India and Southeast Asia: Free Trade Agreements

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this debate to us and the very sensible way in which she opened it. It is a regrettable fact, notwithstanding the excellent work of the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed to UK-India and wider regional trade, that we are punching below our weight when it comes to seizing the opportunities for trade in this area. It is just three years since the boosterism of what had been claimed would be a five-star agreement by Diwali in 2022. The reality of trade policy is such that there are difficult trade-offs—literally—and hard choices to be made.

In that regard, I wish the Government well in the talks that are under way. I believe there is now a sense of reality, not of boosterism. Even under the previous Administration, the anticipated 15-year gains to UK GDP of an FTA with India were forecast to be between 0.00% and 0.08%. Nevertheless, in the very sectors that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned, we can see sector-by-sector growth.

One aspect that has not been mentioned in the debate so far, which I raised in the debate we had in 2022, is trade diversion. We have to be very mindful that if we have an FTA with India, which I would support, then even on the previous Government’s figures almost all of the potential gain in extra trade with India would be off-set by reduced trade with other countries in the ASEAN region through trade diversion. Any tariff benefits for one nation could well be at the cost of others, especially for Bangladesh. I hope that the Minister can say that trade diversion is a key part of the discussions that we are having with India.

It has also been raised that there are areas of complexity in our relationship with India, whether it is India in BRICS, the war-games with Russia that they have been carrying out over the last year or the rupee-rouble swap, where certain sectors of the Indian economy have profited from sanction circumvention on Ukraine. There are also the barriers that many noble Lords in this House have worked hard to reduce over many years, especially within the financial sector, FDI, lack of consensus on greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy, farming subsidies and policies, et cetera. I hope all these areas can be addressed in the talks.

Finally, regarding the wider area, just before the February recess I and other parliamentary colleagues visited Singapore and Malaysia through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The Minister is held in very high regard. At every meeting we had, people asked us to pass on our regards to him. That leads to one of our observations, which the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, touched on. We are not sending a sufficient number of Ministers, high-level officials and delegations to this region. Human-to-human discussion is very important when it comes to facilitating trade and soft power, and we should be doing more of it. I am very pleased that Minister West will be in the region; I wish her luck for the visit. It was also very clear to us that Malaysia’s presidency of ASEAN and its green vision for renewable energy and green technology are an enormous opportunity for the UK.

I close with an appeal to the Minister. I suspect that he will not be able to respond to me today. There is an economic integration programme that the UK Government fund, looking at how we promote trade within ASEAN. That is scored as official development assistance because it is technical assistance. I very much hope that with the decisions to cut official development assistance by more than half, those areas of technical support—for trade promotion, for the very growth that we wish to see—will be protected and not cut.

Syrian Asylum Applications

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is not for me to determine or judge whether an individual wishes to apply for asylum from their country of origin to the United Kingdom or any other country. Our job is to assess such claims against the criteria that we have about persecution and the need for refugee status to be granted. There may be individuals who, in a future Syria, feel that they need to seek asylum from that regime— I do not know. That would be for those individuals to determine and apply, and for this Government to adjudicate accordingly.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Government of Syria are a proscribed terrorist organisation under British law. The Minister suggested, if I heard him correctly, that the pause will be in place until there is clarity about a permanent, stable Government of Syria, which may not be for a considerable time. Given that we have already seen instances of the persecution of women in Syria in certain geographical regions, I hope that the Home Office is not making a decision now that Syria is a permanently safe country.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I assure the noble Lord that people can still apply for asylum from Syria; what they cannot do is have a decision. There is nothing to stop people applying, but they cannot have a decision. That is because we need to review the situation in Syria, partly for the reasons the noble Lord has mentioned and partly because we need to look at the long-term situation in Syria. There may be individuals who currently have applications and who wish to return, and there is a mechanism for them to apply for support from the UK Government to cease their applications and return. There may be other individuals who wish to leave Syria for a range of reasons. This is not a unilateral action by the UK Government; it is one that is supported by Austria, Belgium, France and other European countries, and the pause has the support of the United Nations Refugee Agency. It is a serious assessment of the situation, and I hope the noble Lord will bear with us until we can resolve that.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

I will speak briefly on my final two amendments, Amendments 26 and 27. Amendment 26 proposes the removal of the reference to “de facto adoption” from the Bill. Although adoption is a recognised legal process with clear safeguards, de facto adoption lacks the same formal standards and could be open to abuse, and it would be expensive and cumbersome to—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Time.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

It is an advisory time limit. I thank the noble Lord for that.

It would also be impossible to ascertain the veracity of a claim in foreign jurisdictions.

This amendment would ensure that family reunion rights were extended only to those whose adoptive status had been legally verified. Such a change would protect vulnerable children while ensuring that the system was not exploited; in fact, it would specifically protect children and young people from being trafficked for sexual or other exploitation.

Amendment 27 would introduce a requirement for medical health assessments for all applicants before their family reunion status was approved. This is a common-sense measure that ensures the health and well-being of those entering the UK. Early health assessments can identify any medical issues requiring treatment, ensuring that appropriate support is provided, and additionally, these assessments protect public health by identifying and addressing any communicable diseases. This policy is pursued by many countries across the world and is sensible and responsible. Such a policy is not only practical but humane, reflecting the UK’s commitment to safeguarding both incoming refugees and the wider community.

In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that the Bill is both compassionate and practical. They would uphold public confidence, protect national security, and promote fairness and transparency in the immigration system. I urge the Committee to support these thoughtful and necessary provisions.

United Front Work Department

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The first answer is that the Government will take a long-term, consistent approach to China and the dealings we have with it. It is important that we co-operate where we can on international matters such as climate change, and compete where we need to on business and on trade. When UK national security is at stake, it is really important that we challenge robustly any influence or actions by the Chinese Government on security matters. This House needs to understand that.

The noble Lord mentioned FIRS. We inherited the Act that passed in 2023, which was jointly supported by the then Official Opposition and His Majesty’s Government. That scheme is under development now. We anticipate having it in place by summer next year. Within that, we will take action accordingly to designate specific countries if the United Kingdom’s security is threatened. We will make decisions on that and announce them to the House in due course. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom takes all threats seriously and will be robust in its actions on those threats, including from any nation state that seeks to advance its aims in a subversive way versus the interests of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, both the intelligence services and the courts have decided that the individual in the news recently has acted against

“the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

This is the legal test in Section 66 of the National Security Act 2023, which the Minister’s noble friend Lord Coaker and I and others scrutinised in great detail in this House. Surely the Government will apply this test not on economic grounds but only on the safety and security interests of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister assure me that the timing of any decisions about placing countries on that list will not be affected by the visit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Beijing? This is a legislative process, so it is not simply a case of announcing the Government’s view to Parliament. It is for Parliament to legislate, so all information should be provided with regard to those countries. Clearly, China should be part of that. When will we receive the orders for consideration with regard to the enhanced list?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The enhanced list will be brought forward, as will FIRS, for summer next year. If there are issues that we wish to bring forward on an enhanced list, we will do that but not announce it strictly in advance. I anticipate early in the new year looking at some of those issues in more detail. The noble Lord asked whether we take economic factors and visits by British Ministers into consideration. We do not. The most important issue is the security of this United Kingdom, and if there are threats we will take action. A pragmatic approach is still necessary, however. There are areas of co-operation with countries of all types that have difficult records and which potentially seek harm to the United Kingdom. There are areas where we need to examine those, and we will take a pragmatic approach. As the Prime Minister has said, we will co-operate where we can, challenge where we can, and do business where we can, but national security is paramount.

Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can help the noble and learned Baroness on that point. Between 5 July and 28 October this year, which is the only time that I can account for as Minister, the Government have returned 9,400 people who have no right to be here. Of those 9,400 returned, 2,590 were enforced returns, which is a 19% increase on when the noble Lord, Lord Murray, held this post not 12 months ago.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Uniquely in the OECD, the previous Government made the decision to overturn many years of UK practice to score as 100% official development assistance the first-year immigration costs, including hotel costs. This has meant that the ODA budget has been massively squeezed, to the extent that under the previous Government in their last full year, more ODA was spent in the UK on immigration costs than on bilateral programmes abroad, in direct contravention of the 2002 legislation. Many people thought the new Labour Government would reverse this calumny, but they have not—in fact, they are doubling down. Can the Minister tell me what the ODA costs are for the first year of immigration under this new Government and why they have taken the decision to penalise the most vulnerable and poorest around the world for the failures of the previous Government?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

With due respect to the noble Lord, I will look into his point, but we are four and a half months into this Government. The focus the Government have had so far—and I say this genuinely—has been the removals of people with no right to be here, putting extra resources into speeding up the asylum system, stopping this failed Rwanda scheme, and putting money into border security. These things take time. I will reflect on the points he has made, but it is not the long-term aim of the Government to spend the overseas aid budget on supporting issues to do with asylum in the United Kingdom. The aim of this Government is to speed up the asylum system, stop people fraudulently coming, and welcome people who, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, deserve and require asylum under our legal obligations. But we have to try to move this tanker in a very slow and difficult way. The tanker is slowly and surely being moved. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that.