Asked by: Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the agreement at the 18 May European Union Council meeting that the EU will work towards allowing visa-free access to the EU for Turkish citizens, whether Turkish citizens will be granted visa-free access to the United Kingdom.
Answered by Lord Bates
The UK does not participate in the immigration and border aspects of the Schengen acquis so there is no obligation on the UK to liberalise the visa regime for Turkish citizens as a result of the European Union Council decision. We continue to monitor the situation including the Commission’s assessment of the security and migratory impacts of visa liberalisation.
The Government regularly reviews the visa system. Visa regimes are imposed and removed on the basis of the risk that the country’s citizens pose to the UK. There are no current plans to change the visa regime for Turkish citizens.
Asked by: Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 14 July (HL714) concerning the cost of security protection for former Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers, whether they will publish the total cost in 2014 to 2015 of security protection for all recipients.
Answered by Lord Bates
I refer to my previous written answers: disclosure of such information could compromise the integrity of and affect the security of the individuals concerned.
Disclosing such details would not only reveal tactical policing decisions, but would compromise the safety of those arrangements since it would enable those wishing to circumvent them to form an assessment of the level of policing and protection being provided.
Asked by: Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 25 June (HL714), why information about the cost of security protection for former Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers could compromise the security of the individuals concerned; and whether such security protection extends to when they are abroad.
Answered by Lord Bates
I refer to my previous written answer: disclosure of such information could compromise the integrity of and affect the security of the individuals concerned. Disclosing such details would not only reveal tactical policing decisions, but would compromise the safety of those arrangements since it would enable those wishing to circumvent them to form an assessment of the level of policing and protection being provided. Decisions about the protective security of former Prime Ministers abroad are made by the Cabinet Office chaired, Royal and Ministerial Visits Committee for Overseas Travel.
Asked by: Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the latest available figures of the cost of providing police and other security protection for former prime ministers and deputy prime ministers.
Answered by Lord Bates
It is Home Office policy not to comment upon matters of personal protective security and their associated costs. Disclosure of such information could compromise the integrity of those arrangements and affect the security of the individuals concerned.
Asked by: Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether any of the alleged industrial espionage in relation to Airbus by the United States and German intelligence services took place in the United Kingdom.
Answered by Lord Bates
It is the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment on intelligence matters.
Asked by: Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 12 February (HL4630) concerning the proposed European Union Passenger Name Records Directive, whether the directive would transfer further powers to the institutions of the European Union; and, if so, whether they consider that a referendum should be held under the provisions of the European Union Act 2011.
Answered by Lord Bates
The European Union Act 2011 does not apply to the exercise of competence already conferred on the EU within the existing EU Treaties, which includes the enactment of EU measures such as directives or regulations within existing areas of European Union competence (the one exception is a decision under Article 352 TFEU, which requires an Act of Parliament). The normal Parliamentary scrutiny arrangements continue to apply to proposals for EU legislation.
The proposals in the draft Passenger Name Records Directive (PNR) do not transfer further areas of competence to the European Union. In triggering the JHA opt-in, the PNR
Directive was however subject to the enhanced parliamentary scrutiny arrangements, including debates in both Houses in March 2011 prior to the decision that the UK should participate in the measure.
Asked by: Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the latest net migration figures, what is their assessment of the United Kingdom’s ability to control immigration numbers in the context of European Union and international rules and interventions.
Answered by Lord Bates
The immigration system we inherited was open to abuse and gave little consideration to whether migrants could support themselves or contribute to the UK when they arrived. This Government has reformed the immigration system by tackling abuse of student visas, cutting access to benefits and closing visa routes for those coming to the UK without a job.
In addition this Government has tightened up access to benefits, clamped down on more than 850 bogus colleges and increased the level of English required to come and stay here. The Immigration Act 2014 is making made it much tougher for illegal immigrants to remain in the UK by restricting their access to work, housing, benefits, healthcare, bank accounts and driving licences.
As a result of these changes, family visas granted are down by a third compared to the year ending September 2010 and student visas granted are down by over a quarter. Since July we have revoked over 5,000 driving licences and removed more than 500 foreign criminals since July 2014 under the new non-suspensive powers. These changes have demonstrated that it is possible to reform and reduce immigration.
Net migration from within the EU has doubled since 2010. That is why, as the Prime Minister has said, we will continue the reforms this Government has introduced to crack down on the abuse of free movement, continue the reforms this Government has introduced on access to benefits, and insist that there are new arrangements in place for future Member States to prevent a repeat of the mass migration that resulted from the previous Government’s failure to impose robust transitional controls in 2004.
Asked by: Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the European Commission's plan to collect and store for five years the personal data of all passengers flying in and out of the European Union; whether they support the plan; and whether nation states' parliaments would have the power to decide whether or not to implement it.
Answered by Lord Bates
The UK Government has been calling for an effective EU framework on Passenger Name Records (PNR) for several years and we are carefully considering the Commission’s proposals. We are supportive of the need to collect and store passenger data for five years as a proportionate and necessary tool in the fight against terrorism and serious crime.
The Commission’s proposals for a draft Directive would require that Member States bring into force its provisions within two years of the Directive’s entry into force.