Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 1 September (HL2328) and 21 September 2021 (HL2472) where she stated that she would “be meeting with the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner shortly to discuss the issues raised in the correspondence with Hikvision”, and her remarks on 2 February (HL Deb col 998), what was the outcome of those discussions with the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner; and whether Hikvision will be banned by the United Kingdom.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
I have met with the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner on 13 October last year and discussed the issues raised in the correspondence with Hikvision.
The Government is committed to supporting UK businesses to engage with China in a way that reflects the UK’s values and takes account of national security concerns. We have published guidance to help cutting-edge UK firms negotiate the ethical, legal and commercial questions they may encounter in China or when working with Chinese businesses, supporting safe and appropriate UK-China collaboration in the digital and technology space. The guidance provides firms with clear, up-to-date information and specialist support which reflect the UK’s values and take account of national security concerns. Our Overseas Business Risk guidance also makes clear to UK businesses operating in China the need to consider the risk of exposure to entities that may be providing or developing surveillance technologies. We continue to keep our policy position under review, working closely with our international partners.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to amend paragraphs (1) HK 26.2, (2) HK 26.3, (3) HK 31.1, and (4) HK 31.2, of the Appendix to the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) Immigration Rules, to allow Hong Kong citizens born on or after 1997 with British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) parents to register for the UK BN(O) Visa Scheme independently of their parents.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The BN(O) route is an unprecedented and generous offer reflecting the UK’s historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BN(O) status. We are sympathetic to the circumstances of children born on or after 1 July 1997 with BN(O) parents and are considering what more can be done to support this cohort where they wish to build a permanent life in the UK.
We will inform the House once a way forward has been established.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 19 January (HL Deb, col 1653) what plans they have to undertake an inquiry into the wider implications of this case for the conduct of parliamentary business and the protection of the integrity of the legislative system.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
As noted in the statement made by the Home Secretary to the House on 17 January and my comments on the 19 January, it is, and always will be, an absolute priority to protect the UK against foreign interference.
We have no plans for an inquiry on this specific case, however we have structures in place to identify threats to democracy and, where necessary, take proportionate action to mitigate them. As you would expect, we keep these structures under review to ensure they remain responsive to changing threats.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to create a bespoke humanitarian visa scheme for Uyghurs.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The UK has a proud record of providing protection for people who need it, in accordance with our obligations under the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights and will continue this record.
We already welcome vulnerable people in need of protection to the UK through our resettlement schemes. These schemes have provided safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people to start new lives in the UK.
While we sympathise with the many people facing difficult situations around the world, we have no plans to introduce a bespoke humanitarian visa scheme for Uyghurs.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage discount was negotiated by the Home Office with hotels in London that accommodated Afghan refugees; and what consideration was given during negotiations to the relatively low occupancy rate hotels have experienced due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Accommodation costs are considered to be commercially confidential so we do not provide this information.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to reports that HSBC invested in Xinjiang Tianye Ltd, a subsidiary of an entity sanctioned by the government of the United States of America for its involvement in crimes against Uyghurs in Xinjiang, what steps they are taking to extend section 54 (Transparency in supply chains etc.) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 so that it better governs the activities of financial services institutions.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The UK was the first country in the world to require businesses to report on the steps they have taken to tackle modern slavery. The landmark provision in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires organisations, including financial institutions, with a turnover of £36m or more, to report annually on the steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains.
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, including those in financial services. The Government encourages companies to monitor their supply chains with rigour to uncover and remedy any associations they may find with forced labour or other labour abuses.
The Government has already committed to take forward an ambitious package of changes to strengthen the Act’s transparency legislation, including mandating the specific reporting topics that statements must cover and introducing financial penalties for organisations that fail to comply.
To further bolster our approach to modern slavery, on 24 March 2021, the Government announced a review of the 2014 Modern Slavery Strategy. As part of the strategy review we will consider how to strengthen our approach to transparency in supply chains, including in relation to financial institutions. A revised strategy will allow us to build on the considerable progress we have made to date, adapt our approach to the evolving nature of these terrible crimes, and continue our international leadership in tackling modern slavery.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the debate on 5 January (HL Deb, cols 596–7), what assessment they have made of proposals to address the effect that the public order disqualification threshold and time period of slavery and trafficking information notices will have on catching alleged perpetrators.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
It is a priority for this government to increase prosecutions of perpetrators of modern slavery and the measures included within the Nationality and Borders Bill are designed to support these aims.
Through the Public Order Disqualification, we want to ensure the protection from removal and provision of support are not afforded to serious criminals and those who pose a national security threat, in line with our international obligations. Each decision is discretionary and will be taken on a case by case basis. This will mean that we do not lose the ability to provide a recovery period and/or make a conclusive grounds decision when it is beneficial to support prosecutions.
The Slavery or Trafficking Information Notice under Clause 57 supports our aim to identify victims early and ensure they receive appropriate support, and therefore better able to assist with investigative and enforcement activities. All referrals will be appropriately considered regardless of when they are brought to make sure that those who need protection are afforded it.
We are clear, that across both these measures, First Responders should still always refer victims into the National Referral Mechanism in line with Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance, using the online form even where the individual has had a previous recovery period or has a criminal conviction. In operationalising these clauses we will ensure this is abundantly clear.
This Government’s commitment to supporting victims is precisely why the Nationality and Borders Bill also makes clear that, where a public authority is pursuing an investigation or criminal proceedings, confirmed victims who are co-operating in this activity and need to remain in the UK in order to do so, will be granted a form of temporary leave to support this crucial endeavour. These measures build upon support and investment to strengthen the police response to modern slavery, including initiatives to help victims engage in the criminal justice system so more offenders can face justice.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the debate on 5 January (HL Deb, cols 596–7), what assessment they have made of the cost of citizenship registration fees for children; what steps they plan to take to address this; and what plans they have to extend the British National (Overseas) (BNO) visa scheme to those from Hong Kong aged 18–25 as long as one parent has BNO status.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The Home Office has acknowledged the High Court’s judgment and is reviewing the fee in line with its duties under Section 55.
A Supreme Court hearing on Child Registration fees took place on 23 and 24 June 2021. We await the final judgment and the ongoing section 55 review before publishing results.
The BN(O) route is an unprecedented and generous offer reflecting the UK’s historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BN(O) status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997. However, we are sympathetic to the circumstances of those aged 18 to 25 who live in Hong Kong and are looking at whether more can be done to support them.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the proposed powers to be granted to the Secretary of State in clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill, to strip individuals with or entitled to dual nationality of their British citizenship, would apply to individuals (1) who were born in, or (2) whose mothers were born in, either (a) Northern Ireland, or (b) the Republic of Ireland, who are entitled under Irish law to Irish citizenship.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Clause 9 of the Nationality and Borders Bill relates solely to how a person is notified of a decision to deprive them of their British citizenship. There is no change to the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their British citizenship or to their right of appeal. The use of powers under section 40 must comply with the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Home Office will always consider an individual’s rights under the Good Friday Agreement in any relevant deprivation decision.
Asked by: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many British citizens who travelled to (1) Iraq, or (2) Syria, to join Islamic State have since returned to the UK; how many such individuals are being monitored by the security services; how often are their social media posts monitored; and how many have been prosecuted.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
Since 2013 over 900 UK-linked individuals of national security concern have travelled to engage with the Syrian conflict, against the advice of the Foreign Office. Of these, approximately 25% have been killed in the conflict and just under half have returned to the UK.
All of those who have returned have been investigated and the majority have been assessed to pose no, or a low, security risk. As of 2018 there had been around 40 convictions of individuals prosecuted following their return from Syria, for a range of offences either connected to their activities overseas or as a result of subsequent Counter-Terrorism investigations.
It would not be appropriate to comment on ongoing operational activity by the Security Service.