Tag: Lord Hamilton of Epsom

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-02-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy with regard to the payment of child benefits to EU migrants (1) who have been resident in the UK for fewer than four years, and (2) whose children are also resident in the UK.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

I refer the honourable member to the recent UK White Paper ‘The Best of Both Worlds: the United Kingdom’s special status in a reformed European Union’, available on the gov.uk website.

The UK’s settlement will mean that Child Benefit paid to EU nationals living here, but whose children live outside the UK, will no longer be paid at UK rates but be paid at a rate that reflects conditions – including the standard of living and Child Benefit paid – of the country where the children live.

Eligibility rules for Child Benefit for individuals moving to the UK can be found on the gov.uk website.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-02-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they contribute to the EU programme of assistance to the Palestinians; what is the gross annual amount of funding for that programme, and what percentage of that funding the UK’s contribution, if any, represents; and what percentage of that programme’s funding is provided to the Palestinian Education Authority.

Baroness Verma

The EU is a major donor to both the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA, providing over €290 million in 2016 to the Palestinian people, including the refugees who live outside Occupied Palestinian Territories in the camps of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. The UK contributes to the EU budget as a whole, not individual instruments within it. The UK’s share on EU expenditure in EU instruments is approximately 14.5%. The EU funding to the Palestinian Authority is through the PEGASE mechanism, providing the salaries for vetted civil servants only.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Case C-135/08) that a decision by an EU member state to deprive a person of national citizenship cannot result automatically from the fact that the person in question acquired that status by deception, in particular in the light of Section A of the Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, concerning issues raised by Denmark regarding the Treaty on European Union (Official Journal C348/1, 31/12/92).

Lord Bates

The European Court of Justice confirmed in the case of Rottmann that it was required to take into account the Edinburgh Decision of 1992 when interpreting the EU Treaties. On the facts of the case, the Court found that the decision to deprive the applicant of German nationality had to comply with the EU principle of proportionality. The Court considered that this conclusion was consistent with the Edinburgh Decision.

In its application of this judgment, the UK Court of Appeal confirmed in the case of G1 that Member States retain competence over the acquisition and loss of citizenship and the principle in Rottmann only applies if EU law is engaged on the particular facts of each case.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, concerning a new settlement for the UK within the EU returns to the UK Parliament any competences that are presently conferred on the EU by Title 1 of Part One of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The deal agreed at the February European Council delivers a binding commitment that the Treaties will be changed in the future so that the UK is carved out of ‘ever closer union’. It ensures that the UK will not be liable for eurozone bailouts or discriminated against in the Single Market, and that the Treaties will be changed to reflect that. It establishes a new mechanism for the European Council to review EU legislation every year to see what can be done better at the national level and what can be dropped altogether. It ensures that Parliament will be able, acting with others in Europe, to block unwanted new EU laws. The deal also secures new powers to tackle the abuse of free movement and reduce the unnatural draw of our benefits system, to meet our aim of reducing immigration, by creating fairer rules, while protecting our open economy.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a decision under Article 9 of Protocol (No 15) to the EU Treaties would require approval (1) by an Act of Parliament, and (2) by a referendum.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Under the EU Act 2011, a decision by the UK under Protocol (No 15) leading to a decision by the Council under article 140 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union would require an Act of Parliament and a referendum result in favour before a Minister of the Crown could support it.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Section A of the Decision of the Heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council, concerning a new settlement for the UK within the EU imposes an obligation on the UK not to veto the new EU Treaty planned as part of the Five Presidents’ Report Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union, published in June 2015.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Any Treaty revisions to implement the proposals for reform in the Five Presidents’ Report would have to be concluded in accordance with the provisions in the Treaties, which require unanimous agreement by Member States. The agreement of and ratification by the UK and any new EU treaty or of any revision to the existing EU Treaties would be subject to the provisions of the European Union Act 2011.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether it would be consistent with the policy and objectives of the European Communities Act 1972 to notify the European Council of their intention to withdraw from the EU without prior approval by an Act of Parliament.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

The European Communities Act 1972 does not require prior approval of actions by Act of Parliament. The European Union Act 2011 does define some circumstances where this is required, but these do not include a notification under article 50. As the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), said on 22 February, “if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away."

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether a member state can withdraw from the EU under (1) a Treaty agreed to under the ordinary revision procedure pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union, or (2) under Article 54(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

As the Government noted in its publication “The process for withdrawing from the European Union” (Command Paper 9216), the rules for exit are set out in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This is the only route available in the EU Treaties to withdraw from the EU.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-09-06.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord O’Neill of Gatley on 5 September (HL Deb, col 849–50), what assessment they have made of the impact of immigration on wage rates and productivity in the UK.

Lord O’Neill of Gatley

As noted in the 2012 report by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), the empirical literature suggests that the impact of migration on productivity may be mixed and heavily dependent on the type of migrant coming to the UK. Migrants may increase productivity either through a simple ‘batting average’ effect if they work in higher productivity roles relative to the average for non-migrants, or through increasing the productivity of UK workers through greater specialisation and knowledge transfer. In this report, the MAC established the key role played by skilled migrants in raising productivity. Further, the 2014 MAC report, ‘Migrants in low-skilled work’, found low skilled migrants have a neutral impact on UK-born employment rates, GDP per head and productivity. The impact of immigration on wage rates is also mixed, although a 2015 working paper by the Bank of England found an increase in the immigrant to native ratio has a small negative impact on average British wages.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Hamilton of Epsom on 2016-02-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether EU citizens can enter the UK for the purposes of seeking employment.

Lord Bates

All European Union citizens may enter the UK on production of a valid passport or identity card and have an initial right to reside for three months. Those who wish to stay longer can do so as a jobseeker for a further three months, providing they have a genuine prospect of work. After that period, they must be exercising a Treaty right as a worker, a student, or a self-employed or self-sufficient person, or be liable for removal.

The new EU settlement negotiated by the Prime Minster also confirms that we do not have to pay Universal Credit to EU nationals who come to the UK as jobseekers.

In line with the transitional controls imposed through the Accession of Croatia (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations, Croatian nationals, who are subject to worker authorisation, have no right to reside in the UK as jobseekers.