Global Migration and Mobility (EUC Report)

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the way that he guided our committee through our inquiry into the EU’s global approach to migration and mobility, and to the clerks who so ably assisted us all.

I would also like, in a general way, to thank the Government for their response to our report, which contained 43 conclusions and recommendations. The Government agreed with most of these. It was disappointing, however, that they did not agree with our recommendation to opt in to the family reunification directive, simply asserting that it is not in the UK’s interest to do so. It would be very helpful if, in the Minister’s response today, he were able to enlarge on this and deal with the moral as well as the practical issues that will inevitably arise from the differences in family admissions policies across the member states.

It was the committee’s view that when it came to the integration of migrants, language learning had an important role to play. The Government agreed with this and went on to say that,

“the Government believes that communities, businesses and voluntary bodies should be enabled to lead integration in their local area. The Localism Act introduces new rights for communities to take greater control in their local areas, for example by challenging local authorities to contract out services where they feel they could do a better job of running them”.

This suggests three questions: what services do the Government have in mind; do they know what local authorities are actually doing; and what plans have they got to assess the use of the Localism Act in promoting migrant integration? I hope that the Minister can address some of these questions now or later.

Our report also recommended that member states and the EU consider a more balanced and comprehensive approach to those who overstay their visas, including by the selective encouragement of legal migration channels, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned. The Government simply did not respond to this recommendation, although I know from the Home Secretary’s comments yesterday that the Government are very much aware of the problem of overstaying. Can the Minister give his views on the approach to handling this problem, both in terms of those migrants here now and those who will arrive in the future? I was sorry that the Government did not agree with our recommendation that they participate in all EU readmission agreements, but I was glad that they agree that there should be continued evaluation of existing agreements.

In any discussion of mobility and migration and the opportunities and problems that they may present, it and is vital to have accurate and reliable data and robust evaluations of programs and tools. The committee considered that the current iteration of the GAMM has not effectively evaluated the EU’s progress to date in achieving its objectives, and we called for more rigour and for full and detailed evaluations. The Government agreed with this and agreed, I think, that there is much work to be done.

The mobility partnerships, again mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, illustrate the point. These partnerships are set to become the main tools for the EU’s external migration policies. Yet, so far, only one of these partnerships has been evaluated and that evaluation was close to worthless. In my long experience of evaluation reports, I have rarely seen one that was so inadequate, so amateur and so directly misleading. The evaluation’s conclusion that the Moldova mobility partnership had been “a clear success” was not supported by the evidence adduced and was directly contradicted by the evaluation’s account of its own shortcomings. The general sloppiness, lack of rigour and misleading conclusions regarding the Moldova mobility partnership evaluation matter. The EU proposes these partnerships as the key mobility and migration tools. If they are to be the key tools, they should not be progressed without a grown-up evaluation framework being built in to them from the very start. The Government surely have a role to play here, if only to prevent a further waste of taxpayers’ money.

However, none of the Government’s disagreements or qualifications in their response to the committee’s report is as disappointing as their response to the recommendations on international students and net migration targets. Noble Lords have already spoken eloquently and forcefully on this matter and I am sure we will hear more from other speakers. The Government rejected the recommendation that international students be removed from the public policy implications of the Government’s policy of reducing net migration. The reason given in their response is that the UK will continue to comply with the international definition of net migration. That is not in itself an obviously compelling reason for anything at all. It is also a very odd response.

The Government say that there is no cap on qualified student numbers. Their response states that,

“any student with the right qualifications, sufficient funds and a good level of English can come with no annual limit on numbers”.

Unless there is some implication that I have not spotted in the phrase “no annual limit”, this is a liberal and sensible approach. After all, the Government acknowledge that they are committed to the sustainable growth of a sector in which the UK excels and which is worth huge sums to the UK economy. In other words, we want this sector to grow. That means attracting more suitably qualified students. It also means maintaining—or, even better, growing—our market share.

The Government are not trying to cut the numbers of qualified students coming here, so why on earth include their numbers in the gross number of migrants presented for policy purposes? What possible harm could it do to exclude them? The answer is surely that it would do no harm at all. However, it is easy to see that leaving the situation as it is may well be causing us current and future damage, and that is because, as the committee’s report says, it helps to create the perception that overseas students are not welcome in the UK.

Noble Lords have already referred to the briefing produced yesterday by Universities UK. The Higher Education Statistics Agency data in this briefing show a decline in non-EU postgraduate entry to our universities and only a small increase in undergraduate entry. The data also show that demand from India has absolutely plummeted. Universities UK concludes that,

“in the context of a rapidly growing and highly competitive international market, the low overall growth over recent years is likely to equate to a loss of market share”,

which means, of course, a loss of revenue for the UK, but it also means a loss of future cultural influence and soft power. Much of this is caused by problems of perception: the perception that the UK does not welcome foreign students and that the UK is making itself deliberately difficult for students to get into. Unless we change that perception, things will get worse.

With the very dramatic fall in Indian students coming to the UK, the numbers are increasingly propped up by the Chinese. However, there are signs that the Chinese numbers may themselves soon decline. A recent survey of Chinese high school students revealed that over the past 12 months only 60% of those high school students who had previously preferred the UK as a destination for university still did so. I repeat: only 60%.

We need to reverse the perception of the UK as unwelcoming to students. We need to reflect the truth of “no cap”. We need to make entry easier and for it to be seen to be easier. We can make a good start in doing this and send out a powerful signal by removing students from the public policy implications of the Government’s policy of reducing net migration. The Government’s refusal so far to do this looks much more like stubbornness than it looks like principle or even electoral calculation, and I hope that the Minister may feel able to ask his colleagues to reconsider.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, perhaps I may raise two small points. They seem almost trivial in the context but they are important and, as the noble Baroness said earlier, the opportunities for this sort of discussion are limited to Committee. I appreciate that this is existing legislation in Scotland. My first point relates to proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment, which states,

“where A knows, or ought in all the circumstances to have known”.

The existing Section 4(2) brings in the notion of a reasonable person. I read the existing law as objective and this proposal as being subjective, and I am not sure whether it is strong enough.

My second point relates to new subsection (2) of the proposal, where it would be necessary for the course of conduct to cause “fear or alarm”. Again, I wonder whether that is strong enough. What if the victim is a particularly resilient person? Should the person engaging in the conduct be able to do so because of the toughness of the victim?

[Lord Sharkey]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for tabling this amendment, whose objectives I strongly support. As noble Lords have already noted, the situation relating to stalking in England and Wales is entirely unsatisfactory. It is clear that the offence of harassment is not an effective way of dealing with the problem of stalking. It is not effective for the protection of possible victims; it is not effective for the successful prosecution of offenders; and it is not effective in the delivery of appropriate punishment for those who are found guilty.

A recent survey conducted by the members of the National Association of Probation Officers showed that the overwhelming majority of victims were in constant fear and many were physically injured. Most victims claim that there are a number of incidents before they feel they can go to the police. Often their complaints are not properly investigated, and the perpetrator’s behaviour escalates over time if there is no criminal justice intervention or treatment.

It appears that stalking behaviour is simply not recognised by the majority of professionals who have to deal with the cases. Probation staff are concerned that when sentences are handed down they are often too short for rehabilitation or treatment to occur, or even to match the gravity of the offence and its effect on the lives of victims. We should not allow things to continue as they are. The suffering caused to victims is often harrowing and sometimes life-destroying.

The current methods for dealing with the problem are clearly inadequate. However, as noble Lords have pointed out, there is an obvious way forward, which is to learn from the experience in Scotland. As noble Lords have indicated, Scotland chose not to introduce a version of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997—currently the law in England and Wales—on the grounds that the Act did not transfer powers into practice. Instead, a new law, on which this amendment is based, was passed in December 2010 creating a specific offence of stalking and offences of threatening and abusive behaviour. This legislation has the support of the police, who have themselves adopted new operational guidelines to ensure proper awareness of stalking and harassment. There are clear signs of the success of this Act, even at this very early stage.

I acknowledge that the Government take this matter extremely seriously, and I know that the consultation on the issue runs until 5 February. It is important that we learn from it. Nevertheless, I urge the Minister to take account of the strong views expressed today and the terrible plight of the victims of stalking and not to delay legislation on this issue one moment longer than is absolutely necessary.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I note what my noble friend Lord Sharkey and all other noble Lords said. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Dear, who said that we should take away all the comments. My noble friend said we should look at this and not delay legislation. As he reminded us, we have a consultation that runs to 5 February. Obviously, we want to see the result of that consultation before we move much further, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining how her clause works and allowing us the opportunity to debate these matters.

As the noble Baroness will know, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s ambition, and the Government’s ambition, is nothing less than ending all forms of violence against women, including stalking. I am again grateful to my noble friend Lady Brinton for reminding us that stalking is not committed just against women and that some 20 per cent is against men. It is an offence that affects and can be devastating to many lives, and that is why we included stalking as a priority in our Call to End Violence against Women and Girls strategy published last November and why we followed it up with specific actions to tackle stalking in our action plan published this spring. It is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in response to a Question said:

“It is important that we take forward the work that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have done in looking at a proper, separate offence for stalking and recognising that there is a gap in the current law that we should fill, because there are people who are not getting the protection and help from the police that they need”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/11; col. 292.]

The noble Baroness is seeking to strengthen the law on stalking and, as I said, there may be a case for that, but we should remember that we have that consultation and we want to look at it in some detail. There might be a degree of unanimity about what we can do and that at a later stage of the Bill—I do not know—something might be possible. That is a matter for the future, but before I go into some of the detail about what we have at the moment and what the noble Baroness’s amendment does, I think it is important to get that on the record.

I would like to make one comment that I think is relevant and to deal with the question of police training and training for others that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend Lady Brinton. It is important that the right attitude exists within the police and those who have to deal with these things. We recognise that in the past that was not always the case. The Home Office has been working very hard with ACPO, the Crown Prosecution Service—which is important in this—the Ministry of Justice and, equally importantly, various stalking charities to ensure that best practice guidance has been disseminated. We are trying to do that through a series of regional events to make sure that how they must deal with these matters gets down to the police at the grass roots. ACPO now thinks that 65 per cent of forces currently have officers trained in risk assessment in this area, and it hopes to get that up to all forces by the end of the year, so awareness is improving and training will go on, but I recognise that there are concerns in this field.

I shall go back to some detail because I would like to get this on the record so that the noble Baroness can understand where we are with the existing Act—it was possibly the first Act that the previous Government passed, with the exception of that rather pernicious Act, which I was involved with, that abolished grant-maintained schools, but we will not deal with that at the moment. Probably one of the earliest Acts they passed was the Protection from Harassment Act. That was brought into force primarily to tackle stalking, but extends to any other persistent conduct that causes another person alarm or distress.

Parliament Square (Management) Bill [HL]

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Friday 1st July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, perhaps one of the most striking aspects of the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Marlesford is its distinguished ancestry. This House has debated the issues which the Bill addresses many times and at some length. It has even frequently debated these issues since the beginning of the year. Reading those debates from this and previous years leaves me with two strong impressions. The first is of the careful thought and the quality of the advocacy that has gone into these discussions, and here I have particularly in mind the contributions of my noble friends Lord Tyler, Lord Cormack, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and the noble Lord, Lord Desai—who spoke again a moment ago in his usual eloquent fashion. His speech reminded me that I also demonstrated in Grosvenor Square, without staying overnight.

The second strong impression I have is of Groundhog Day. We seem to have found it terribly difficult to put in place satisfactory measures for the proper management of the square, despite a fairly large measure of agreement about what that management should be. It is in this context that I very much welcome the clarity and simplicity of my noble friend’s Bill. It seems that the proper tests for any scheme of management for the square should be, first, that the management scheme makes proportionate and reasonable provision for visitors and workers, including parliamentarians, and for peaceful demonstrations; secondly, that the management regime recognises that the reasonable requirements of these groups should be assessed alongside the requirement to protect and even promote the historic nature of the square and its environs and its architectural and other visual appeals; and, thirdly, that the rules should be simple, unambiguous, short and easy to apply.

It seems obvious that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 did not meet these tests, above all in one critical respect. It instituted a management regime that was unreasonable and disproportionate in its treatment of certain peaceful demonstrations. Your Lordships will remember the case of Maya Evans and Milan Rai, who were arrested in 2005 for reading out the names of war dead at the Cenotaph. My noble friend Lord Tyler has rightly described this response as wholly disproportionate. In his Demonstrations in the Vicinity of Parliament (Removal of Authorisation Requirements) Bill, my noble friend proposed a simple repeal of the sections of the 2005 Act that dealt with Parliament Square.

Since then, however, we have had the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill presented to us, which contains provisions that would replace the SOCPA provisions for Parliament Square. These new government provisions run to five pages and go into considerable detail. The Government’s Bill starts by proposing, as my noble friend Lord Tyler did, the repeal of the relevant provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. On the whole, the Government’s proposed new provisions seem to pass the first test—they seem to make adequate provision for peaceful demonstration and would restore free access to the square to visitors and workers. By ending both the overnight and enduring occupation of the square and its pavements and the erection of temporary shelters, these provisions most definitely take account of the need to protect the historic nature of the square. They most definitely would also restore the visual appeal of the square, after such a long and occasionally rather squalid interlude.

I am doubtful whether the new government provisions altogether pass the third test and whether even the drafter of that Bill could call the text relating to Parliament Square simple, unambiguous and short. More importantly, it seems that these proposed new provisions have another, more general defect—namely, that they have missed the opportunity to be positive about the square and its environs. These new provisions are wholly negative; they all say what cannot be done. Given the importance and historical resonance of the square and the undeniable grandeur and beauty of its immediate environs, I should have liked to see a duty written in to promote the square and its environs and to encourage its general, uncontentious and peaceful use.

As for the Bill before us, it is immediately clear that its provisions are indeed simple, unambiguous, short and easy to apply. Yet I wonder whether in this case the present Bill may be a little too simple, a little too short and, simultaneously, in one sense, a little too complex. The Bill before us does not, as I understand it, repeal the provisions of SOCPA, but it would be highly desirable and easy to add that. Nor does it create a responsibility to promote the use of the square, which is a pity. However, it does seem to add yet another layer of management and yet another committee to an already rich mix of interested and responsible parties. I wonder whether that is really necessary. Finally, the Bill seems to be silent on music. I invite my noble friend to give consideration to these points.

My noble friend Lord Marlesford has done us all a significant service today with this Bill. He has shown us that simplicity and clarity can be achieved and has focused our minds on the need for action to resolve this astonishingly long-running problem. I very much welcome this initiative and encourage the Minister to think carefully about the merits of the construction of the Bill when it comes to consideration of the Government’s own proposals for the management of Parliament Square.