Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the level of corruption, in particular money laundering, in the UK, and the scale of involvement of law firms, global corporations and banks in such crime; what steps they are taking to address corruption; and whether they support proposals to establish an international anti-corruption court.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
There is widespread international agreement that reliably measuring the scale of corruption or corrupt proceeds presents a significant challenge. The National Crime Agency assesses that it is a realistic possibility that over £100 billion is laundered through and within the UK or UK registered corporate structures each year using high end money laundering methods, with cash-based money laundering highly likely to be over £12 billion each year. However, it is not currently possible to identify the proportion of these laundered amounts which involve corruption.
Despite challenges identifying overall scale, we have advanced our understanding of the nature of corruption and money laundering including the role of professional enablers.
The Economic Crime Plan (2023-26) sets out ambitious reforms to reduce money laundering and recover more criminal assets; combat kleptocracy and drive down sanctions evasion; and cut fraud. This is supported by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and will be complemented by a new UK Anti-Corruption Strategy, which is currently under development. This will outline the UK response to strengthen resilience against corruption in the UK and internationally and build on the progress made by the UK Anti-Corruption Strategy (2017-22).
This government is fully committed to ensuring that all corrupt actors are held to account, including those responsible for the most egregious acts of corruption. We have considered the idea of an International Anti-Corruption Court, including with 40 international partners in November last year, and have concluded that now is not the time to endorse a new, bespoke institution of this nature.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take in response to the findings of Professor Fraser Sampson, the former independent biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner, that the police estate in the UK is “shot through” with Chinese surveillance equipment.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to the installation of Hikvision cameras being positioned in UK police stations.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. Ministers will correspond directly with the Member.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many companies in the UK subject to section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 have disclosed (1) the use of cobalt, and (2) the use of cobalt from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in their supply chain in the past five years; and what steps they have taken to pay workers a fair price and to eradicate child labour in supply chains.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires commercial businesses who operate in the UK and have a turnover of £36 million or more to report annually on the steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. This transparency legislation was designed to enable consumers, investors and civil society to scrutinise business action and hold them to account.
The prevalence of modern slavery and complexity of global supply chains means that it is highly unlikely that any sector or company is immune from the risks of modern slavery. The Government encourages companies to monitor their supply chains with rigor to uncover and remedy any instances of modern slavery they may find.
To further enhance transparency, In March 2021 the UK Government launched an online modern slavery statement registry to bring together modern slavery statements onto a single platform and make the data readily available for the public. Since launch, 12,000 modern slavery statements covering 40,000 organisations have been submitted to the registry on a voluntary basis.
It would not be realistic or proportionate for Government to routinely review the content of individual modern slavery statements.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether China should be specified under the ‘enhanced tier’ of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
As the Deputy Prime Minister stated during the Security Update on 11 September, it remains an absolute priority for the government to take all necessary steps to protect the United Kingdom from any foreign state activity which seeks to undermine our national security, prosperity and democratic values.
Earlier this year, the Government passed the National Security Act 2023, which provides for the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS), a two-tier scheme which will enable transparency of foreign influence in UK politics and provide greater assurance around the activities of specified foreign powers or foreign power-controlled entities.
In implementing the scheme, the Government is considering where greater scrutiny is needed through the enhanced tier to protect the safety or interests of the UK. As the Deputy Prime Minister stated, the Government is currently reviewing the foreign powers who should be specified on the enhanced tier but will not make any announcements in respect of this, until it has gone through all the proper processes.
Work is ongoing to deliver the scheme, including establishing a Scheme Management Unit and supporting IT and developing relevant guidance. A public consultation on guidance for the scheme is currently live on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/foreign-influence-registration-scheme-draft-guidance
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many children who arrived in the UK on small boats they have accommodated in each of the last five years; what steps they have taken to ensure their safety and security; what assessment they have made of the (1) safety, (2) security, and (3) safeguarding, measures put in place for those children; and how any issues identified have been addressed.
Answered by Lord Murray of Blidworth
The data requested cannot be provided as it comes from live operational databases that have not been quality assured.
All asylum seekers, including children, have an interview on arrival in the UK which includes a series of questions specifically designed to understand whether there are any potential indicators of trafficking. A referral is made to the National Referral Mechanism if indicators are noted. In the case of children, a safety plan is put in place by social services, whilst adults identified as potential victims of modern slavery are entitled to care and support provided by the Salvation Army.
There has been a significant increase in the numbers of young people making unnecessary and dangerous journeys to the UK. The Home Office has had no alternative but to temporarily use hotels in order to give some unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) emergency accommodation and support while permanent accommodation with a local authority is identified.
We are determined to end the use of hotels for these young people and Home Office officials work tirelessly with local authorities to move children into care placements through the National Transfer Scheme (NTS).
The Home Office has no power to hold children or adults in contingency hotels if they wish to leave. To minimise the risk of a child going missing, records of children leaving and returning to the hotel are kept and monitored. Support workers accompany children off site on activities and social excursions, or where specific vulnerabilities are identified.
The Home Office and its accommodation providers have robust processes in place to ensure that where someone is at risk, they are referred to the appropriate statutory agencies of the police, NHS and social services, to promote appropriate safeguarding interventions. All contingency sites have security staff and providers liaise closely with local police to ensure the welfare and safety of vulnerable residents.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the number of children arriving in the UK on small boats of whom they have lost track; what steps they have taken to identify their whereabouts; and what steps they have taken to ensure that other children do not go missing.
Answered by Lord Murray of Blidworth
The data requested cannot be provided as it comes from live operational databases that have not been quality assured.
All asylum seekers, including children, have an interview on arrival in the UK which includes a series of questions specifically designed to understand whether there are any potential indicators of trafficking. A referral is made to the National Referral Mechanism if indicators are noted. In the case of children, a safety plan is put in place by social services, whilst adults identified as potential victims of modern slavery are entitled to care and support provided by the Salvation Army.
There has been a significant increase in the numbers of young people making unnecessary and dangerous journeys to the UK. The Home Office has had no alternative but to temporarily use hotels in order to give some unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) emergency accommodation and support while permanent accommodation with a local authority is identified.
We are determined to end the use of hotels for these young people and Home Office officials work tirelessly with local authorities to move children into care placements through the National Transfer Scheme (NTS).
The Home Office has no power to hold children or adults in contingency hotels if they wish to leave. To minimise the risk of a child going missing, records of children leaving and returning to the hotel are kept and monitored. Support workers accompany children off site on activities and social excursions, or where specific vulnerabilities are identified.
The Home Office and its accommodation providers have robust processes in place to ensure that where someone is at risk, they are referred to the appropriate statutory agencies of the police, NHS and social services, to promote appropriate safeguarding interventions. All contingency sites have security staff and providers liaise closely with local police to ensure the welfare and safety of vulnerable residents.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the proposed increase in visa and immigration health surcharge fees on Hong Kong families seeking British National (Overseas) visas; what are the current fees; and what further plans they have to change those arrangements.
Answered by Lord Murray of Blidworth
The Home Office is increasing application fees across a range of immigration and nationality routes, including for people coming to live, work and study in the UK. Increasing application fees, together with the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS), in this way could raise more than £1 billion, helping to fund vital services and allowing wider funding to be prioritised for public sector pay awards.
We will lay regulations in the Autumn to amend the immigration and nationality fee and IHS levels and set out which immigration routes are impacted.
The current application fees for the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route are set out here:
UK visa fees - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The current levels of IHS are set out here:
Pay for UK healthcare as part of your immigration application: How much you have to pay - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, given the recent arrest warrants and bounties for exiled Hong Kong pro-democracy activists, what plans they have to expedite the asylum applications of former Hong Kong elected district councillors.
Answered by Lord Murray of Blidworth
The UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it. All asylum claims are considered on a case-by-case basis in line with published policy including those raised by Hong Kong nationals.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, following the issuing of arrest warrants and the offer of HK$1 million reward for the arrest of former lawmakers Ted Hui, Dennis Kwok and Nathan Law by Hong Kong police, what assessment they have made of the protection provided to former exiled Hong Kong lawmakers given sanctuary in the UK.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The Government continually assesses potential threats in the UK, and takes protection of individuals’ rights, freedoms, and safety in the UK very seriously.
We will not tolerate any attempts by China to intimidate and silence individuals in the UK and overseas. The UK will always defend the universal right to freedom of expression and stand up for those who are targeted.
Where we identify individuals who may be at heightened risk, we are front footed in deploying protective security guidance and other measures as appropriate.
It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on security and intelligence matters, including the security arrangements for protected individuals. To do so could compromise the integrity of those arrangements and affect the security of the individuals concerned.
We strongly object to the National Security Law that China has imposed on Hong Kong, including its extraterritorial reach, in breach of the legally binding Sino-British Joint Declaration. We call on Beijing to remove the National Security Law and for the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of those who stand up for freedom and democracy.