Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Henig

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, is not on the call, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I would like to say everything I said on Amendment 7: we need effective rehabilitation, deradicalisation and reintegration of terrorist offenders. Right-wing extremism is growing. Research by HOPE not hate found that one in four people in Britain believe at least some element of QAnon conspiracy theories. These conspiracies allege that the world is run by satanic paedophiles who eat babies and want to kill 90% of the world’s population. The only logical solution for anyone who believes that is to fight and kill the people in charge, to stop it happening. The attack on the Capitol was only the beginning of such madness.

We are likely to see violence here in the UK too as a natural consequence of growing belief in these conspiracy theories. However, whatever the motivation of terrorists, the common theme is that they have been brought into such a deeply flawed belief system that they are prepared to inflict severe harm on other people. The only option is to repair those belief systems so that the perceived wrongs are no longer so severe as to justify harming innocent people.

I hope the Government can see that this problem will happen and will expand. We need better legislation to cope with it, and better practices inside and outside prisons.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Henig

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 7th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I will speak to Amendments 7 and 44, and in doing so I welcome government Amendments 31 and 34 in this group. I and other co-signatories have been urging the Government to move in this direction for a considerable time, and I am very pleased to see this commitment to the establishment of a permanent Trade and Agriculture Commission.

Like previous speakers, I find Amendment 36 rather concerning. Can the Minister explain why it is included? It rather casts a large shadow over the Government’s intentions in this area, and I look forward to hearing what the rationale is for this clause.

Leaving aside Amendment 36, the Government’s new clauses are a tentative step forward in establishing the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It is, however, only a first step. What needs to follow is for the commission to establish itself as a credible body in terms of its membership, its leadership credentials and the impartiality and quality of its advice. I hope that the Minister does not mind me commenting that, thus far, too many individuals appointed to trade positions by the Department for International Trade are as likely to be chums and cronies of Ministers, or former Conservative politicians looking for a cosy berth, as to be independent and well-respected specialists on trade and agricultural issues.

This new body will only be successful to the extent that those appointed to it have, between them, a wide range of expertise and are well regarded in their fields for fully understanding the relevant issues in a non-partisan way. I agree, therefore, with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that the appointment of commission members should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

There will be many important roles for this new commission. One will clearly be to give advice on the best way to uphold existing British food and animal welfare standards and to look at the protection of environmental and plant health. Another, I have no doubt, will be to act as an important champion of British agriculture, which would be very welcome. If it is possible for the commission to extend its scope to look at human rights and employment issues, I would welcome that.

Another role for the commission would be to consider and report on the impact of pending trade deals, which are likely to contain provisions put forward by trade competitors looking to access British markets and to undercut British product and food standards. One of the first agreements that members of this commission will need to consider carefully is the CPTPP, to which the Government have already announced they wish to accede. That would raise significant issues about food and agriculture standards, and about regulations, which would differ considerably from those by which farmers, manufacturers and traders are currently bound.

That is why it is so important that the members of this commission are highly respected and well-regarded experts in their fields: their advice could impact heavily on the future livelihoods and businesses of large numbers of people in many sectors of our economy. Their reports on potential trade deals should be of value not just to the Minister but to Parliament too, in the form, as we have heard, of committees in the Lords and Commons whose duties it is to scrutinise deals. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, mentioned this, I think, in an earlier debate.

There is a wider role, that urgently needs to be played, to which I hope that members of this new commission might be able to contribute significantly, namely to outline to the British public what the Government’s trade strategy is. Is it to do deals with any willing partner? Are there preferred options, and if so on what basis are they preferred? Why do we seek to join CPTPP, with its distinct set of trade regulations, while wanting to have nothing to do with European regulations? Are we happy to conclude a trade deal with China? I got no answer to that question when I raised it some weeks ago.

In addition to articulating a trade strategy, perhaps this commission could also help to clarify which sections of British commerce and agriculture we are seeking to prioritise in trade deals. Which sectors will be deemed less important? What will be the core principles of British trade policy? They are, at present, difficult to discern. It seems that safeguarding jobs in fishing—relatively few though they are—is at the moment considered more important than jobs in the automobile or chemicals industry or in agriculture. Those selling fish to Europe seem to be prioritised above those selling lamb to Europe. Does this make commercial and economic sense? These are the sort of issues and choices our new commission members will need to look at as a matter of urgency. After all, a new start requires a clear strategy that we can all get behind and support. Mobilising energies and support on a wide basis behind our trade strategies will be crucial to success in this area.

I welcome most of the Government’s amendments in this group as far as they go, but I strongly hope that the new Trade and Agriculture Commission will be able to help in articulating a set of coherent trade and agricultural priorities that we in Parliament, and the wider public, will be happy to support.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and to hear not only her very cogent arguments but also her questions. I do hope the Minister will answer them, particularly on trade with China.

I support Amendments 7 and 44 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It is obvious immediately, from the way she laid things out at the very beginning, that the Government have done a little but not enough. It is a pleasure for me to speak in this group and have a tiny part in the Government’s compromise amendments. Although they are welcome, they just do not do the job. Why do they not guarantee the commission its independence? The weakness is exposed when compared with the non-government amendments in this group. While I would like to call a win a win, I do not think we really have a win here. I am worried that this welcome but small compromise will actually create nothing more than a talking shop, which can simply be ignored by the Government.

The Government have put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, with Amendments 49 and 50, given it a degree of permanency and have even seemed to incorporate what we were pushing for in that it should have its own staff and facilities, but then government Amendment 36 throws all that out. A Secretary of State can ditch the whole thing with a statutory instrument. How is that sticking to a promise about making this a body that can properly do the job?

I hope that the Minister will think again before Third Reading, so that we do not have to compromise endlessly with a body that is too feeble and inconsequential to do the job.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Henig

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has just pointed out, we seem to be repeating ourselves because we are going around in circles. As I said the other day, if you do not have environmental sustainability, you do not have social or economic sustainability. The Minister is not hearing that, or certainly not agreeing with it, and nor are his advisers. They just do not seem to get the basic premise that if you do not have a healthy planet, you do not have anything else. You cannot make deals with nature. Nature can heal itself, but not with all our interventions. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has pointed out that we are essentially the voices of the environment here because there are no huge and powerful pressure groups supporting it.

I am also going to have to repeat the fact that the Conservative Party manifesto made a commitment to the people of Britain who voted for the Conservatives that there would be a legal commitment to fish sustainably, so it should be in this Bill. It is no good saying that it is in other places; it has to be in this Bill because only then will people understand that it is an incredibly important component of the whole fishing industry. Ecosystems are part of that sustainability and it all has to work together holistically. At the moment, the mechanisms in the Bill are quite disjointed and have to be tidied up, and presumably an awful lot of Members of this House would be very happy to contribute to that.

Amendment 33 aims to ensure that the fisheries management plans are made in the context of the ecology that they will affect. It is impossible to change the dynamics of one species without creating a whole load of repercussions, possibly unknown ones, within the ecosystem. More predators might lead to fewer prey, for example, while more prey might lead to more predators. Sometimes, the best interventions might be farther down the food chain, such as increasing the population of microscopic plankton which will then support higher populations all the way up the chain. The fisheries management plans would better be regarded as being ecosystem management plans and should be made with the purpose of achieving the ecosystem objective. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I should tell the Committee that if Amendment 33 were to be agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendment 34 on the grounds of pre-emption.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Henig

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will also speak in support of Amendment 4, which I have put my name to.

I thank the Minister and her civil servants for meeting me to discuss my amendment outside this Chamber. She has been incredibly generous with her time, and I very much appreciate that. It is thanks to the meeting with the Minister and the constructive criticism from noble Lords in Committee that I have tabled this much refined amendment on Report.

The sole purpose of my amendment is to give legislative effect to the Government’s own policy, which, as I understand it, is that the Bill will be used only to roll over existing free trade agreements that we enjoy as a member of the EU so that we can continue to enjoy them after we leave. Rolling over means no renegotiation, changes in terms or reduction in standards. My amendment is a way of giving effect to the Government’s own policy. I am not looking to cause trouble here, nor to undermine the Government—for a change.

The problem with the Bill as it currently stands is that it does not give effect to this policy. The Clause 2 powers are much broader than they need to be, and would allow for a significant undermining of precious protections for our environment, workers’ rights, food safety and a whole host of other provisions. Clause 2(1) allows an appropriate authority to,

“make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement”.

Clause 2(2) and (3) restrict the regulation-making power only to implement agreements with signatories which are already signatory to a trade agreement with the EU, but that is the only limit on the power. There is nothing to say that the terms of an agreement have to be the same or similar to the existing EU trade agreements. There is no reference to protecting standards and no limit on renegotiation, nor on implementing a totally new trade agreement. There is not even a time limit, or sunset clause, on how long into the future these powers can be used. Hundreds of years from now, a Government could implement a completely new trade agreement on the sole condition that the partner country had a deal with the EU before Brexit. If this sounds ridiculous, it is because it is. Clause 2 grants Ministers an incredibly broad, almost uncurtailed power to enact whatever trade agreements they negotiate.

At Question Time today, chlorinated chicken was mentioned with regard to trading with the USA. A Bryan Smith got in touch with me to say, “As a microbiologist, I can tell you for sure that washing chicken carcasses in bleach does not kill all salmonella. It forces the bacteria to form cysts which can hatch later. It is much harder to detect in this form, so it hides the problem”. I used to joke that it was just as well that chickens were chlorinated because at least they were clean. In fact, they do not now use a chlorinated wash; they use other substances—for example, peracetic acid. This is an organic peroxide—a colourless liquid—and it can be highly corrosive. The practice is not dangerous in itself but it might hide poor farming hygiene practices. Other animal welfare issues are very concerning, such as stocking density, sow stalls, animal transport, antibiotic use, veal crates, battery cages, debeaking, tail docking and castration. We could be subjecting our food to these practices and people to whom I talk outside this House are absolutely horrified.

The Minister told the Committee that none of this mattered because the European Union (Withdrawal) Act brought all European standards and rules into UK law. They say that everything is fine; everything is protected. This is completely undermined by Clause 2(5)(a) which allows the Minister, by regulations, to modify,

“retained direct EU legislation or primary legislation that is retained EU law”.

So the Government, having incorporated all EU law into the withdrawal Act, would have the unrestricted power to tear it all up in order to implement whatever terms they agreed in these trade deals. The Government’s assertion that the withdrawal Act resolves all my concerns could be correct only if Clause 2(5)(a) were removed from the Bill or curtailed by restrictions, such as those in my amendment.

The truth is that we are not protected by retained EU law at all because the Bill allows the Government to scrap it in the interests of trade. The only protection left is the assertion from the Government that they will not use the powers in the Bill to undermine our prevailing standards. This is not good enough. If the Government are not going to use the powers, as they have promised they will not, my amendment will not make the slightest difference. It would cause a problem for Ministers only if they go against their promises and try to undermine prevailing standards when incorporating a trade agreement. We must not allow this to even be an option.

I have tried to draft my amendment in the simplest possible terms. This is for my own reference and not because this House in any way lacks understanding. The amendment uses as reference all the standards which apply immediately before exit day—the existing standards on which current trade deals operate. Some trade deals might have higher standards than others, so my amendment is designed to allow whatever level exists in each specific trade deal to be rolled over. The Government have a problem only if there is any reduction in standards in the rolling-over process. This is a much more restricted approach than I would have liked. Amendment 4 expands on it and could be much more powerful. I have gone to great lengths to develop an approach that can be supported by noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, and even be accepted by the Government. Personally, I should like much higher standards, but I am compromising here, which is not easy.

The Bill gives far too much freedom to Ministers to change the law and undermine our precious standards on a whole range of issues. The Government’s promises and ambitions will easily give way to the harsh reality of trade negotiations. By that point, it will be too late for Parliament to reject whatever deals are made. Your Lordships’ House must put a backstop on the Government’s promises, so that these trade deals cannot be renegotiated in a way which would undermine any of our prevailing standards. My amendment will achieve this. I beg to move.

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 3 and 4 and speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We had a wide-ranging debate in Committee about standards and Members from across the House argued that we should not allow standards to fall in a whole range of important areas, as outlined in the amendment. The Government’s reply was to agree in principle. The Minister said at the time that the Government were committed to high standards and that they were the right policy for the country, but that they should not be written in the Bill. When asked why not, she was unable to give a convincing reply.

It is essential that we take this opportunity to ensure that existing standards in a number of areas cannot be lowered as a result of the Bill and that that is made explicit in the Bill. One reason for that comes down to the issue of trust. In 2017, the Trade Secretary promised that the United Kingdom would not lower the standards. He said:

“We have made very clear we are not going to see reductions in our standards as we move forward, partly because British consumers wouldn’t stand for it”.


But at the same time, the self-same Trade Secretary has prioritised a trade deal with the United States. It is no secret that the prime aim on the United States’ side will be to negotiate lower food standards with the United Kingdom to enable their food products to flood in to the UK. There is no secret that that is their ambition.

Asked about this last weekend, when asked about food standards, the Trade Secretary replied:

“The question is not about safety”.


This is a bigger issue than the safety or not of a way of preparing food, which is also subject to rules at the World Trade Organization: it is about the decisions we make between the EU and United States approach to regulation. It is about the barriers to trade that that may impose, the impact on our producers and, most of all, the level of trust over trade policy.

The absolute worst way to make significant changes would be through the power under the Bill, because that would cause huge resentment and distrust of United Kingdom trade policy, which would damage our long-term prospects of achieving consensus and wide support for trade deals in future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, points out, under the Bill, the Government could make any change they liked to any regulations as long as it was relevant to implementing a trade agreement and that tariff changes are handled by another piece of legislation. Let us take the much cited chlorinated chicken, which she mentioned, beloved of the United States.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Henig

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 9, 15, 25 and 26 which are in my name. I also want to support the many other excellent amendments which are contained in this group. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has already said, this seems to be an area that is causing widespread concern. I hope the Government can see sense and perhaps rewrite the Bill to accommodate our concerns. In fact, I have quite a lot of concerns about the way the Bill is written; I wonder whether it needs a fairly substantial rewrite in some places. We will come on to that later.

The starting point for me in approaching this Bill is to recognise that trade deals and free trade agreements are entirely different beasts from those of times gone by when it was simply a question of reducing tariff barriers between nations or ensuring physical access to each other’s ports.

Modern trade deals are deeply political, needing decisions and agreements about interacting with one another’s laws and even overriding national laws. Trade deals are of great concern to many environmental and social justice campaigners because they can be used as a bulldozer for corporate interests to override the rights and interests of communities. As we transition from our established position in the European Union to an uncertain and undecided future, those concerns are front of mind for many of us. I first tabled some of these amendments in October last year. When I did that, even though there were then six months to go to Brexit, it felt as if time was running out. Now, only two months away from Brexit, we are no closer to averting disaster than we were back then.

I was grateful for the meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and their officials. Although it was an interesting meeting, they were unable to resolve my fundamental concern about the Bill. The Minister told me that amendments such as mine are not necessary because the Bill is only about rolling over existing trade deals and it is not the Government’s intention to renegotiate any of them, and we have heard that again today. The Government’s intention is all well and good, but good intentions are quickly broken down by the harsh realities of international negotiations. It seems obvious, as we have already heard, that other countries will take this opportunity to renegotiate terms that are more favourable to their interests, perhaps slipping things in that the EU would not allow but that the UK might be more inclined to accept, particularly if we were feeling desperate.

I ask the Minister again now: can she guarantee that none of these trade deals will be renegotiated? It is possible that things were unclear during our meeting but we must know now. We are only weeks away from the Government needing to sign on the dotted line, so this should now be a much simpler question to answer. If it is guaranteed that none of our existing trade deals is being renegotiated, and all of them are simply being rolled over with the exact same terms, then most of my amendments become obsolete. That would be a great situation, and I would be perfectly happy. However, without a clear and unequivocal statement to this Committee that there will be no renegotiation and no change in terms, we must make clear and unequivocal amendments to the Bill.

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13. The purpose of my amendment is extremely clear: to seek to maintain our present high standards of UK agricultural products. At the same time, however, I support other amendments in this group regarding animal health, hygiene and welfare standards and wider environmental concerns. I regard this issue as extremely important not just for the present round of trade treaty rollover negotiations, which of course it is, but as a signal for the future. I felt that the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, were very pertinent to this point. I want to make it very clear to both present and future trade negotiating partners that we in the UK intend to maintain our present high standards in a number of areas such as agricultural products and food standards.

I too am grateful to the Minister for meeting me last week. She made it clear that her priority was to get these current trade deals finalised with as much speed as possible—yes, the word “continuity” was mentioned—and said there was a necessity for flexibility in the negotiations. I understand all that. The problem, as we have heard today, is that not all the parties to these negotiations may just agree to roll these deals over; they may want to look at some things again. I want to signal to the Government as strongly as possible how important we feel our present high standards to be.

Ministers apparently agree with me, because on a number of occasions they have been asked about our present high food standards and they all say that they have no intention of departing from them and intend to stick to them. If that is the case, then surely we have no problem in writing that in the Bill. What is the problem? If we all agree that these high standards are essential, then I do not understand why they cannot be in the Bill. I understand that my inadequate attempts to formulate the appropriate proposal may be the problem. I would then say to the Government, “Fine. You can see what I and other people are after. Take that sentiment away and put it in whatever form meets your requirements”. I cannot understand how they can just ignore this important issue. If Ministers share my views on high standards, there must be a way of encapsulating this in the Bill in some form. I am very flexible; I do not mind how it appears in the Bill, but I really feel that it should be there.

Food standards and the negotiations about them are going to be a major issue not just for these rollover trade deals but for the future. We keep hearing talk about the possibility of us joining the Pacific trade group. I think there was a meeting with people from New Zealand or Australia only today and we hear again about this possibility. But that would inevitably mean moving away from EU standards and our current high standards for food and agricultural products. Therefore, every time we hear these sorts of discussions about joining this group, we are alarmed; we want to know, if that is the case, will we then lower our standards? We cannot have it all ways. We also know how American agribusinesses are hungrily eyeing British markets. We know perfectly well that they want to flood our country with cheap chlorinated chickens and other food that does not meet our present high standards. Therefore, I believe we have to make it clear from the outset that we will not agree to this.

The Government should be left in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling across the country on this issue. I ask them to make it clear in negotiations taking place now and in the future that food standards will not be lowered in any way. I strongly believe that everybody in this country will want this to be acknowledged. That is why I have tabled this amendment.