happen. This is about a different issue altogether. I am questioning whether the measures taken and the wonderful responses and results they are supposed to give really measure up. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee does not think so, and neither do I.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Tyler. We have had situations today where the measures are agreed in principle but then the Government’s reasoning is challenged. This is another case in which the Opposition are not quite sure where to be on this issue.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The Minister is right. It is the Opposition’s job to challenge the Government not just on policy but on implementation. In accusing the Opposition of being negative I remind him that this policy was looked at by a cross-party group of esteemed Members of your Lordships’ House on a Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. If I am negative and pessimistic, so are they.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Baroness is quite within her constitutional rights to be critical of the Government. If the Opposition welcome a change, which I am sure they do, it would be rather nice if they said so. After all, this policy will deal with a particular class of drinker that I think the noble Baroness and I agree is a problem. We are talking about hazardous and dangerous drinkers, the very people who are attracted by the offer of cheap alcohol, as existed in the past. This measure is designed particularly with them in mind. We know that savings to the National Health Service alone are £5.3 million and the costs related to crime are £3.6 million. We welcome the general trend of a drop in violence, and alcohol is only one factor in a number of measures being taken to deal with violence—just as price is only one factor to deal with alcohol abuse. It does not invalidate its use.

The noble Baroness asked about the Budget and whether we should have changed the figures in the light of the Budget. I emphasise that it is a targeted measure, as alcohol harms. It will stop the worst instances of deep discounting which result in alcohol being sold cheaply and harmfully. The whole point of the order is to ban the worst cases of cheap alcohol sales, but other actions that help local areas to identify and tackle alcohol-related issues are all part and parcel of the coalition’s commitment to dealing with alcohol abuse. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise the purpose of bringing forward this order and welcome it. With that in mind I ask that the order be approved.

Motion agreed.

Immigration

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to remove international students from the headline immigration figures.

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

My Lords, the Government publish immigration statistics broken down by category. The number of student immigrants may therefore be easily distinguished from other migrants. The independent Office for National Statistics’ net migration statistics include students, and the Government have no plans to remove them. This makes no difference to the policy, which is that there is no cap and genuine international students are welcome.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, the message must be clear to international students: we want you and we welcome you. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the Government are doing everything to ensure that, when it comes to global higher education, the brightest and the best choose Britain?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that the whole House will agree with those sentiments. It is certainly the Government’s policy, and I hope that it will be possible to persuade universities and Universities UK to take this opportunity to improve our position as the second provider of higher education to the world student population. This is a great opportunity for us, and we need to be united in sending that message.

[Lord Bragg (Lab)]

My Lords, do the Government fully understand the damage that is being done? I speak as chancellor of the University of Leeds. I refer not only to the damage in fees, which is well over £1 million or £1.5 million—a lot to any university—but to the fact that we are excluding more than 23% of people from China and India. Does the Minister understand the value of those contacts, their value to our future negotiations, prosperity and culture and the lessening of value of our academic status in the world by this policy?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord will know that there is no cap on numbers. We welcome the brightest and the best, and I wish that noble Lords would take that on board and persuade those universities where they have responsibility that this is the Government’s policy. If I may say to the noble Lord, visa applications from students sponsored by universities increased by 7% in 2013, and applications from students going to Russell group universities rose by 11%. That is not an industry that is suffering as a result of government policy; it is an industry that is taking advantage of government policy to show what a good offer we have for students.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government’s wish to make it clear that overseas students are extremely welcome. However, I have two questions for the Minister. First, why do we need to continue to include international students in our overall immigration figures when Canada, Australia, the United States and our other major rivals see no need to do that given that these are not migrants but visitors who will return home? Secondly, what is the effect of a reduction in overseas students on our crucial STEM courses—that is, courses on science, technology, engineering and computing—as many of those courses are at risk if they do not retain, and increase, the present proportion of overseas students?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I must correct my noble friend on a matter of fact in that all our major competitors, including the US and Australia, count students as migrants. I hope I may explain why that is the case. In 2013, 115,000 people who came to the UK as students extended their stay—70,000 or so, or 62%, for further study and 38,000 for work. The Tier 4 system offers flexibility to allow these high-value individuals to extend their visa. However, not to include them as immigrants is against the practice in other competitor countries and is against our interests in making sure that we know who is here, why they are here and what they are doing when they are here.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is not a problem of statistics or the presentation of statistics? I entirely agree with his very welcome statement of the Government’s intentions but will he add just a few words—that in future the Government do not intend to treat students as immigrants for public policy purposes?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have to make it clear that we treat them as immigrants for statistical purposes. The point of my argument is that students come here not just for six months or so but to pursue a course of study and, following that course of study, they go on to do other things. We delude ourselves if we think this is an alternative track that we can separate out from migration in general. The point I have made is that it makes no difference to our policy position, which is that the brightest and best should come here. I did not answer my noble friend’s question on STEM. Of course, STEM subjects are important. That is why STEM students from China went up by 7%, those from Malaysia by 1% and those from Hong Kong by 20% between 2011 and 2013. We are at one on this and I wish that noble Lords would accept the Government’s good faith in that regard.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House with regard to a major problem that we all experienced in the House of Commons for many years of students signing up to study at not very reputable places and then disappearing? Is that problem over?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, my Lords. As my noble friend will know, institutions which were guilty of that practice are no longer able to sponsor students. I accept that universities are acting in good faith in conducting their responsibilities in this regard. All I am saying is that the Government’s position is that we want to back them in making sure that we tell the world what a good offer we have in this country for students.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Is not the problem that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is actively trying to make sure that many students come here but the Home Office is doing its best to make sure that they do not get in? This has been exemplified by the warm words said by the Minister today, which are simply not believed in many of the places that traditionally have sent students here. What is he going to do to go on the front foot and get out there and persuade people that Britain is indeed open for business and that our education system is something that they should be joining?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not think that the noble Lord would have any doubts as to my good faith in this matter, and I am sure that that is true of most noble Lords because it is not the first time that we have discussed this issue. Indeed, it has been a theme over the past 12 months since the committee reported to the House. I am anxious to join noble Lords who have responsibility within universities in making it clear that the Home Office policy is not about making it difficult for these people to be here; it is about facilitating their studies and encouraging them to do so. As the noble Lord will know, during the passage of the Immigration Bill through this House we debated this very issue and I said that I hoped to meet Universities UK to talk about it, and that remains my intention.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the draft order laid before the House on 31 October 2013 be approved.

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 31 March.

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

My Lords, the Government seek to control khat as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to protect the public from the potential harms associated with this drug and the threat posed from its international trafficking.

Through the second draft order laid by the Ministry of Justice, the Government are seeking to extend the use of penalty notices for disorder—PNDs—to the offence of simple possession of khat, when it is the second time that the offence has been committed. By a negative instrument, the financial penalty for the khat PND will be set at £60. On the first occasion that an offence has been committed, a person is likely to be issued with a non-statutory “khat warning”. Anyone caught possessing khat for the third time or more will face arrest. This reflects the policing strategy for khat possession cases agreed with the national policing lead for drugs. Both draft orders were considered in Grand Committee on 31 March. The House will be aware that both draft orders have been approved in the House of Commons. I commend the two orders to the House.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rea (Lab)]

My Lords, of course, in focusing on a topic such as this, almost everything that could be said has been. My noble friend already included four reasons in her amendment for not going ahead with the reclassification of khat. All four reasons were covered fairly fully by other speakers. There are a number of other cogent reasons why the Government should not go ahead with this proposal. Of course, a lot of them have been spoken to by other speakers as well.

Some of those reasons were stated very clearly in the report of the ACMD—which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, described fully. That was sent to the Home Secretary in January last year and, after that, the Home Affairs Committee reported on this in November. I am not aware that the effects of khat have changed much since those reports were published. The ACMD says that khat has no causal link to adverse medical effects other than a small number of reports of an association between khat use and significant liver toxicity, which were not of sufficient importance to recommend controlling the substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned that it was an association, not a proven causal link. However, the report from the ACMD also had—as the noble Baroness said—a number of very useful recommendations to health and social care boards regarding khat that central and local government would do well to study and implement.

The main argument put forward by the Home Office for banning khat is that otherwise the UK might become a hub for its distribution—as mentioned by both the preceding speakers. However, if that were likely to happen it would already be occurring, whereas in fact the use of khat in this country—and I assume the importation of khat to this country, too—is falling. I repeat the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: can the Minister give us any figures about the use and importation of khat in this country? Is there any evidence of the smuggling of khat out of this country to Europe? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, that is very difficult because it must be done within two or three days or khat is more or less unsalable.

The most important reason for not going ahead with this order is—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said—the unintended consequences that will follow. Just to start with, the use of khat will probably not come down any faster than it already is. Banning substances that are widely used has little effect on the level of use. This is a fact that Governments—not only this one—are rather reluctant to accept. Another serious consequence would be—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said—to criminalise a section of an already poor and marginalised community: the Somalis in Britain and, to a lesser extent, some Kenyan immigrants and Yemenis. Perhaps the most important consequence might be the substitution of khat by more powerful alternatives, as already mentioned, including alcohol and other stimulants such as crack cocaine and forms of speed—amphetamines—or mephedrone. I join with other noble Lords and Baronesses in pleading with the Minister to reconsider the proposal to go ahead with this order for the very good reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, put so cogently.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I welcome this further opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, which allows me to focus, in particular, on the activities to support the successful implementation of the ban on khat. That has lain at the heart of concerns raised by noble Lords, which I take seriously. I am reassured that the points raised in today’s debate are nearly all matters that were taken into account in the early stages of our decision-making when we considered our response to the issues associated with this drug.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked what new figures we had on this drug. The new evidence, including reports from law enforcement agencies, emerged after the ACMD published its report and the Dutch banned khat in January 2013. It pointed to an increase in the volume of khat in transit via the UK to European countries where it is banned. The latest update for the first three months of this year shows that 17 seizures of khat—with a combined net weight of over 11.5 tonnes—originating in the UK were made in France en route to other countries where it is banned, including Denmark, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. This is evidence that this country is becoming a substantial hub for this material.

Before I address the particular concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The Minister has given helpful figures, but can he give comparative figures on how the situation has changed over time? The premise is that if seizures of illegal imports are up, they must be up against another figure. I made this point in Committee; we had figures but not comparative ones.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not have those figures to hand. I think the noble Baroness will understand that, if this material is arriving here to be distributed to other countries, as I have illustrated, it confirms the view that this country is serving as a distribution hub in a way that would not have happened before those countries banned its use. That is the point which the Government have had to consider. The noble Baroness came to see us and we had a good and useful meeting, talking about issues that concern her. I will address these but I would like to consider the points made by other speakers first.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee wanted to know what the Somali network’s report had to say. An important aspect of this is that, according to testimony given by community leaders and mothers, several areas of a person’s life can be affected by khat use. Disagreements and frustration over drug use can cause family arguments and affect personal relationships; legal and health problems associated with khat use add to the strain on personal, financial and work relationships; and chewers of khat tend to be more inward looking rather than reaching out to others, fuelling further segregation. In other words, it can be anti-social in its impact.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rang me this morning to advise me that she wanted some assurances on this issue. I cannot give her the assurances that she is seeking but I can, at least, explain the Government’s thinking. She asked what the ACMD thought of our decision to control khat. The ACMD acknowledged the lack of robust evidence on whether khat caused medical or social harm. It understood that the scope of issues that the Government will take into account to make a decision on drug control would go beyond the remit of the committee itself. Before the decision was publicly announced, the Government discussed it with the chairman of ACMD, who accepted that we came to a different view on this occasion, based on consideration of the wider issues beyond those that were the immediate responsibility of ACMD.

The noble Baroness asked about temporary bans. They form part of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 but they are very different. Temporary class drug orders were introduced as a swift legislative tool to tackle the fast-paced emergence in the UK of psychoactive substances or so-called “legal highs”. I have debated these with the noble Baroness on other occasions. In essence, they are used where there is an urgent or significant threat to public safety or health. There is often very little evidence of the harm these drugs do, for the simple reason that they have been available only for a matter of months, if not weeks. Under a temporary class drug order, the advisory council has just 20 working days to advise and only looks at medical harms. Temporary bans are the exception, not the rule, and only last for 12 months. Khat is not a new drug where such swift, temporary action is demanded.

The role of advisors is to advise—

[Baroness Meacher]

Does the Minister accept that the whole point about khat is that the ACMD did look at the potential medical and social harms and concluded that they did not justify a ban? The supply-side issues, which Professor Iverson accepts may be slightly beyond the council’s remit, are separate. My point is that if you accept the ACMD’s conclusions that the medical and social harms are low and would not justify a ban—and it was very clear about that—the case for criminalising possession and use really is not there. Hence there is a value in something akin to a temporary class drug order: I was not suggesting that you literally translate it completely. Does the Minister accept that focusing simply on supply makes sense, in terms of the Home Secretary’s comments and the evidence available?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot accept that. When I spoke to the noble Baroness earlier, I said that I did not think I would be able to give her much comfort. We did not reject the ACMD’s report. As I explained, the ACMD is there to advise on particular aspects but, in the end, Ministers have to make decisions and be prepared to stand by them.

I turn to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. She has considerable concerns that we have not made proper efforts to prepare affected communities for this ban. I want to reassure her that we have done exactly that. We acknowledge that this is a finely balanced decision that needs careful and extensive preparation at national and local level. Our plans, which have been worked up over a couple of months, are in place and are ready to be rolled out once the draft order completes its parliamentary passage. We are waiting on a decision of the House to approve the order today.

I ask the House to note that, although we took a different view from the ACMD, we took on board its recommendations for locally led health and community-based interventions to meet local khat needs and for monitoring the situation in communities. I know that the noble Baroness would like to have a review after a year. We see it as a matter of continuous review and are specifying that a close eye will be kept on the impact of the ban. In this, we are going beyond the usual approach to the monitoring of newly controlled drugs, to ensure that locally and nationally collected data provide an evolving picture after the ban.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as on many other occasions, I am grateful to the Minister for the time and care he takes in responding to issues raised in debate. I hope he understands that the only contributions made in your Lordships’ House today have expressed concerns about the Government’s actions regarding the ban on this drug. Our concern is that, with a decision as finely balanced as the Minister said, how it is implemented is very important.

I was somewhat surprised at the uncharacteristically ungenerous comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She said we were looking for something to do. I find that a curious expression when we are looking at a very serious issue on a busy day in your Lordships’ House. These issues strike at the heart of how such a policy would be implemented. The noble Baroness said that she was unhappy with the amendment before us, but it is open to any Member of your Lordships’ House to table a regret Motion or any other kind of Motion.

We debated this issue in Grand Committee and today. Noble Lords will understand that there are grave concerns about the Government’s action. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us more information on policing. My greatest disappointment is on the issue of health. In a previous debate on drugs, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, responded, I said that the FRANK website is not really an answer in cases such as this because somebody has to be interested in order to access it in the first place. As the Government are seeking to ban this drug, they have to be very proactive.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sure the noble Baroness will admit that this is not the sole intervention that the Government are making but is part and parcel of a package of health and community activities that the Government have commissioned. Public Health England is and will be very active in pursing this ban.

Immigration Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 16 and 24, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 16A and 24A.

Lords Amendments 16 and 24

16: Before Clause 60, insert the following new Clause—
“Child trafficking guardians for all potential child victims of trafficking in human beings
(1) If a relevant child has arrived in the United Kingdom and is a potential victim of trafficking in human beings, an independent child trafficking guardian shall be appointed to represent the best interests of that child.
(2) The child trafficking guardian shall have the following responsibilities to— (a) advocate that all decisions relating to the child are made in the child’s best interest;
(b) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings in relation to those decisions;
(c) advocate for the child to receive appropriate care, safe accommodation, medical treatment, including psychological assistance, education, translation and interpretation services as required;
(d) assist the child to access legal and other representation where necessary, including, where appropriate, to appoint and instruct legal representatives on all matters relevant to the interests of the child;
(e) consult with, advise and keep the child informed of legal rights;
(f) keep the child informed of all relevant immigration, criminal, compensation, community care, public law or other proceedings;
(g) contribute to identification of a plan to safeguard and promote a durable solution for the child based on an individual assessment of that child’s best interests;
(h) provide a link between the child and various statutory and other bodies who may provide services to the child, accompanying the child to any relevant meetings;
(i) assist in establishing contact with the child’s family, where the child so wishes and it is in the child’s best interests;
(j) where appropriate liaise with an immigration officer handling the child’s case in conjunction with the child’s legal representative;
(k) accompany the child to all interviews with the police, the immigration authorities and care proceedings;
(l) accompany the child to any court proceedings; and
(m) accompany the child whenever the child moves to new accommodation.
(3) A child trafficking guardian must have completed the training required in subsection (7) and may be—
(a) an employee of a statutory body except for an employee of a local authority;
(b) an employee of a recognised charitable organisation; or
(c) a volunteer for a recognised charitable organisation.
(4) A person discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian shall not discharge any other statutory duties in relation to a child for whom they are providing assistance under this section.
(5) Where a child trafficking guardian is appointed under subsection (1), the authority of the child trafficking guardian in relation to the child shall be recognised by any relevant body.
(6) In subsection (5), a “relevant body” means a person or organisation— (a) which provides services to the child; or
(b) to which a child makes an application for services; or
(c) to which the child needs access in relation to being a victim of human trafficking; or
(d) any court or tribunal that a child engages with.
(7) The Secretary of State shall by order—
(a) set out the arrangements for the appointment of a child trafficking guardian immediately after a child is identified as a potential victim of trafficking in human beings;
(b) set out requirements for the training courses to be completed before a person may exercise functions as a child trafficking guardian;
(c) set out the arrangements for the supervision of persons discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian;
(d) set out the arrangements for the provision of support services for persons discharging duties as a child trafficking guardian; and
(e) designate organisations as a “recognised charitable organisation” for the purpose of this section.
(8) A person’s appointment as a child trafficking guardian for a particular child under this section shall come to an end if—
(a) the child reaches the age of 21; or
(b) the child leaves the United Kingdom.
(9) In this section, a child is considered to be a “potential victim of trafficking in human beings” when a referral has been made to a competent authority for a determination under the identification process required by Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention (Identification of Victims) and there has not been a conclusive determination that the individual is not such a victim.
(10) For the purposes of subsection (9), an individual will not be considered to have received a conclusive determination that the individual is not a victim of trafficking in human beings if—
(a) an individual is appealing or seeking judicial review of the conclusive determination; and
(b) the appeal or judicial review is not completed.
(11) In this section—
“competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Trafficking Convention;
“relevant child” means a person who is under the age of 18 and who— (a) requires leave to remain in the United Kingdom whether or not such leave has been granted; or
(b) is a national of an EEA state other than the United Kingdom; “the Trafficking Convention” means the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (done at Warsaw on 16 May 2005);
“trafficking in human beings” has the same meaning as in the Trafficking Convention.”

--- Later in debate ---

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 24 for the following Reason—
24A: Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

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

My Lords, I have no doubt that we all wholeheartedly agree across the Floor of the House and in Parliament generally that there is a fundamental need for victims of child trafficking to receive the very best support that we can possibly offer them. Noble Lords will be aware of this Government’s absolute commitment to stamping out modern slavery, including child trafficking, while building on the UK’s strong track record in supporting and protecting victims. It is because of this commitment that this Government have signalled their intent to bring forward legislation to tackle the scourge of modern slavery. We intend to bring it forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. In addition, we are driving forward a range of non-legislative measures to tackle modern slavery and ensure that victims are identified and supported both inside and outside the criminal justice process and that perpetrators of this abhorrent crime are brought to justice.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lord McColl, Mr Frank Field and others for their engagement with us outside the House on this issue. I am also grateful to the other members of the Pre-Legislative Scrutiny Committee for their hard work in scrutinising the draft modern slavery Bill. I agree with the committee’s aims to make life as difficult as possible for slave masters and traffickers and to transform the position of victims of slavery, including children.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, would the Minister like to add Anthony Steen to that esteemed list?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am very happy to mention Mr Steen, whose work has been exemplary on this issue. I willingly accede to my noble friend’s suggestion.

Noble Lords may or may not be aware that there have been a number of meetings to discuss this important issue over the past few weeks, involving not only myself but also the Home Secretary and our legal advisers. This reflects our determination to listen to concerns and to ensure that we are doing all that we can to deliver our common purpose, which is to ensure that we deliver the best support that we can for this particularly vulnerable group of children.

The cross-party engagement on this issue heartens me greatly and shows just how much we are pulling in the same direction to ensure that trafficked children—arguably some of the most vulnerable children in our society—obtain the protection and care that they so desperately need, whether they have been trafficked across or within our borders. The passion and fervour with which noble Lords have campaigned to achieve the goal of giving these children the care and support that they need and deserve is laudable and I hope that we have demonstrated in our conversations with the noble and learned Baroness and others outside the House and within the House of Commons that we wholeheartedly share the desire to do just that.

We are extremely grateful to all involved for working with us in the spirit of co-operation to find a workable solution that will bring the very best outcome for these children. I am pleased that we now have some consensus across Parliament about the best way forward on the important issue of ensuring the right protection and support for child victims of trafficking. By announcing in January the trial of independent specialist advocates for child trafficking victims, the Government sent the strongest signal of their commitment to take action on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for all his help and co-operation. He spotted three of us plotting in a corner of your Lordships’ House and, instead of avoiding us, he made a bee-line for us and was open and friendly. We are very grateful to him, especially on the about-to-be statutory basis of the role. In our amendment, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I were concerned to ensure that the role of advocate met with international best practice, as well as taking advice from charities that have practical experience in supporting trafficked children.

Finally, I thank the Government for listening to us, obstinate and difficult though we were on some occasions. We are grateful that it has turned out well. Thank you.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and useful debate. I deliberately did not mention the reasons for the Commons rejection when I made my introductory speech. It is for Erskine May rather than a humble Minister to determine these matters. I thought it was more important to present the arguments on the issue to the House. I am pleased that we have had a chance to reconsider this. These past few days have been very useful. I think noble Lords who have been involved will agree with that.

I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Howarth of Breckland, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lady Williams and Lord McColl for their contributions on these points. On the point made by my noble friend Lord McColl, we agree that these roles must have a statutory basis so that they have the respect and co-operation of all the various agencies that will engage with supporting the child. We will ensure that provisions in future legislation will deliver this. I will welcome the continued engagement of all noble Lords who have spoken on this issue. I doubt that noble Lords will be prepared to let this matter go on the back burner. I am sure that we will be under pressure and that I will be answering questions on a regular basis about how things are going.

Once we have a provider for the advocacy position in place, I will be happy to place in the Library the sort of detail that has been asked for today by noble Lords. I would like noble Lords to be informed of where we are on the issue. On the particular request for interested Members of the House to be able to visit trial sites, I will ask officials to discuss this request with the service provider and local authorities. I doubt very much whether a request of that nature would be refused.

We all agree that these children are incredibly vulnerable. As I have said, we cannot prejudge the outcome of the trials, although I am sure the Secretary of State will want to ensure that the learning from the independent evaluation is acted upon so that every child gets the most appropriate possible care.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked what would trigger the enabling power. The Secretary of State will want to ensure that the learning from the independent evaluation will influence the way in which the power will be exercised. There needs to be a connection between what we learn from the trials, the nature of the problem, the ability of the trials to address the problem and other aspects which become apparent to us during the course of the trials. Perhaps that answers the question asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about how it will be judged. It will be judged by a proper evaluation of the trial within the 23 areas in which it is taking place.

I think there is a general feeling that we know we have to make a success of this because it is a great opportunity to help these most vulnerable people. It is patently obvious to me that we share the desire to protect and support these vulnerable children. The disagreement is not about whether support and protection are required, but about how we legislate to provide it. The Government are totally committed to running the trials to ensure we have the very best insight into what these trials need.

My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby wanted to know about how the operation would be conducted in other areas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, asked how the funding would be dealt with. I do not have to say to the House that funding will clearly be an important issue to get right. If the resources are not available, the project will not be successful. We understand that. How the funding is actually found is an important element of what we will learn from the trials. There will, of course, be a certain amount of lead-in time for the organisation that will supply the service. I therefore confirm that because of the delay it will not now be possible to begin the trials by July. It is now intended that they begin by the end of September, and the Home Secretary will announce the provider shortly.

I thank noble Lords for their agreement that this Bill is not the place for the issue to be resolved, and for not insisting on the guardians amendment that we discussed on Report.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that it is not now envisaged that the trials will start before September, and of course I accept that. However, the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Baroness states that the report should be ready within a year of the dissolution of Parliament, before the next Parliament begins. Can the Minister confirm that there will be enough time for the pilots to be appraised before the report referred to in the amendment comes before Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes. I can also confirm that the way in which the enabling clause will be constructed will make it clear that there will be tabling of regulations designed to bring in the necessary power. There will also be a section that will ensure that the report is delivered so that we do not have to wait. Therefore, there will be an opportunity to discuss the report before the regulations are actually tabled. We have to make up for some lost time here. I am not saying that it was the will of the House that these matters were delayed but, as it turns out, we have delayed a process that I agree is quite time-sensitive. However, I think all noble Lords will agree that it is most important of all to make sure that our judgment is right on the issue and that when we introduce child advocates we do so in a proper fashion.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I apologise to my noble friend for interrupting. Given the shortage of time and the hope that we will bring in this pilot scheme as early as September, can the Minister give an assurance that the discussions that I referred to with the police and the border agency can take place before that, so that we are well set up to try to identify children who have been trafficked?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I will certainly recommend that that is the case. It seems essential that we make sure that we know how the trials fit in with people who, under existing arrangements, carry out responsibilities connected with this area. They are diverse, as my noble friend points out. The border agency, the police and local authorities are all involved in this area, and getting them to work in a proper and co-operative fashion to make a success of this project is essential.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today, inside and outside the Chamber. We are bound to return to this issue in detail as time goes by. In the mean time, I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, for the second time this afternoon, I apologise to the House, and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for trying to cut short any discussion—it has been extremely interesting and very constructive.

I will say two things about the Government. First, I am very glad that we got so far; that seems to me to be a real step forward. I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for the fact that the dreaded issue of finance being raised in the Commons did not frustrate us in having a really constructive discussion with which finance had absolutely nothing to do. The Government are therefore really to be congratulated for being prepared to talk to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and myself despite that issue having been raised in the other place. I am very grateful for that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18A and 18B.

Lords Amendment 18

18: Clause 60, page 47, line 29, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) A Committee of members of both Houses of Parliament shall be established to consider and report on whether section 40 of the British Nationality Act
1981 (deprivation of citizenship) should be amended to enable the Secretary of State to deprive a person of their citizenship if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person’s naturalisation, and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the islands, or any British Overseas Territory, even if to do so would have the effect of making the person stateless.
(2) The Committee shall consist of six members of the House of Lords nominated by the Chairman of Committees, and six members of the House of Commons nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons, to be appointed on the passing of this Act to serve for the duration of the present Parliament.
(3) Any casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation or incapacity of a member of the committee shall be filled by the nomination of a member by the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker of the House of Commons, as the case may be.
(4) The quorum of the committee shall be two members of each House and the committee shall be entitled to sit and to transact business whether Parliament be sitting or not, and notwithstanding a vacancy in the membership of the committee.
(5) Subject to the above provisions, the committee may regulate its own procedure.”
Commons Disagreement and Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 18 and propose Amendments 18A and 18B to the words so restored to the Bill—

18B: Page 48, line 2, at end insert—
“(3) After section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 insert—
“40B Review of power under section 40(4A)
(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for a review of the operation of the relevant deprivation power to be carried out in relation to each of the following periods—
(a) the initial one year period;
(b) each subsequent three year period.
(2) The “relevant deprivation power” is the power to make orders under section 40(2) to deprive persons of a citizenship status in the circumstances set out in section 40(4A).
(3) A review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the period to which the review relates.
(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out a review in relation to a particular period, the person must—
(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and
(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each report sent under subsection (4)(b).
(6) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the person who produced the report, exclude a part of the report from the copy laid before Parliament if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to national security for that part of the report to be made public.
(7) The Secretary of State may—
(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of a review, and
(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of a review (including arrangements for the provision of staff, other resources and facilities).
(8) In this section—
“initial one year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day when section 40(4A) comes into force;
“subsequent three year period” means a period of three years beginning with the first day after the most recent of—
(a) the initial one year period, or
(b) the most recent subsequent three year period.”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion B in my name: that this House do not insist on its Amendment 18 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 18A and 18B.

Now, we had some lively debates on this issue, particularly on Report. I listened with great care to the views expressed on all sides of the House. I responded as fully as I could to a great number of questions to ensure that the Government’s position was clear. Noble Lords have sought to replace the proposals originally in the Bill with a measure to appoint a committee of the House to look at the issues in detail. That approach has been rejected by the House of Commons.

Amendments 18A and 18B restore the clause to the Bill, but with some key changes that respond to the concerns that were raised in this House. This is a narrowly drawn provision, which is proportionate to the risk created by harmful individuals. It is compatible with our international obligations, and closes a loophole in our law that has been highlighted by the Supreme Court. Noble Lords were concerned that the Home Secretary should not be able to deprive an individual of their citizenship in circumstances under which they had no recourse to another nationality.

When I spoke in earlier debates, I was clear that in most cases we would expect those who were deprived to be able to acquire another nationality. Amendment 18A now provides for a position where the Home Secretary can deprive an individual of their British citizenship only when they already hold another nationality or when she reasonably believes that, under the laws of another country, they would be able to become a national of that country. That is a significant change. It means that, in cases where the Home Secretary does not reasonably believe that the person has a right in law, she will not be able to take deprivation action.

We recognise that this is not likely to be a straightforward decision as, of course, every country operates its own nationality law. As we have made clear through the debates in both Houses, the Home Secretary would reach a decision only after very careful consideration of the facts of an individual case. She will reach a decision based on whether she reasonably believes that the person has recourse to another nationality under the law of another country. In doing so, she will naturally have regard to practical and logistical matters related to that. If the person was at real risk of persecution from that country, that would also be relevant to whether they were able to acquire that nationality. However, in most cases, the basis of the Home Secretary’s decision will be the law of the other country. Although aspects of these cases are likely to turn on closed material that will not be disclosed in full to the individual, the question of whether a person is, under the law, able to acquire another nationality is unlikely to be secret.

It has been suggested in previous debates that the Home Secretary’s decision to deprive should not take effect until an individual has secured another nationality. That requirement would render this provision ineffective. Indeed, such a requirement is really a description of the law as it stands. We must keep in mind that these individuals have acted in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. We cannot compel them to take action to secure the nationality of another country, and it seems unlikely that they would lightly accede to a request to do so knowing that the consequence would be that we could then deprive them of British citizenship. Therefore, that cannot and must not be a barrier that prevents the Home Secretary taking action to remove their British citizenship where she reasonably believes that they are able to obtain another nationality, and we should not attempt to impose an arbitrary timescale within which that other nationality will be obtained.

Concern was also expressed previously that the power would be exercised in an arbitrary way. That will not be the case, as my next few comments will illustrate. The Home Secretary will certainly not take these decisions lightly. Ministers fully recognise that depriving a person of British citizenship is a serious step. That is why the threshold for use of the power is set at a high level and why decisions will be taken only after a great deal of research and careful consideration. This is not a speculative power: the Home Secretary must rely on the circumstances that apply at the time she makes her decision. She cannot simply assume that a person will be able to avail themselves of another nationality.

We have been clear that the power will be used in only a small number of cases. The existing power to deprive on non-conducive grounds has been used 27 times since 2006. Noble Lords will be aware that it is a long-standing practice of government not to disclose in public data that could damage national security or operational effectiveness, or which could cause individuals to be identified. That is why I cannot agree to requests to provide more detailed information to the House. Our position is based on clear advice from the agencies responsible for protecting our national security. I have, however, written to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to make clear that such information would be shared with the individual whom we propose should conduct periodic reviews of the power introduced under this clause, who would have the appropriate security clearances. I have also expressed willingness to provide a private and in-confidence briefing to the JCHR if such arrangements would be acceptable to the current chairman, Mr Hywel Francis.

Any individual who is deprived of their nationality has a right of appeal under Section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981. That appeal is to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal—or, more likely in these cases, which may rest in part on closed evidence, to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The court will consider whether the Home Secretary has exercised the power lawfully and therefore whether she had reasonable grounds to believe that the person in question would be able to acquire another nationality.

I turn to Amendment 18B, which reflects the position that I took on Report and responds to the request made by a number of noble Lords that there should be an independent review of the operation of the power. Our proposals provide for a review after the first 12 months following commencement and triennial reviews thereafter. This review cycle recognises that the power will be exercised in a small number of cases only, and a longer period of review will ensure that there is a better evidence base to consider. Reports of the reviews will be laid before Parliament.

Noble Lords previously noted that there would be sense in combining this review role with that of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I can only repeat what was said by the Immigration and Security Minister, Mr James Brokenshire, in another place, when he noted that the Home Secretary is certainly minded to discuss this role with David Anderson QC once the measure is on the statute book. She will want to consider with him whether this additional role can be accommodated without detriment to his existing responsibilities.

I am also aware that it has been noted that our amendment about an independent reviewer does not include the word “independent”. That is not a trick. The wording reflects that in analogous statutory provisions for reviews, perhaps most notably that of Section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which relates to reviews by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. In other words, the provision that created the post of independent reviewer of terrorism legislation does not use the word “independent”, either. I can assure noble Lords that the person who carries out these reviews under the Immigration Bill provisions will be independent.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, would restore to the Bill the measure that would provide for an appointment of a committee of the House to examine the Government’s proposals. The Government’s position remains that this would be an unnecessary and undesirable step. It is unnecessary, because our proposals have been given a proper degree of scrutiny by Members of both Houses of Parliament and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well as outside commentators. The Joint Committee has acknowledged that the proposals are consistent with our international obligations and, although we have heard other opinions expressed, those have not been supported by evidence of customary international activity that contests the Government’s position that we are acting in accordance with international law. The amendment is undesirable, because we are seeking this power to fill a gap in our law—one that has now been highlighted by the Supreme Court and one that individuals will attempt to exploit. That cannot be right, which is why we feel that we are right to insist on our amendment.

The government amendment is now very narrowly drawn—much more so than before—and is targeted at a small number of very harmful individuals. Your Lordships’ House has quite properly carefully scrutinised the Government’s proposals and asked the House of Commons to examine this issue again. It has now done so and clearly resolved both to reject Lords Amendment 18 and to agree the government amendments by a significant majority. Now that the elected House has reaffirmed its view on this matter, I urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, noble Lords will be glad to know that I will be as energetic as I can in editing my remarks to exclude questions which have already been asked. However, I retain some points and concerns on the amendments, including on the principle.

Questions have been asked about what is meant by being “able”, and also about the practicalities of the matter. The Minister in the Commons said: “I am sure that”, the Secretary of State,

“would … have to consider practical issues and the other surrounding circumstances … She will, therefore, wish to consider those other practical or logistical arrangements as part of her determination”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 193].

Can my noble friend give the House assurances as to how all that will actually be reflected in statute or, if not in statute, then in guidelines? I mention here the guidelines published by the UNHCR on statelessness, which specifically refer to the application of nationality laws in practice being,

“a mixed question of fact and law”.

On the right of appeal, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said that he trusts that there will be an assurance that the issues will be dealt with as open evidence. I add to that, while having the same hope, that if there are aspects which cannot be dealt with openly, will the provisions—I do not much like them, but they are what we have got—on gisting and special advocates apply? I have seen some doubt as to whether that would be the case.

On the amendment for review, I am glad that the Government have tabled this, as I did both in Committee and on Report. However, I stressed then the importance of independence. That term is missing from the Government’s amendment. Perhaps I can put it this way to my noble friend: can he confirm unequivocally that the review will not be in the hands of somebody who is within the Home Office?

Like others, I would welcome this being a matter for the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Concern has been expressed about resources, but whoever does the job is going to need the resources to do the job. I, too, have a question about why, after the first year, it should be triennial. If we are dealing with small numbers, then the job should be correspondingly small. I also ask the Minister to give us an assurance that the Government will support the reviewer undertaking more frequent reviews if he considers that they should be undertaken.

In debate, we have barely touched on the impact on communities of whom an individual in question is a member. I would support the appointment of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, because that postholder deals with people who are in rather connected situations where other measures might be applicable—and, indeed, might apply if deprivation is not to be used. It is clear that there is a danger that the use of the state’s powers, which focus on neutralising—if that is the word—the individual without considering the negative effect on the community, is an issue, as well as the specifics for the individual and their family. I am sure that the independent reviewer would focus on that as well.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been an extremely good debate: a serious one, on a very serious issue. We have been fortunate to be able to hear from a large and well qualified body of the Members of this House. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I will do my best to provide those assurances that have been sought by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in welcoming the Government’s move in tabling their amendments in the Commons, wanted assurances. I am most grateful to him for letting me have sight of the things he was concerned about so that I was able to address them. I can say the same of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who did not raise all the issues she had intended to because they had been raised by other noble Lords. However, I think that that most noble Lords have a similar need for reassurance, and I am well aware of the responsibility to provide that assurance to Members of the House.

Perhaps most important is the whole question of the meaning of “reasonable grounds to believe” and whether those reasonable grounds of belief are appropriate for determining the ability of a person to acquire another nationality. The Home Secretary’s decision must be “reasonable” based on the evidence available to her on the nationality laws of those countries and the person’s circumstances. That will include having regard to any practical arrangements, but those will vary from case to case, and it is not possible or appropriate to speculate about what weight those issues would carry in a particular case. “Satisfied” has been interpreted to mean that SIAC decides for itself whether a person is a dual national. In some circumstances a person, after being deprived of British citizenship, may take steps which guarantee that another country will not recognise him or her as a national. The appeal should therefore review the decision at the time it was made, which is why the phrase “reasonable grounds to believe” instead of “satisfied” is used.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, asked what the position would be if the foreign state had some discretion in whether to approve an individual’s request for citizenship. I think that the noble Baroness went as far as to say that she thought that there were likely to be grounds for discretion in almost any case. The clause refers to whether under the laws of a country or territory a person is able to acquire the nationality of that country. The key issue will be whether the Secretary of State reasonably believes that they are able to acquire the nationality. It does not say that the person must have a right—an automatic entitlement—to that other nationality. Where there is a discretionary judgment there may be reasonable grounds to believe that the discretion will be exercised. However, reasonableness would require something more than saying that the person should apply for the exercise of a general discretion to grant citizenship to any country that has such discretion. I hope I make myself clear on that. The Home Secretary must have reasonable grounds to believe that, at the end of any application process—if one is required—the person will become a national of another country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

If I understand him correctly, the Minister is saying that the application of this clause will depend upon the particular facts of the particular case. Can I ask him whether, among the relevant facts that the Secretary of State will take into account in deciding whether to apply this clause, and how it should apply, she will consider whether the individual has any link with the country concerned other than the ability to apply for nationality, and whether the relevant facts will also include whether the individual has a good reason for not wanting to apply for nationality in that country—for example, because of persecution?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I certainly can confirm to the noble Lord that one of the factors that has to be borne in mind by a Home Secretary considering these matters is the question of possible persecution. I assure the noble Lord on that in relation to the specific case that he mentioned and on the relevance of all factors that may impinge on a decision, which would include the ability of the person to acquire nationality in another country. They will be considered fully by the Home Secretary in all respects. The noble Lord asked about whether the person had an association and so on would be considered. I am sure that these are the sorts of things that the Home Secretary will have to consider in considering whether to exercise the powers in this clause. I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has been a great encouragement in the initial meetings that we had when we discussed these issues. Incidentally, the House should know that we are very much at the position that was suggested by a number of noble Lords right at the beginning; I am pleased that I have been able to satisfy some of the learned opinion that has been available to us here in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sure that the Home Secretary will not exercise powers, which are clearly very important powers, carelessly or in any way that would damage the interests of the United Kingdom. I can assure the noble Lord that all such factors will be considered by the Home Secretary when she considers the question of deprivation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the time he has taken and the effort he has made to address the points that have been raised in the debate. I concur entirely with his remarks about internal and international security. Obviously, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe and secure at all times. There has to be consideration of those issues when they are brought before your Lordships’ House. I can assure him that our consideration of these issues has at its heart the security of this nation and our international obligations to tackle terrorism. As the noble Lord said, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. We have benefited from substantial legal expertise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for confessing that, like the Minister and me, she is not a lawyer. It is significant that even with the legal expertise in your Lordships’ House there is no complete agreement among lawyers, either. We made that point earlier.

I welcome the fact that the Government have moved away from the position that they took previously when the issue was debated in Committee and on Report. I welcome the answers given by the Minister. A lot of the debate hinges on one particular issue. I am grateful for the advice given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the conversations we have had. One of his questions summed up clearly the issue of the power to take away British citizenship if it relies on a discretionary power of another state. The noble Lord was very honest in his response to that. We have no power to know what another state will do. Other states have discretionary powers on whether to make people citizens.

The Government’s Motion rests on whether somebody is able to obtain citizenship. It hangs on the interpretation of that. We have concerns in that we want to avoid at all costs somebody becoming stateless—the evil of statelessness via the Supreme Court—and the dangers that that would bring to citizens of this country and abroad. I mentioned that James Brokenshire, the Minister in the other place, gave three different interpretations of what being able to obtain other citizenship could mean. If somebody is unable to obtain another citizenship and they remain stateless, at what point would the Home Secretary have to say, “We have a problem; this person does not have citizenship of any country”? There is a danger in leaving somebody abroad who we think is a danger to this country and involved in terrorism, who is stateless in another country or who remains in this country and cannot travel.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that the intention was that those who are dangerous should leave—but they cannot do so if they have not got citizenship of any other country. The noble Lord also made the point that our position has changed. I can assure him that our position has not changed. These are the very same issues we raised in Committee and on Report, and we wanted to consider them in the light of the changes that the Government have made.

We have to consider the practical and diplomatic implications here. I know the Minister says that there is no need to discuss this issue with other countries, but he was not even able to confirm to your Lordships’ House that, if we remove citizenship from an individual who we suspect of being involved in terrorist activity while they are in another country, we would notify the Government of that country that we were doing so. That seems to be a rather irresponsible attitude and I worry that we will be passing the problems of terrorism on to other countries when international co-operation is so essential.

I do not wish to detain the House. We have had an interesting and worthy debate on this issue. What the Government have not been able to do, however, is rule out the possibility that we will make people who could be highly dangerous stateless. All it requires is that the Home Secretary must have reasonable grounds for believing that an individual can obtain other citizenship—but if those grounds are wrong and the individual cannot do so, we do not know what will happen to that individual.

The point was made when we debated this previously that we are not saying to the Government, “No, this must not happen”, but that there are still a number of questions which remain unanswered even at this late stage. They include the issue of what happens to someone when they have been rendered stateless and what the implications are for our relationships with other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, gave examples, and I am not sure that the Minister’s answer was that someone could not be made stateless.

Licensing Act 2003 (FIFA World Cup Licensing Hours) Order 2014

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

To move that the draft Order laid before the House on 1 April be approved.

Relevant document: 26th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

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

My Lords, this order makes provision for the relaxation of licensing hours in England during World Cup matches in which England is playing. The 2014 World Cup will be hosted by Brazil, and the difference between the respective time zones means that several matches will kick off late in the evening and finish after the traditional closing time of 11 pm. The purpose of the licensing hours order is to allow people to enjoy the matches while minimising the administrative burden on licensing authorities and licensed premises, which would otherwise need to provide notice that they intended to extend their hours.

Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of,

“exceptional international, national or local significance”.

The coalition Government consider that England playing in the World Cup is an event of exceptional national significance, which many people will want to celebrate together.

We consulted in March on whether to relax licensing hours nationally. We received nearly 1,500 responses to our online consultation: 500 of those were from members of the public and 75% of all responses were in favour of the national relaxation. In addition, we consulted key strategic partners who represent a range of views, including the police, licensing authorities, the licensed trade, residents’ associations and health bodies. Some of these stakeholders raised concerns about late-night drinking leading to crime, disorder and public nuisance. We have sought to strike a balance by limiting the periods when licensing hours will be relaxed.

We believe that the vast majority of people will enjoy watching matches responsibly. The British Beer and Pub Association, in partnership with the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers, has published guidance for licensed premises which intend to show the World Cup matches. The guidance aims to encourage the licensed trade to work together with the police and licensing authorities to ensure the safety of the public.

The order would apply to all licensed premises in England. It will cover the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment for consumption on the premises during those matches in which England is playing. It will apply for a maximum of four hours for matches with a scheduled kick-off time of 8 pm or later, to a latest time of 1 am.

The order will apply to England only. We consulted on whether the order should have effect in England and Wales, or England only. We received only 25 responses from people who live or work in Wales, just over 2% of the total received. While Welsh respondents wanted licensing hours to be relaxed during the World Cup, the majority favoured it being done using the existing system of temporary event notices, rather than a blanket relaxation. This is consistent with what the Government have done: a national blanket relaxation in England, with licensed premises able to use the temporary event notices in Wales.

The Government have sought the views of those who would be affected by a relaxation in licensing hours. We have carefully considered their responses, including concerns about increased crime, disorder and public nuisance, and balanced this with reducing the burden on businesses which would otherwise need to use a temporary event notice to extend their opening hours. We have limited the relaxation to a maximum of four hours after the scheduled kick-off time, to a latest time of 1 am. This is a modest relaxation in licensing hours to allow those who wish to celebrate the occasion to do so.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with the Government that the licensing hours order is an appropriate use of the powers conferred on the Home Secretary by the Licensing Act. With that, I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, this order that we extend licensing hours is an appropriate response to the celebration of a major national occasion. However, I would like to ask the Government a couple of other questions. The unfortunate fact is that things such as domestic abuse tend to go up when alcohol is consumed around sporting events. I was recently made aware of the White Ribbon Campaign, which tries to deal with other sporting groups, making sure that they are aware that this goes on and is unacceptable.

Will the Government be doing something to make sure that people such as, for instance, the football authorities—those who profit from this—accept that this type of behaviour is as unacceptable after the event as anything that would go on at the event, effectively making people aware that if you have had a few drinks and a great night out, you should not take out any frustrations on the person at home when you get back? It would be a good idea if that responsibility was passed on to all those who profit from this. Most people do not indulge in this; it is not a compulsory element, so a ban is not appropriate. Those who profit from this should be making sure that those who might use this as cover for anti-social behaviour, particularly in the privacy of a home, are aware that it is not acceptable.

I hope that the Government have a reasonably positive attitude towards this, if only as something that will develop out of this in the future. We must be aware that celebrations can mask anti-social activity.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Minister will respond to the points and questions that I have raised and that he will explain in a bit more detail why the Government decided not to give greater weight to the views of the police, residents, local authorities and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. The argument of the organisations and bodies to which I have just referred is not that no extension of hours should be agreed for England matches but that the decision should be made, as now, locally, rather than by a blanket national order, which does not allow local knowledge, circumstances or objections to be taken into account when making decisions, thus enabling where justified some applications to be rejected and others to have conditions attached to them.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I welcome the debate on this order. I am not entirely sure where the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stands on the issue before us—

[Lord Rosser]

I thought that I made that clear when I started. I said that we were not opposing it as we accepted that there was a need to provide arrangements for extended hours during the World Cup. What I am raising with the Government is how views were sought from a number of stakeholders, to which I have referred. They covered the police and the Mayor’s office, as well as local government and residents, who were not saying that there should not be an extension but asked why we could not stick with the current procedure of temporary event notices, which allow local circumstances to be taken into account, rather than doing it on a blanket basis, which, unless the Minister is going to tell me to the contrary, does not allow local circumstances to be taken into account.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It was that point of which I was uncertain—as to whether the Opposition were in favour of doing it through this measure. I am still unsure. I understand exactly what he has said—

[Lord Rosser]

I am asking the Minister to explain in rather more detail why, in the face of those points made by the organisations to which I referred, the Government are saying that the best approach is the national blanket decision rather than a continuation of temporary event orders. We are not opposing this order as we recognise that there has to be a facility for extension of licensing hours. But we are curious as to why the Government are so keen to go down the road of the national blanket order, which does not allow local circumstances to be taken into account, bearing in mind the nature of the comments that came back from the police and the Mayor’s office, residents’ organisations and the Local Government Association.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Of course, the overwhelming number of comments were in favour of using this measure. I accept what the noble Lord says. He is quite right to challenge the Government on why they have made this decision. I think that England’s participation in the World Cup is an occasion that many people will want to enjoy in an atmosphere of clubs or bars where they will be enjoying themselves with other people. We consider it appropriate that the World Cup is seen as an event of exceptional national significance for the purposes of Section 172 of the Licensing Act.

Before I go on to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I would like to respond to my noble friend Lord Addington, who mentioned the very serious consideration of domestic violence. It is interesting that we have a domestic violence debate tomorrow, which I am also involved in. In truth, there is very little recent evidence that shows that incidents of domestic violence increase during sporting events, although in the past there have been occasions when such phenomena have been reported. Women’s Aid will run a campaign to raise awareness about domestic violence during the period of the World Cup, and that campaign is supported by the Home Office.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether we are going to extend the blanket provision to matches when England is not playing, such as the World Cup final. It is acknowledged that an awful lot of people will probably watch those games, but the power under which this order is being made allows for the relaxation for events of exceptional national significance and we consider that this would not meet the criteria if England was not playing in the final.

On that basis, the noble Lord has clearly read with interest the impact assessment. I am pleased that he is impressed by the intellectual rigour with which the Government draw up those assessments. He is quite right. It says that England are certain to play in the matches of the first period of the tournament—I think that we can all agree on that—but that there is a high probability that England will not play in later matches. That is a matter of opinion, and I am sure that other noble Lords will have different views on that issue. But the use of Betfair and its interactive website was the basis for that assessment.

[Lord Rosser]

As I understand it, the Minister has said that a blanket order could not apply to the final if England was not participating in it. Am I not right in saying that Section 172 can be applied to mark occasions of exceptional international significance as well as national significance?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, but the Government have not taken the view that that particular definition applies in this instance. We are limiting it to those games in which England is playing.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about additional policing costs, crime and disorder and the cost to the taxpayer. We are mindful that late-night drinking can lead to crime and disorder as well as public nuisance but, because these matches will be identified and the situations known, the order is restricted to the sale of alcohol and late-night refreshment in pubs, clubs and anywhere else where alcohol is consumed on the premises. It is not an off-the-premises order.

The noble Lord asked about giving the police extra funding for this. No, this is not an event for which extra funding would be provided. He also asked whether there would be other occasions on which football events would be covered, and mentioned the women’s World Cup. Each occasion is assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on whether they could be considered of significance, alongside other circumstances, such as time, location, and the impact on public safety. Those things are carefully considered before orders such as this one are brought before the House.

The noble Lord asked how it would be possible to plan policing. The police will use their relationship with premises to determine which premises would be extending their licensing hours and will manage risks accordingly. He asked how we squared this proposal with our localism approach. The Government have decided that England’s participation in the World Cup is an exceptional national event. Due to the late kick-off times, which we cannot help, since Brazil is west of here, it is appropriate to relax licensing hours for a modest length of time in relation to these matters. This order provides a temporary change only in licensing hours during World Cup 2014.

Licensing hours have been relaxed before, as I have said. The order provides a temporary change, specifically for England’s matches. Future events and occasions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This licensing hours order will reduce the burden on businesses, which is why we have chosen this path, when otherwise they would need to use temporary event notices to extend their opening hours. It will reduce the burden on licensing authorities, which would have to process the notices.

[Lord Rosser]

I am still not clear on the question of additional policing costs. Can the Minister say that the additional policing costs will be less than what the Government described as the benefit to on-trade premises of £1.35 million?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I cannot say categorically what the actual increase in costs will be and I certainly cannot state categorically the degree to which the order will increase police costs. I think that a far more difficult situation would arise if England were playing, clubs, pubs and bars were not open and there was informal activity on private premises. At least the order allows policing to be planned as it enables the police to know which licensed premises will be open during these events.

[Lord Addington]

Before my noble friend sits down, I hope that I can ask him one more question. I asked whether those who will profit from the World Cup will be given a little more encouragement to make sure that domestic abuse issues are brought to the public’s attention. As the audience we are talking about is predominantly male and the problem to which I referred is predominantly a male problem, this might be a good time to raise awareness of it and establish an ongoing duty in this regard. That was what I was trying to get at. I did not get a chance to speak to my noble friend about this issue before the debate as he has been so busy but I wonder whether he could give his thoughts on that issue.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I certainly understand exactly what my noble friend is saying. As I said, the Home Office is supporting an awareness campaign on this issue. I cannot give him a specific promise that there will be a continuing commitment in this regard. However, we will discuss this issue tomorrow afternoon and I hope that the noble Lord will participate in that debate. I am prepared to write to him about a continuing commitment if that would be helpful in the event that he is not able to attend tomorrow’s debate.

[Lord Rosser]

I wish to ask the Minister a question following what he said a moment ago—that premises which decide to stay open later under the blanket order will have to advise the police in advance of their decision to do so. I thought the Minister was arguing that the blanket order made it easier for the police to keep control of the situation. However, the letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers says that the advantage of temporary event notices is that they allow police forces,

“to adapt their public order plans to more accurately reflect the probable demand based upon targeted intelligence”.

Does it mean, therefore, that under this blanket order premises which are intending to stay open later within the terms of the order will have to advise the police in advance?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, that is not the case. However, the police will be able to ask whether such places intend to remain open. That is entirely up to them.

[Lord Rosser]

Can we be clear, therefore, that under the blanket order the police have to ask premises whether they are staying open whereas under the temporary event notice, where people would have to apply, the police would know in advance who would be staying open?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If the police consider it is important for them to know that information, they will ask the question. If they do not think it is important to know that, they do not have to ask the question; it is entirely up to them. It is a policing matter, not a question of the licensing arrangements. We are making it clear that the whole point of this measure is to liberalise the licensing hours available to licensed bars and pubs to enable them to have extra licensing hours, if that is what they seek, to enable their customers to watch matches and have a drink at the same time. I think it is quite clear what the arrangements will be. I would have thought that the noble Lord would accept that it is a perfectly sensible and practical arrangement. As I said in my opening speech—

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister says he hoped that I would accept that this is a perfectly practical arrangement. I have made it clear that there is no argument about the need for a procedure for extended hours. However, the points I am raising are ones the police have raised.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I have given the answer, have I not? My job is to present the reasons why we have chosen to go ahead with the order. We have done so because we consider that this is an event of national significance. As it is an event of national significance, we have decided that the Licensing Act approach is the right one to take to provide the opportunity for licensed premises to stay open during the matches. We have made it quite clear why we have done that. The job of the police is to maintain order. They are entitled to say that they do not particularly like our approach; that is entirely up to them. However, the Government have made this decision because they think it is in the interests of the public as a whole that they have an opportunity to view the matches while attending licensed premises. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The order is conditional on England playing in any particular match. The coalition Government believe that the decision to relax licensing hours for England matches during the World Cup strikes the right balance between recognising the benefits of alcohol when it is enjoyed responsibly and maintaining proper safeguards for the public. On that basis, I hope that these orders are agreed.

Motion agreed.

European Union: Justice and Home Affairs

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am delighted to reply to this debate. I enjoy always talking about this issue as we hear good speeches from all sides of the House and there is plenty to debate, of course.

Before addressing the particular points made in the debate, I join my noble friend Lord Faulks in expressing my gratitude for the work done by this House and by those responsible in the European committees in scrutinising this area of our activity. These are important matters that we are debating today. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been an engaging and constructive discussion.

The Government are fully committed to engaging with Parliament on European Union issues and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to do so. The debate has focused on two separate but equally important matters: the fourth annual opt-in report on post-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and the UK’s 2014 opt-out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. Both matters raise important questions about the protection of human rights and the ability of our law enforcement agencies to work with their EU counterparts to keep British citizens safe.

If I may, I will address, first, the matter of the UK’s opt-in to post-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. I hope that it will help my noble friend Lord Bowness in his confusion if I say that we in Parliament have endorsed the coalition’s approach to this issue. As my noble friend Lord Faulks set out earlier, the Government have been clear that they will take opt-in decisions on a case-by-case basis. We consider factors such as the impact of the measures on our security, civil liberties, the integrity of our criminal justice and common law systems and on the control of immigration. At the heart of it all is a commitment to focus on the national interest. My noble friends Lord Teverson and Lord Dykes asked me whether I could define it. It is like one of those things that you meet upon the road. The best essay I can present is that I hope I will recognise it when I see it. As such, we will opt in only when we believe it is in the UK’s interest to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has a different view. I believe that his absolute approach is not in the national interest. But the fact that he is wrong—or I believe him to be wrong—does not mean that we do not enjoy his contributions to our debates. The question that he raised on the referendum issue actually occurred in a previous debate and I gave a clear answer then:

“The European Union Act sets clear criteria for when a referendum would be necessary. These are set out in Section 6 of the Act. This decision is not one of the areas where a referendum is required. Changes to the Treaty on European Union, the TEU, or the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the TFEU, or a decision made under Article 48(6) of the TEU potentially attract a referendum under the European Union Act 2011. The 2014 decision is not a treaty change, nor a decision under Article 48(6) of the TEU. Instead, it is something that flows from the existing treaty and, as such, it is not subject to a referendum. I hope that that categorical assurance reassures the House”.—[Official Report, 23/7/13; col. 1281.]

It clearly does not reassure the noble Lord.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

The noble Lord is wriggling. The noble Lord is practising almost dishonest sophistry.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

Almost. We have been promised a referendum again and again in the examples that I gave—first of all by his leader, Mr Cameron, before he became Prime Minister, in the Queen’s Speech in July 2010 and then in the Referendum Act 2011. Everyone understands that to mean that if there is a transfer of sovereignty to the European Union, we would get a referendum. It is not good enough to go into the intricacies. None of those statements said, “This requires treaty change”, or anything of that kind. It is quite simple. Everyone understands that if we give powers back to Brussels, we get a referendum.

While the Minister is at it, will he answer one of my other questions? If there were to be a referendum on these opt-ins, particularly on the European arrest warrant, which way does he think people would vote?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I always have difficulty in trying to persuade the noble Lord on this issue because he clearly has a very different opinion. I would just say that the opt-out position was exactly that. We were already involved. The treaty decisions had been taken in that respect. I am perfectly accurate in the answer that I gave him. If the noble Lord wants a referendum he should vote for the Conservative Party at the next election because we have offered a referendum in the case of a successful outcome for the Conservative Party at that time.

The noble Lord also asked about the European public prosecutor and used that as a sign of the future direction of the EU. I must say to the noble Lord that the UK negotiated an opt-in to ensure that where a proposal is not in the UK’s national interest, we do not take part. The ability of Parliaments to issue reasoned opinions on subsidiarity issues related to Commission proposals is a further check on the Commission’s bringing forward proposals outside the intent of those treaties. I hope that the noble Lord will consider what I have said and see exactly how the Government are approaching this issue.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for providing us with a draft of what he was going to say because that enabled us to focus on those particular interests. I will attempt to respond to them. He asked, first, whether the Government will opt in to the Europol regulation post adoption. The Government did not opt in to the Europol regulation initially due to concerns about the obligation to provide data, even where it may conflict with national security. I think I have made that clear before. As the regulation makes subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice member states’ reasons for not undertaking an investigation requested by Europol, this creates a risk that the Court could dictate national law enforcement priorities. The Government have committed to opting in post adoption if these concerns are mitigated. That is our intention, and I explained it when we debated this issue previously.

Secondly, the noble Lord asked whether it is the Government’s intention to opt in to the proceeds of crime directive post adoption. We did not opt in to this measure as we had concerns that the directive would interfere with the workings of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, thus reducing our ability at home to tackle serious and organised crime. As noble Lords will know, under the Proceeds of Crime Act it is possible to seize assets illegally obtained where no conviction has been secured. That is not possible under the directive, and we feel that that is a deficiency in its case. This Government would want the UK and other international partners to utilise the most effective legal powers to disrupt individuals who seek to hide the proceeds of crime across borders both in the EU and beyond. We will be considering whether to opt in to the measure now that it has been adopted, including considering the opinion of the EU Committee in this regard.

In relation to readmission agreements, participation in these agreements is considered on a case-by-case basis according to the priority attached to the country concerned in the area of immigration returns and the existing bilateral relationship with that country. Should the UK choose not to participate in an agreement and circumstances change, the UK can seek to participate in it post adoption. With respect to Turkey, the UK opted in to the conclusion of the readmission agreement between the EU and Turkey in June 2012. I understand that Turkey is currently passing the agreement through its Parliament and we expect the Turkish authorities formally to adopt it this year.

The noble Lord also raised concerns in relation to the Kosovo association agreement and the European police college proposal. The unfortunate instance of missing the opt-in deadline occurred in the case of the Kosovo framework agreement on Union programmes, not the stabilisation and association agreement with Kosovo. The regrettable combination of circumstances that lead to this oversight has been addressed, but lessons have been learnt for subsequent framework agreements of a similar nature and the opt-in has and will be asserted in those cases.

In relation to the CEPOL proposal, the Government informed the presidency of our opt-in decision on the deadline itself, which was 13 March. Paragraph 10 of the Code of Practice on Scrutiny of opt-in and Schengen opt-out Decisions commits the Government to notifying the parliamentary scrutiny committees of an opt-in decision as soon as we have informed the presidency, but not to doing so earlier. Although I believe that we have therefore complied with our notification commitments, I wish to emphasise that we would usually seek to provide the committees with an indication of our opt-in position and regret that the internal processes did not allow that to happen on this occasion. I should like also to reiterate at this stage the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the EU Committee in this place has the appropriate time to provide an opinion on the UK’s opt-in decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right. I recognise that the Government do not always meet this commitment and I think noble Lords will know that it is my intention for us to achieve a better performance in this area. As my noble friend Lord Boswell observed, it is not always easy to spot justice and home affairs content, particularly when the general focus of a measure is not JHA-related. However, we are raising awareness across government at official level. There have been senior-level discussions, new guidance is being circulated and we will be rolling out more bespoke training in the next few months. We hope that this will improve areas where this circumstance has arisen in the past.

I now return to the matter of the UK’s opt-out of pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. First, I join my noble friend Lord Faulks in thanking the noble Lords, Lord Boswell and Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, for their chairmanship of the EU Select Committee and the two sub-committees they represent here today. The committee’s two reports represent an extremely thorough analysis of complex issues and the Government are greatly appreciative of its efforts. I thank all committee members for their work in that respect.

Scrutiny can be an iterative and long-running process. The Government have already taken a number of steps to ensure that Parliament’s views on this matter are heard and understood. However, before I turn to the points on the 2014 measures raised during the debate, I would like to reiterate the Government’s commitment to continuing parliamentary scrutiny of this matter. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, we will hold another vote later in the year on the final package of measures that we will apply to rejoin. We will publish impact assessments on each of these measures in good time for that vote. For noble Lords who have expressed concerns about the quality of the impact assessments and Explanatory Memoranda, they are objective judgments and are drawn up in line with government guidelines on those matters. I am very happy to commit myself to replying to that debate when it happens later in the year.

I will respond to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made in his excellent speech. He set out a number of important points that have helped guide this debate and I am happy to respond to each one. The noble Lord asked about timings on this matter. We are aiming to reach an in-principle deal with the Commission and other member states as soon as possible. Other states support this aim; they are with us on this strategy and are keen to resolve the issue in a timely and orderly fashion.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, both asked about my assessment of progress. My noble friend Lord Faulks and I will update the House and its committees when we can. I am by nature an optimist—as I think most noble Lords will know—and the House might therefore expect me to say that we are satisfied with the general progress of the negotiations. I am happy to reiterate the Government’s commitment to hold a second vote before seeking to rejoin measures. We certainly hope to hold the vote ahead of the House rising for the Summer Recess, but we are not in a position to confirm that. However, I can confirm that we will hold the vote well ahead of 1 December.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about the timescales for providing impact assessments on the measures that we are seeking to rejoin and those that we are not. I think we know that there is a difference of view in this area because the Government remain committed to providing an impact assessment on the final package of measures that we are seeking to rejoin, and this will be provided in good time ahead of the second vote.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his patience in waiting for this matter to be answered, but the Government do not intend to provide impact assessments on the measures they are not seeking to rejoin. This is because the starting point for any analysis is that the opt-out has been exercised, and not seeking to rejoin a measure will not have a direct impact on the UK. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will actually agree with me on that point. Noble Lords will be aware that the original decision was accompanied by a White Paper covering all the issues that were raised by the opt-out.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

The legislative history of this matter is very tangled. Perhaps the noble Lord will reflect on the following. When his colleague, James Brokenshire, gave evidence, I think at the end of 2012, he committed to producing an impact assessment. That commitment was not limited to the measures that the Government were going to rejoin, for a very simple reason: Parliament had not at that stage endorsed the decision to opt out at all. The commitment that was given in 2012 by James Brokenshire was to provide an impact assessment for all 133 pre-Lisbon measures. That commitment has not been fulfilled.

That is water under the bridge. The decision has been taken to trigger the block opt-out, but I think that legislative history demonstrates why the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and I, and many others, are saying that there must be a set of impact assessments on both the measures we are going to rejoin and those we are not going to rejoin. That was the commitment given by the Minister. If one stops to think about it, I am afraid the argument that the noble Lord has just advanced—that somehow or other something we are not going to rejoin cannot have an impact here—is pretty bizarre. Of course it has an impact: it has an impact on us that we are not rejoining.

That impact could be neutral, positive or negative, but it is an impact. I am sure that hard-working Home Office and Ministry of Justice officials are reluctant to add some 85 measures on which they have to produce impact assessments, but that is not a good enough reason. I hope that the noble Lord will perhaps not give a final reaction to that now but will reflect further on the desirability, if the proceedings are to be brought to a successful conclusion—as I personally and many others hope they will be—that before we do that we have impact assessments that cover the whole waterfront.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord has made a strong point, as he always does, but I have given the answer of where we are on that issue and I do not intend to go into it in any more detail now.

The noble Lord asked about contingency arrangements. That issue is important because our aim is to conduct the negotiations as soon as possible to ensure that there is political and legal certainty for all involved. It is not the intention to have an operational gap between the date on which the opt-out will take effect and the point at which the UK rejoins measures. We place great importance on this issue and believe that it is in everybody’s interest to eliminate any risk of an operational gap. It is clear from the negotiations that member states and the Commission are also keen to avoid such a gap—and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that this includes the operation of the European arrest warrant. It is in everybody’s interests to make this work, and I think that the whole House would agree with that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about prisoner transfers. We are seeing more returns under this measure; the numbers remain relatively low, however. On returns of foreign national offenders from outside the EU, the UK has reached voluntary prisoner transfer agreements with more than 100 countries outside Europe.

The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, asked about the delay in responding to her letter asking about the right of access to a lawyer directive, which is the MoJ’s responsibility. We are still considering whether to opt in post adoption and have nothing more substantive to say on that at the moment. The noble Baroness asked about Eurojust opt-in negotiations. She will know that negotiations on this proposal are ongoing. The major issues for member states are those that I have just noted.

She asked also about the marginalisation of the UK in Europe due to opt-in/opt-out. That is not our experience. Member states welcome the UK’s involvement in the JHA measures, especially in areas where we are seen to have specific expertise—as we often have in JHA matters. The UK continues to exert influence over negotiations and maintains a seat at the negotiating table even when we are not opting in.

In concluding today’s debate, I thank all those who have spoken; it has been very worth while. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Judd in paying a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.

[Lord Judd]

We may have a very good relationship, but in House of Lords terms we are not noble friends.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The point is made. Unfortunately, I do consider the noble Lord to be a friend, but I apologise for the slip of the tongue. I was going to talk about another person whom I consider a friend, and somebody whom this House greatly respects: the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. His contribution today was typical of his holding Governments to account. That is what we are here for, and it is right that he does that. I am sorry that this will be his last intervention in the particular role that he has in EU Sub-Committee F, but I am sure that it will not be his last involvement in debate. We look forward to these debates in future and I thank all noble Lords for their involvement today.

Motion agreed.

Immigration Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

1: Clause 1, page 3, leave out lines 4 and 5

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

My Lords, I said on Report that I would table further amendments regarding the power to make regulations about the removal of family members.

In its 24th report the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee remained concerned that the scope of the delegated power was still too broad and, as it currently stands, should be subject to the affirmative procedure. In seeking to address this concern, the amendment removes reference to making further provision for the removal of family members under any provision of the immigration Acts and limits the scope of the regulations so that they can not extend beyond the two provisions described, namely the time period for removal and the service of the notice to family members.

I hope that this reassures noble Lords that this limits the regulations strictly to procedural matters that should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

I wonder whether, in that, the Minister is trying to give us a clue as to what the Government’s intentions are when the Bill leaves this House today and goes to the other place for consideration of the amendments that we have proposed. If he is able to comment on why something that is not now in the Bill is in the Long Title, while something that is in the Bill is not in the Long Title, that would be very helpful, because the issue of deprivation of citizenship was removed from the Bill yet that of guardians for trafficked children was inserted. Can the Minister shine any light on that and say whether further amendments are expected and how the Government intend to consider further the amendments already passed in your Lordships’ House? If so, it would be a helpful contribution to this debate.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by taking this opportunity to thank my noble friend for tabling these amendments, which he will know we welcome. The House will recognise that nationality law is a complex and difficult area. Anomalies do arise, and have indeed done so, particularly as the way in which people view the family has changed since the British Nationality Act was introduced in 1981.

In 2006, amendments to that Act enabled illegitimate children to inherit nationality from a British father in the same way as a legitimate child. However, those amendments were not made retrospective. To have done so could have caused problems for individuals who were now adults and had made a life for themselves in a different nationality.

The amendments proposed by my noble friend today will enable illegitimate children born to British fathers before 2006 to register as British if they choose to do so. The measures apply to those who would have become British citizens automatically if they had been born legitimately. I realise that my noble friend is concerned also about the situation of those who could have become British if their unmarried parents had been able to register them as British, or in some circumstances if they had been able to register the birth with the consular service. However, the Government’s position—indeed, my noble friend restated it in his introduction—remains that we can go only so far to right the wrongs of history. There can be many reasons why parents may not choose to exercise these options and we cannot, therefore, now make assumptions about whether unmarried parents would have chosen to exercise them if they had had the opportunity to do so.

I know that my noble friend is also concerned about British Overseas Territories citizens. Changes to those provisions require consultation with the territories concerned and this has not been possible in the time available. However, I assure my noble friend that the Government will look for suitable opportunities to discuss this issue with the overseas territories once the provisions are implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am sure that, as a former Member of the other place, I was not suggesting for one second that it does not have the right to look at our amendments and come to its own decisions. This is about the contrast between the two issues. While I am happy to accept the explanation that deprivation will be considered further by a Joint Committee of both Houses once the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House, that contrasts with the issues of the trafficking of children and guardians for trafficked children. That provision was passed by your Lordships’ House and does not now appear in the Long Title, even though it has been amended to deal with something that is not in the Bill in the same way. It is just that contradiction between the two and I would hope that the Minister can reassure me that, since this House has committed to the guardians for trafficked children, the Government will also remain so and are not taking for granted the support from the other place on the issue of deprivation of citizenship and making people stateless.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It would not be in my nature to take anything for granted where Parliament is involved. However, I think I made the position of the Government quite clear on guardians for trafficking when the amendment was considered, and the noble Baroness herself has been well aware of that. I hope she will accept what I am saying. It will be a matter of our listening to the House of Commons, as we must now call the other place, and giving it an opportunity to present to us what it considers of our amendments. That is a reasonable position to take. Meanwhile, this change to the Long Title facilitates the adoption of my noble friend’s amendments, which I hope the House will support because they will be welcomed by many and assist individuals hitherto precluded from British citizenship by historical anomaly. They will therefore be able to register as British citizens if they wish to do so. I am extremely happy to be able to offer my support to my noble friend in this matter.

[Lord Avebury]

I am extraordinarily grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks and for his undertaking to take an opportunity, I hope in the near future, to raise the question of overseas territories and how their position can be brought into line with what we are now about to agree, as far as our own citizenship is concerned.

We have whittled away at the wrongs of history in 2002 and 2006, and now again in 2014. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that on a future occasion we will be able to rectify some of the remaining difficulties that affect our nationality law, particularly the wrong that I think we did to people whose parents did not register them when they were minors. It would have been right, not just in the case of the illegitimate but also for those who were born to married parents, to allow those individuals when they became adults to exercise the rights that their parents had not exercised on their behalf.

However, that is only a very minor niggle compared with my pleasure at being able to move an amendment that grants citizenship to people who are illegitimate in circumstances where, if their parents have been married, they would have had it long ago.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

4: Clause 74, page 59, line 27, leave out “or an order under section 43;” and insert—
“( ) an order under section 43, or under a section amended by such an order;”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, Amendment 4 is a technical amendment concerned with bank account measures. It is intended to ensure that, should any of Clauses 40, 41 or 42 be amended by the Treasury using the power provided in Clause 43 in such a way that further matters may be specified by order under any of those provisions, then any orders so made will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 43 currently gives the Treasury the power to amend any of Clauses 40, 41 and 42 to allow it to ensure that the restriction on opening accounts remains effectively targeted. This power allows the Treasury to amend those provisions in such a way that a particular matter could be specified in a further order, should that be considered appropriate. To give an example, Clause 42 could be amended so that the reference to “bank” means a reference to an institution of a type to be specified in a further order made by the Treasury.

In that example, though, any subsequent order that specified the types of institution would then properly be made under the amended Clause 42, rather than by Clause 43. Any order made under Clause 43 that amends any of Clauses 40, 41 or 42 is already subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, orders subsequently made under Clauses 40, 41 or 42 are not referred to in Clause 74(2) of the Bill, which means that without this amendment they would be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. Given the importance of the matters involved, the Government’s intention is that any such order should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and the amendment confirms that the affirmative procedure should therefore apply. I beg to move.

Amendment 4 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

6:In the Title, line 4, after “nationals;” insert “to make provision about the acquisition of citizenship by persons unable to acquire it because their fathers and mothers were not married to each other and provision about the removal of citizenship from persons whose conduct is seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom’s vital interests;”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I will be moving this amendment formally at the conclusion of what I believe is now the practice of the House to thank the House and Members of the Bill team at this stage of the proceedings. I should like to do so because this has been an extremely interesting Bill. I have enjoyed myself in taking it through and have enjoyed the House’s engagement with the issues that have been presented. Even this afternoon, although we have been dealing with clearing-up matters, we have had the opportunity to listen to the power of argument of noble and learned Lords, my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon.

A lot of people have been involved. I thank in particular my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and my Whips, my noble friends Lord Attlee and Lord Ahmad. They have been great stalwarts during the period in which we have been taking this Bill through. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who have been extremely courteous to me throughout the proceedings. We have had the opportunity of a number of meetings that have helped the passage of the Bill through the House and have improved it. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee, as a coalition partner, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and a number of other noble Lords from the Lib Dem Benches who have provided penetrating observations on the Bill, from which we have all been able to benefit.

A lot of other government departments have been involved in the Bill. I hope noble Lords will realise that it is not just the Home Office but the Government who have brought forward the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise the way in which my noble friend Lord Howe has worked to establish the health provisions in the Bill in the context of health reforms generally. It was a great advantage to us all to have the opportunity of a joint meeting with him.

Although they are not in their places, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Best, for making it possible to find ways of dealing with the issues concerning students and landlords, which were causing a great deal of anxiety when the Bill appeared before the House at Second Reading.

There are too many noble Lords to mention by name. I shall just say to all those who have been involved in this Bill that I hope they will look back on it with pleasure and know that they have been party to a Bill dealing with an important matter in a proper way.

We are all grateful to our friends in the Box and the many elsewhere who have been briefing us. We have been very demanding. The House has been extraordinarily demanding of their time. That is quite proper, and they would not wish it to be any other way. They have responded as we have asked. It reflects great credit on the skills and abilities of those who lie behind Ministers at the Dispatch Box that they have been able to satisfy the House in the way that they have. With those words, I beg to move.

Amendment 6 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I concur with the comments made by the Minister and respect those about this being a much improved Bill. That is accurate. We are pleased that the Bill has seen significant improvements, with amendments and concessions from the Government addressing issues raised by noble Lords. I was also pleased that he thanked the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his help and advice during the passage of the Bill.

I also thank the Minister. Where he has been unable to address issues from the Dispatch Box, he has been prepared to meet and discuss them, and to clarify those issues in writing. All noble Lords who have taken part in these debates have contributed to the improvement of the Bill, and we hope that some of those improvements will remain as debates continue. There are others that we would have liked to have seen and have not been able to achieve, but we still agree with the noble Lord that this is an improved Bill from that which presented itself to your Lordships’ House.

I add my thanks to colleagues, not only on the Labour Benches but across all Benches, who have put a lot of work into and contributed much to the Bill. I also thank the Bill team for its efforts and for being prepared to meet, and the Labour research team that helps us on our side of the House. It is no surprise that Sophie Davis, who has been advising the Labour Front Bench on this, was the Labour researcher of the year, which we all thought was very well deserved. We look forward to another Bill and another debate in the next Session.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women was refused access to Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre while on an official visit to the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, a visit to Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre was never agreed as part of this fact-finding mission. However, as part of her visit, the special rapporteur, Ms Rashida Manjoo, met the Home Secretary, the Minister for Crime Prevention and the Chief Inspector of Prisons.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply. As he will appreciate, it can do our national reputation no good at all if it should ever be felt that the United Kingdom is refusing access to a UN special rapporteur who is here in connection with the signature that we have given to the optional protocol on the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Therefore, I hope very much that, in future, that position will be clarified, as the publicity can have done no good at all. I would be very grateful if the Minister could inform the House of what action will be taken to ensure that future visits can be properly handled.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I disagree with the premise of the noble Lord’s question, because Ministers met the special rapporteur and were keen to support a programme for her visit that was more directly relevant to addressing violence against women and girls. That is why we offered the visit to a refuge, facilitated by Women’s Aid, and supported a number of other visits for the special rapporteur, including a visit to a number of government departments, devolved Administrations and front-line agencies relevant to the reasons for her visit.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the recent report by Women for Refugee Women found that many of the women in Yarl’s Wood had experienced sexual violence, which surely makes it a relevant visit for the special rapporteur. What is the Government’s response to that report, which showed the traumatic impact on those women of detention?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No one can be unaware of the fact that detention is a necessary evil. It is part of the requirements that we have in enforcing an immigration policy. However, the inspection by the Chief Inspector of Prisons found very little evidence of victimisation of women at the centre. It was felt that there was insufficient recognition of particular vulnerabilities of detained women; those points were taken and are being addressed by Yarl’s Wood.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, apart from the chief inspector’s findings on the lack of recognition of the vulnerabilities of women detained in Yarl’s Wood, there was also a finding that the quality of rule 35 reports was poor. Was not the refusal to admit Ms Manjoo not only a kick in the teeth for the UN, violating the terms of its mandate, but an unfortunate indication that those concerns had not been addressed, as the special rapporteur seems to have suspected?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, my Lords, that is not the case. Yarl’s Wood was inspected by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons last year and, overall, the report was positive. I mentioned those aspects of which I felt it was important for the House to be aware. Detention is an essential part of effective immigration control and we take the welfare of those in our care very seriously. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has responsibility for ensuring that those standards are maintained.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord not appreciate that Yarl’s Wood has caused a lot of concern not only in this country but internationally, and that a failure to allow the UN special rapporteur to enter causes even more alarm, although I accept absolutely what he says about detention being necessary in some cases?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have explained to noble Lords and, I hope, to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in responding to his Question, the reasons why we felt that it was more appropriate to give the rapporteur the opportunity to see the effective measures that the Government are taking to address violence against women and girls.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has been very good in explaining the meetings that the special rapporteur had and sought to say that he thought those meetings were sufficient. However, he has absolutely failed to explain to the House why the special rapporteur was denied access to Yarl’s Wood. It is a very simple question, not about the meetings that she had but why, specifically, she could not go to Yarl’s Wood.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Access to Yarl’s Wood is in the gift of the Home Office, which determines whether it is suitable for people to visit it. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has a statutory role to address that issue. It was not a question of denying this person the opportunity to do her job. She was given every chance to take up our offers to visit refuges, but she did not choose to do so.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, what statement did the Chief Inspector of Prisons make following the refusal to allow the rapporteur to enter Yarl’s Wood?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am afraid that I cannot comment on that as I do not have the details of that question.

Muslim Brotherhood

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what basis they have established an investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s decision to commission a review was taken on the grounds of national interest against a backdrop of substantial recent change, particularly in the Middle East and north Africa. The review will make sure that we have a thorough understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood, its impact and influence on our national security and interests, and on stability and prosperity in the Middle East.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My noble friend will be aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is a pan-Islamic organisation which takes very different forms in different countries. If the Government believe that the brotherhood might be involved in violent extremism, why do they not use existing counterterrorism laws to prosecute it in the courts? If, on the other hand, this inquiry is being driven at the behest of Saudi Arabia to discredit the brotherhood, I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that it is the United Kingdom’s Government and its foreign policy which risk being discredited, by portraying the brotherhood in the eyes of its many Muslim supporters around the world as victims of a politically motivated Government acting at the behest of an authoritarian foreign power: Saudi Arabia. Can the Minister tell the House whether the results of the inquiry will be made public?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, my Answer made it quite clear that this is about the UK’s national interest and the UK Government forming their own view. The review will make sure that we have a thorough understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood, its impact and influence on our national security and other national interests, and on stability and prosperity in the Middle East. We are not talking about the view of another Government; we are talking about this Government. The review will consult widely with experts, regional Governments, the EU and US partners. The UK Government will make up their own mind.

[Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, if press reports are correct, this review is being headed by Her Britannic Majesty’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Does this not put Sir John Jenkins in an extremely invidious position, given that the Government to whom he is accredited take every possible step, as the noble Baroness has said, to discredit and to destroy the Muslim Brotherhood?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot agree with the noble Lord, although he speaks with a great deal of authority. He will know that Sir John Jenkins has been asked to lead the review because he is one of our most senior diplomats, with extensive knowledge of the Arab world, and his role is to serve Her Majesty’s Government. He was not chosen because of his current role as ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He is not working alone, and will draw on independent advice from other places.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to a review, but the Prime Minister used the words “an investigation” or “an inquiry”, and there may be some difference. It would be helpful if we could have some information on that. Has he taken the opportunity to talk about this to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, who always impresses your Lordships’ House with her knowledge of such issues? A report in the Financial Times says that a senior government figure reported on “tensions” between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Prime Minister’s Office on this, saying:

“This cuts against what the FCO has already been doing in this area, both domestically and in the Middle East. It risks turning supporters of a moderate, non-violent organisation that campaigns for democracy into radicals”.

Is there a tension at the heart of the Government, and is this a review or an investigation?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Not at all, my Lords. My noble friend and I are at one on the issue.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend tell me and the House whether the ambassador will go on being an ambassador while he is also leading the inquiry, and if so, is there not a conflict of interest?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sure that ways will be found whereby his duties as ambassador can be delegated where necessary. However, he has been appointed to that role as an ambassador, and will continue to undertake that role. I see no conflict of interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Wright, recognised, the diplomatic skills that Sir John Jenkins has are essential for a proper understanding of the situation.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many other reviews or investigations have been conducted in this manner into groups we have been concerned about? I cannot remember that we undertook any reviews or investigations in this manner of the groups that we were worried about during the three years that I was a Minister.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That was a decision for the previous Government. This Government have made up their own mind that they want to know more about the Muslim Brotherhood and its influence on politics and groups in this country. I hope that noble Lords will understand that this is a British review conducted by the British Government. I was asked earlier and did not give an answer—this is obviously an internal review for the Government themselves. However, it is expected that Sir John Jenkins and the group will want to make some of their findings public.

[Lord Wright of Richmond]

My Lords—

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

As this is manifestly a sordid plot from Saudi Arabia, would it not be more interesting if HMG had conversations with the Saudi Government about allowing women to drive cars in that country?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That question is not worthy of my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, was trying to get in, as I had named him.

[Lord Wright of Richmond]

With the permission of the House I wish to make a very brief remark. As a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, I would find it extremely difficult if anyone were to ask me to head this review.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

In answer to that, I can say only that I am very pleased that Sir John Jenkins has not found it so. I am sure that he will do an excellent job in the national interest.