| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is always good to have the opportunity to debate matters in Scotland. However, I promise not to make a meal of it.
The order can be welcomed on several grounds, instinctively because it is devolutionary in character, although I acknowledge that the MLC will remain the cross-border authority. It also meets the aspirations of the Scottish livestock industry and enables the Scottish Executive to achieve its strategic aims. It establishes a Scottish levy, determined by the Secretary of State, the National Assembly and Scottish Ministers. It requires Quality Meat Scotland to report annually to the Scottish Parliament, thereby enabling scrutiny. It confirms the autonomy of QMS, but not the divorce of QMS from the Meat and Livestock Commission. It also identifies the use by QMS of the core services maintained by the MLC.
Understanding the order was made easier than usual by the extensive explanatory memorandum attached to it. The Scotland Office is to be congratulated on its preparation. However, the arrangements are somewhat convoluted in character. However, this is not a simple devolutionary transfer of powers but the alteration of cross-border arrangements.
I have four questions. First, will the Scottish levy be made up of those levies collected in Scotland or will it be an arbitrary amount collected in Great Britain and decided upon by the various Ministers? Secondly, is there scope for Barnett-formula style additional funds, recognising the greater strategic importance of the livestock industry in Scotland as opposed to in England? Thirdly, does the order signal the end of any semblance of a brand called "British meat"? Fourthly, I can see the brand advantage of Scottish and Welsh
meat—"Happy animals reared among sensational scenery"—but what will be the consequence for the branding of English meat?
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the order. I have not changed allegiance across the water to north of the Border. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who would be here, is sick. However, I am assured by those whose advice I have taken that this order is all in the best interests of Scotland. On that basis, I support the Motion.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for their support. It has been a convoluted discussion but it has ended up with the best solution in slightly complex circumstances.
To answer the noble Earl's questions, the Scottish levy will be the levy raised in Scotland. Therefore the issue of the Barnett formula does not arise because the levy relates to the number of animals which are slaughtered or exported from Scotland relative to England rather than any artificial formula.
Is it the end of British beef? I do not think so. I think that the brand of British meat may well still be promoted, but the special brand of quality Scottish meat is also important, as in some circumstances is that of Welsh meat.
As to whether this formula will be detrimental to England, I believe that it will be beneficial to everyone. I would certainly argue that English meat is equally well reared in equally beautiful surroundings, albeit different ones, and will equally meet the tastes not only of British consumers but of consumers around the world. The MLC will contribute to that in its new guise. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 64.
9 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 52A:
- Page 37, line 11, leave out "specified in section 75(1)(g)," and insert "that to remove him from or to require him to leave the United Kingdom would breach the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the rationale for Clause 64 is the need to take firmer action, where appropriate, when refugees and asylum seekers commit serious offences. I would stress that it is only a small minority who act in this way, but the Government are rightly not prepared to tolerate such behaviour. It is an abuse of this country's hospitality and of the privileges afforded by refugee status. It can give the refugee community a bad name and cause tension and prejudice within the wider community.
Together with the Home Secretary and other Ministers, I want it to be understood that our aim is to deny the protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention to refugees and asylum seekers who commit serious crimes here and abroad. Article 33(2) of the convention is the provision which enables protection to be withdrawn or withheld from such persons. It permits the expulsion or return of, inter alia, a person,
- "who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of [the] . . . country [in which he is]".
Clause 64 sets out a specific framework for interpreting and applying Article 33(2). Defining the term "particularly serious crime"—a debate that we have already had in part—using a tough two-year yardstick, in combination with a rebuttable presumption of "danger to the community", will make it more difficult for refugees to be shielded from removal by virtue of their refugee status.
We are not the only country to have defined the term "particularly serious crime" in domestic legislation. Australia, Canada, the USA and Germany are others. The United States uses a one-year actual sentence criterion.
The two amendments before the House are of a minor nature. At present, subsections (7)(a) and (8)(b) of Clause 64, in referring to an appeal by a person subject to Clause 64, contain references to,
- "the [appeal] ground specified in section 75(1)(g)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 52B:
- Page 37, line 19, leave out "section 75(1)(g)" and insert "subsection (7)(a)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Revocation of leave to enter or remain]:
Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 54:
- Page 39, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to highlight a point that was raised in the debate on this clause in Committee. Both in another place and in Committee in this place, the Government have been asked what the legal effect of the revocation of a person's indefinite leave to enter or remain would be if that person could not be deported from the United Kingdom for legal or practical reasons. The Bill is silent on this point. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
- "once indefinite leave has been revoked it is likely to be replaced with short periods of limited leave—for example, six months at a time".—[Official Report, 17/7/02; col. 1330.]
I should like to press the Minister on his use of the word "likely". Did he in fact mean that once indefinite leave is revoked it will always be replaced with short periods of limited leave if the person cannot be deported? If that is the case, why does it not say so on the face of the Bill?
Or do the Government envisage situations in which that will not happen, and, if so, can the Minister tell the House what the legal status of such a person would be if no limited period of leave was substituted? He would presumably have no leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom once indefinite leave was revoked. On what basis, therefore, would he be present in this country? Would he be here simply at the pleasure of the Secretary of State? Or would he be in the country illegally—as he would presumably not have any right to be here under the Immigration Acts?
I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the point. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may first repeat the apologies offered on my behalf by my noble friend Lord Dholakia for making points about this clause on the wrong amendment. I am sorry for it, and I am sorry to have discomposed the proceedings of the House. But I have a real question which I am asking with real people in mind, because they desperately want to know the answer.
The Secretary of State is giving out mixed messages to those who have come here as refugees and hope to settle here. On the one hand, he presses strongly for them to integrate themselves into the British community. Occasionally he is over-zealous, but there is nothing wrong with the idea that they should integrate, especially if there is nothing that they would like better. However, at the same time, the Secretary of State in his article in The Times at the end of last week cast much doubt on the future of the status of exceptional leave to remain.
The Minister in his letter to me of 7th October, for which I thank him, said that the amendment that we were to be offered would refer only to exceptional leave to remain granted in future. I have no objection to any of the grounds for withdrawing exceptional leave stated in Clause 68. I ask the Minister for assurance that those who are already here with exceptional leave, and who wish to settle and integrate, will not find their leave arbitrarily revoked simply because the Secretary of State wants to get rid of them. Many people's ability to integrate depends on the answer to this question. I would be much obliged if the Minister would answer it.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page