Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I have added our names. They would ensure that in the Bill we have a statutory procedure for assessing the impact on the economy in general on consumers and the choices they have to make, and on the producers.

The Bill poses potential costs for producers, which are likely to have an impact on the economy of which they form part. Even though the general scope, as set out in Clause 1, seems sensible and reasonable and appears to reflect consumer protection arrangements which have proven their worth over decades, there is in this very slim Bill less clarity as to what the precise requirement may be, or where precisely liability for transgression lies. It is something of a leap in the dark. Lawyers will be needed to work out who exactly may be covered by the provisions, sanctions and punishments, given that the Bill will touch on many features of production and marketing, and many sorts of person will be involved in the process.

The question really is, if I am an entrepreneur or a small business innovator, do I risk my small pot of savings and those chipped in by my family to get the idea from the drawing board—possibly in the garage—off the ground, into the retail outlet and into use? Sir Hermann Hauser, the technologist and entrepreneur who set up Acorn in Cambridge, did that in the 1970s. He once told me that when you start a business like his—and most start in the garage—they do not have any money, and with what they have, they want reasonable certainty that the law will stay the same, that it will do what it says on the tin, that they can buy the stock they need for the component parts, they can use their judgment within reason about whether a product is safe, and they can take a risk. They have good arrangements for risk assessment, and our law also has pretty good arrangements, as well as for consumer protection. But if—and this is the danger of the Bill—there are open-ended powers, and there is the possibility for a regulation-mad Government to make constant changes, and if, as I have spoken about before, so I will not come back to it, EU law, which is based on the precautionary principle, is mirrored or otherwise imposed, we will be causing greater uncertainty and there will be a greater possibility of costs and of lost stock, because it goes out of date. Such people will also not have time to develop their product properly, bring it to market and make a profit. They may go bankrupt, thanks to a raft of new provisions and new uncertainties.

These three amendments—Amendment 103, on consumer choice and an impact assessment; Amendment 104, on an impact assessment on the whole economy; and Amendment 104B, on an impact assessment on SMEs to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within six months—will help us find out exactly what the impact of these rules are, even if we do not know what they will be when we set out on this road. Successful businesses—small, medium and big—and the consumers who buy their products and services, both in this country and overseas, are the beating heart of our economic life. If businesses are to flourish, the rules need to be clear from the start. Compliance needs to be affordable and the rules must encourage innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking.

Most businesses in this country are small—there are 5.51 million of them, as we have heard—with zero to 49 employees. There are only 40,000 businesses that count as medium-sized, with 50 to 250 employees. These small and medium-sized businesses provide most of the employment of people, but the vast majority of them—3.1 million—are sole traders. November’s House of Commons analysis, which is the most up-to-date analysis that I have found, gives the figures, with SMEs accounting for 99% of the business population, providing 60% of UK employment and 48% of business turnover. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, they are far less able to bear the costs of the regulatory steamroller that may face us. This is one of the big problems that we hear about all the time from small producers and entrepreneurs: the costs of compliance and of dealing with the uncertainties this brings in. Even the bigger businesses, which provide 40% of the jobs and almost half the turnover, also have to pay—I was told by an NHS trust—almost 18% of their overheads.

Whether or not this Bill directly affects the product market—it does—or the service market, we are a service economy. This is a product regulation Bill, but most services use products. Let us take the hospitality trade: it needs to buy products to ply its trade and make money. Cabbies need to buy cars. Every single service—except financial services, perhaps, which is indirectly affected—will be affected by this Bill. It will have a very big impact on the whole economy. If we price risk-taking and innovation out of the product market, on top of the costs of employment—including through higher tax and higher employees’ NICs—UK small businesses will shrink or close. Jobs will be lost. We shall go the way the French went, with their high- tax protectionist model and a centralised structure in which the small challenger is driven out of the game—and with it, the hope of keeping a competitive economy open to new entrants. That is what has happened in France in the post-war years and is now cast in stone by the EU model, with ever bigger national, transnational or multinational corporations having a monopoly and driving up prices for the consumer while driving choices down.

I fear that this is an alien model to our market economy of competitive small businesses that can have a go without fear or favour under the protection of good law. We cannot afford to lose jobs or businesses and raise prices. Our productivity in GDP per hour is already lower than that of our most similar G7 neighbours, France and Germany. I am sorry that this figure is in dollars, although I am sure that noble Lords are very dollar literate: they earn $92 and $95 respectively per hour, while we earn only $79 per hour. If the Government want higher productivity and higher growth, they need simpler and clearer rule books; I must add that that will not happen by mimicking Brussels’ notorious system, whether it is an imported version or a home-based mirror image of what goes on over there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 110, 111 and 112, standing in my name. Clause 9 is a skeleton clause, as has been pointed out by the DPRRC, which recommended its removal—a point that may have been made a few times over the course of this Committee, often by me. In giving this degree of power to repeal existing legislation around consumer protection and metrology regulations by negative procedure, the Government have argued that aspects of the regulatory regime may need to be updated swiftly and frequently. However, they have failed to explain why they should be done with little scrutiny. In their response to the DPRRC, they suggested that it is because existing legislation has proven ineffective at times. The most recent consultation on the Bill suggested that 87% of respondents supported reviewing inspection powers, but it is one thing to review powers and another to have the power to completely repeal existing legislation and replace it with whatever an undefined—that word again—relevant authority feels is necessary.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his thoughts on Amendment 110. He is not in his place but I wish him a happy birthday, as I am sure most Members of the Committee do too. I am very grateful for his opinions, some of which I am incorporating in my next remarks. On Amendment 110, he pointed out that the Government are proposing to take the power to repeal Part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. If they were to do so, we would lose Section 2, which sets out primarily that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of securing goods that are safe. We would also lose Section 19, which defines “safe”. Section 19(1)(c) includes that “safe” means,

“there is no risk, or no risk apart from one reduced to a minimum, that … the keeping, use or consumption of the goods”

will

“cause the death of, or any personal injury to, any person”,

and that “unsafe” should be “construed accordingly”. The Bill does not make the equivalent provision: “reducing or mitigating risks” in Clause 1 is lesser than “safe” as defined, and the 1987 legislation has a long history of implementation, interpretation and enforcement.

At this late stage of the Bill, the question is: is it His Majesty’s Government’s intention to repeal Sections 2 and 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987? If it is not, we can assess the overall legislative framework which will result. If it is, we will need to revisit this issue when looking again at the purpose of the Bill. If His Majesty’s Government say they will decide later and seek to avoid overlap, we should again look at how this Bill and how the Consumer Protection Act 1987 may overlap, and consider whether the continuation of a defined requirement for safe products should be included in the Bill.

The other two amendments follow a very similar vein. I think I have said enough, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support this. It is important that we do not give the Minister powers to repeal one of the best-known Acts, which many consumers in this country have had experience of. We all know it is a flagship Act, and it has been proven in the decades since 1987.

I strongly support my noble friend’s proposals to remove the concern about giving the Government the power to do away with these protections which are in those sections of the Act. The meaning of “safety” is particularly relevant and needs to be very clear for businesses and consumers alike. Were we to go along this route, heaven knows what a Government could do. It is wrong for this House to allow that to happen; it is constitutionally out of order that such a well-known piece of legislation—which is so important to our economy and those who make our economy—can be done away with using sleight of hand and without any proper scrutiny or discussion.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, but I disagree with her. From the debates we have already had, there is a recognition that what businesses need is certainty and for government to move quickly when it is clear that action needs to be taken to protect the consumer and the other aims of the Bill.

I accept that there has been criticism by your Lordships’ Select Committees and by noble Lords here about the skeletal nature of the Bill, but the point is that we need flexibility to keep pace with fast movement in this consumer area. That is the reason why the Bill is constructed the way it is. I will come on to the Consumer Protection Act, but I hope I can reassure noble Lords on that.

The Government are of course looking very carefully at the reports of both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee and we are reflecting on them. Clearly, as I have said, we are trying to get the right balance between proper parliamentary accountability and the need for flexibility and clarity for all the people affected by the legislation. For instance, in Clause 9 itself, subsection (4) enables us to make minor technical adjustments to ensure coherence across the legislative framework without the need to introduce separate primary legislation for every amendment. I have to say that a general consequential power is typical and required to keep the law functional. If you remove that power, it would mean new primary legislation for adjustments that are primarily procedural or corrective in nature.

Also, the Bill includes safeguards to ensure that the use of the Clause 9 powers is proportionate and justified, with changes to primary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure. Of course, this means debates in both Houses.

As far as the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is concerned, I of course accept the importance of that legislation. As noble Lords will know, Part II of that Act grants powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure the safety of products, but the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 are intended to replace those powers. So, when product regulations are made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part II of that Act in order to avoid duplication.

Likewise, Part IV of that Act sets out provision for the enforcement of regulations made under Part II. So, because the Bill includes provision in Clause 3 relating to the enforcement of product regulations made under this Bill, it may be appropriate to repeal any or all of Part IV of that Act when new product regulations are made. Included here are the powers for enforcement authorities to investigate and seize goods that have not yet reached the market and the power for customs officers to detain goods.

Part V of the Consumer Protection Act contains miscellaneous and supplemental provisions that may also require amendment when new regulations are introduced. There is no attempt here, nor any desire on the part of the Government, to undermine the Act fundamentally. We simply have to make adjustments in the light of this legislation.

I have listened to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. As I say, we are considering very carefully the reports of those two Select Committees; clearly, we will reflect on them between now and Report.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 25th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I shall speak also to Amendments 104A and 124A in my name.

As highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Clause 1 in its current form should be removed—a theme that we have explored already and to which we will no doubt return. This amendment, however, directly addresses a critical gap in the current Bill by ensuring that regulations do not focus merely on product safety, environmental concerns and operational efficiency but actively promote investment and foster innovation.

The news coming from today’s CBI conference makes sobering reading. The chief executive of the CBI has said that employers have been forced into “damage control mode”. The head of the company that makes McVitie’s digestive biscuits said that

“it’s becoming harder to understand what the case for investment is … to make a difference in the growth rate of the economy”.

Again, the chief exec has said that CFOs are asking, “Can we afford to invest?”

I have no wish to talk down the economy or try to score cheap party-political points, but the fact is that life has got harder for big business recently. No doubt noble Lords opposite will say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” But they are also committed to providing an environment that fosters growth and I know them to be sincere in that ambition, so we should all take these comments seriously.

It is not just big business. Last week, analysis by the Altus Group said that the planned reduction in business rates relief would lead to a more than doubling of rates for shops, pubs and restaurants next year. Coupled with rises in national insurance contributions and other operational pressures, SMEs are facing difficult times. But they represent the heartbeat of our economy and some of them will hopefully go on to become big businesses.

In today’s competitive global economy, economic growth cannot be secondary. The Bill should prioritise creating an environment where businesses can thrive, develop new technologies and compete internationally. It is vital that our regulations should be aligned with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation. In the post-Brexit world, the UK’s economic success is intrinsically tied to its ability to lead in innovation, which is why my Amendment 11 is critical. It ensures that product regulation supports the creation of an environment conducive to technological advancement and cutting-edge industrial leadership. It strengthens the Bill by ensuring that it is not about just managing risks or regulating product use but about creating a dynamic, forward-thinking market where businesses have the tools, resources and incentives to innovate and expand. Without these provisions, there is a risk that the UK could fall behind in the global race for innovation and business growth. If we do not explicitly ensure that our regulations align with our growth objectives, we could inadvertently stifle entrepreneurship and technological progress.

So how are we to become a global leader? The answer surely lies in aligning ourselves with the strongest global partners in the world today. If we are to maintain and enhance our position as a leading economy, we must look beyond a single trading bloc, particularly one whose economic influence is shrinking on the global stage—a theme we explored in debate last Wednesday. For example, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, represents some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Countries such as Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as emerging markets in Asia, are showing much more significant economic growth potential than others.

To lead the world, the UK must be flexible in its approach to trade and regulation. We need to reduce barriers and align ourselves with the economies that will drive future growth and innovation, rather than being tethered to a bloc that is not growing as fast as others. Amendment 11 in my name will enable us to do just that: focus on fostering global partnerships with the most dynamic economies.

Regarding Amendment 104A, a regulatory sandbox means an environment that allows businesses to explore and experiment with new, innovative products under regulatory supervision. This amendment is important for the development of innovative products affected by the Bill. It is an important step forward in fostering a regulatory environment that encourages creativity and innovation while ensuring safety and compliance. Regulatory sandboxes are an effective and proven model used to support businesses in testing innovative ideas. By introducing the importance of regulatory sandboxes in the Bill, we are not just helping businesses to navigate regulatory hurdles but promoting innovation by giving businesses the space to trial and refine their ideas.

Regulatory sandboxes will create a framework in which businesses can develop and test new products, contributing to the growth of the economy and the success of British businesses in the global marketplace. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment to pave the way for more innovation, more competitive businesses and, ultimately, a stronger economy.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor for bringing forward Amendment 11A. The amendment is a clear and strong signal that we are committed to ensuring that our regulations actively foster economic growth, innovation and the global competitiveness of UK businesses. By encouraging the marketing and use of products in domestic and foreign markets, we are helping to open doors for UK businesses to grow their customer base, create jobs and increase exports. I commend my noble friend for this amendment. I look forward to a positive reception for all these amendments from the Government. I particularly look forward to the positive impact that they will have on businesses across the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 11A, which would insert a new subsection to the effect that regulations

“must promote growth and effective production, foster innovation and encourage the use and marketing of products in the UK’s domestic and foreign markets”.

I declare an interest in that I have commissioned a number of studies and analyses at Politeia, the think tank where I am research director, which aim to examine and promote UK international trade and the UK economy. I support the aims of safety, containing costs and compliance with safety regulations, but I urge that we think about products having to operate efficiently and effectively. The problem we face is how best to do this consistent with promoting the entrepreneurial and innovative instincts of those bringing new products to the market, who my noble friend Lord Sharpe mentioned, and the growth this allows. I support my noble friend’s amendment to put growth at the heart of this measure.

During the consultation process for a product regulatory framework since 2021, of which this Bill is the outcome, producers and their representatives stressed their priorities for regulation. I am grateful to the Government for their response to this long consultation process. Producers stressed that it should be outcomes-focused and risk-based, should have greater simplicity, proportionality and consistency across legislation and powers and should deal with the serious challenges and opportunities that this country now faces. A further consultation to develop the product safety regime took place in August 2023, with businesspeople and business representatives that are listed in the Government’s helpful response. It found broad agreement on the need for a regulatory approach that promotes a regime ready to respond to hazards but that allows temporary derogation during emergencies for supplying essential products—in other words, it is dynamic—and makes for safer online shopping and promotes digital labelling and an enhanced national regime.

The Minister said at Second Reading and has reiterated to this Committee that the Government have listened to business. Their priorities are summarised in the Government’s consultation document. They are designed to allow for effective operations and to promote growth as a priority, which I and my noble friend Lord Sharpe are urging we need. The rules should be demand-led and reflect the capacity of our businesses to innovate, be entrepreneurial and grow their workforces and their range of products along with the high standards and competitive costs that consumers want.

Nowhere in the Government’s response document do we find businesses wanting a regulatory regime that brings greater rigidity in process rather than being outcomes-led, one that is risk-averse rather than equipped to deal with the real level of risk posed by products or processes, one that treats every product as bearing the same risk or being under a one-size-fits-all rule, or a regime that is disproportionate, untargeted and unduly complex. Yet that scenario, rejected by business, is inherent in the EU legal arrangements that the Government wish to be able to adopt for our businesses under Clause 1(2), to which my amendment is addressed. That can only stymie growth, contrary to the express wishes of the Government. For those reasons, I propose that growth should take priority over the arbitrary exercise of power to introduce the rigidity and complexity of an EU system which is not outcomes-focused or risk-based; nor is it proportionate or known for simplicity.

I will give your Lordships an illustration, for which I owe thanks to Professor David Collins, who holds the chair of international economic and trade law at City, University of London. He draws attention to the unnecessarily burdensome EU REACH regulation—on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Collins explains that it has extensive requirements for registering very low-risk substances. For example, certain food-grade natural substances that have been used safely for centuries will require expensive registration. Under the EU’s REACH, if a company uses more than one tonne per year of natural fruit extracts or oils, and products such as soaps or cosmetics, it needs full registration, including extensive safety data packages, even when these substances have been safely used in food for ages. This can cost tens of thousands of euros per substance. The relevant EU legislation is Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 REACH, and the key sections on registration requirements are primarily in Title II, Articles 5/24.

The EU’s post-Brexit UK REACH maintains similar core principles but has proposed a more proportionate approach for these well-established natural substances, with simplified registration requirements planned for ingredients with long histories of safe use. Although the overall goal of chemical safety is vital, requiring extensive registration for substances such as olive oil or lemon extract when used in non-food products adds to cost without proportionate safety benefit, and it is not needed. The safety of these materials could be adequately assured through simpler mechanisms. The UK REACH regulation, created through the REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, Statutory Instrument 2019/758, aims to do this and does it very effectively.

Moreover—I refer to my noble friend Lord Sharpe urging that we align the UK economy with the strongest, most dynamic economies in the world—by relying on our own laws it will not only help our businesses but will allow us to do exactly that. My noble friend Lord Sharpe mentioned the CPTPP agreement; as Professor Collins says, it

“does not mandate blanket mutual recognition of conformity assessments for food safety among its members”

but it does

“include provisions that encourage members to accept other members’ conformity assessment results. It also facilitates acceptance of conformity assessment results through mechanisms like technical discussions and explanations of requirements. It also allows for sector-specific mutual recognition arrangements to be negotiated between members”—

which are very important. Professor Collins continues:

“So the CPTPP promotes regulatory cooperation and transparency but preserves each member’s right to maintain their own food safety standards and assessment procedures. Members must ensure their requirements are based on science and international standards where they exist, but aren’t required to automatically accept other members’ assessments. This is similar to what the WTO TBT Agreement does, but it goes further in terms of cooperation”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a very brief intervention because I want to repeat my illustration from the first group about the REACH regulations. I have concerns about including this amendment to Clause 1 at line 13 of page 2 of the Bill as I do not agree that the EU REACH regulations are necessarily better equipped to target sectors and individual products than UK regulations. I will not go through the reasons I gave earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose introduction I learned a great deal from and am very grateful for, mentioned cosmetics. In my earlier intervention I pointed to the use of olive oil and lemon in some soaps and said that UK REACH regulations recognise that these products can be eaten safely and, indeed, have been used for a long time. Requiring, as EU REACH does, that they go through stringent chemical REACH processes and labelling is a bit over the top and would put expense on our producers. I urge us to think of the wider implications of unsensitive or disproportion regulation where we can.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak to Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

Regarding the EU’s REACH scheme, I shall refer to a specific example which relates to my time at the Home Office in the previous Government. It relates to cosmetics, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Lawlor. In 2019, the Home Office aligned UK policy with two decisions by the European Chemicals Agency board of appeal which related to the testing on animals for the registration of cosmetics-only substances—specifically homosalate and 2-ethylhexyl salicylate. The marketing of cosmetics tested on animals is banned in the EU under cosmetics products regulation, but the ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—confirmed that under REACH substances used solely in cosmetics may sometimes be tested on animals, as a last resort, to prove their safety for workers or the environment.

An NGO called Cruelty Free International, quite rightly, in my view, took the Government to court arguing that the UK’s alignment in effect led to the weakening of the long-standing—I think it was a 25-year—ban on animal testing of cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients. The UK court found in the Government’s favour but as the then Minister for Animals in Science, which somewhat surprisingly sits with the Home Office, the Home Secretary and I were firmly of the opinion that this was unjustified, so as of May 2023 we decided that no new licences should be issued to carry out this function. A small number of licences had been issued between 2019 and 2022.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made persuasive arguments about why it might be in this country’s interest to align with the EU but, equally, it might not be, and this is a very nuanced subject. Failings of the domestic chemicals regulator—real or imagined—are an entirely separate subject. Alignment with, or invention of, our own rules that suit our national and public interest most definitely is in our interest. When I say public interest, in this case 76% of the public are against animal testing according to the RSPCA. So can I ask the Minister to guarantee that this ban on new licences in these cases will be maintained? I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is not here because I was going to ask him if, in the spirit of nominative determinism, he would withdraw his Amendment 16. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that it certainly raised hackles, not necessarily human ones.

On the subject of dynamic alignment, I have two questions for the Minister about an apparent contradiction in our debates last Wednesday. I pored over Hansard, and I found that he said:

“If the UK makes a sovereign decision to mirror EU provisions, the Bill provides the mechanism and flexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to do so. This would avoid primary legislation each time technical changes are needed and would increase the certainty that businesses are crying out for”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 74.]


However, he went on to say:

“The powers in the Bill do not allow regulations to make automatic or ambulatory references to changing EU law. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will return to Parliament to make any changes to references to EU law within our regulations”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; cols. GC 74-5.]


On careful reading, these statements seem a bit contradictory. So, although I am totally willing to be persuaded otherwise, perhaps the Minister could write to explain to the Committee exactly what is proposed and what was meant. If I am being particularly thick, I would be very happy for him to explain why.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for enabling us to have this debate. I was, as usual, in church yesterday and as usual had a cup of tea with some of the people in that parish afterwards. I was introduced to a young man, probably in his thirties—I will not name him as I did not have a chance to seek his permission. We exchanged a few words and he moved on, and then the ladies I was talking to explained that he had first come to them three or four years ago as an asylum seeker. He had become a member of that church, had grown in his faith and had become much loved in that community, and then he disappeared for several months. When he came back, it turned out that that was because he had been held in detention. The good news is that just a few weeks ago he received his right to remain in the UK and is now back in his church and being a stalwart member of that community. That is just one Sunday. It is not unusual in a city such as Manchester.

Also in Manchester, we have Pennine House, an immigration detention centre close to Manchester Airport. A few years ago, there was an absolutely damning inspection report into that facility. When the then Government made their response, it was “We’re going to ignore all the recommendations in this report”. What is the point of having a debate about regulations about how we are going to care for people in these places if, when it is not being done properly and when independent inspectors go in and say, “This is wrong. This is not what is supposed to be happening”, the Government just turn around and ignore them? I would be grateful if, in his response at the end of the debate, the Minister could give us some assurance that where those kinds of inspections take place and it is found that an immigration detention centre is not doing what it is supposed to do, there will be a requirement for those recommendations to be implemented in a timely fashion.

One of my priests has just come back from several months on sabbatical in east Africa. He is a gay man and he asked me whether he could spend three months working with people living in fear in countries where homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, is a criminal offence. He sent me weekly emails, sometimes harrowing, sometimes encouraging, about what he was meeting there.

I know that a sizeable number of those who come to Manchester seeking asylum are from the LGBT community—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising this earlier. They are at particular risk, not least because, when they are housed in a detention centre alongside other people, you might think, “Oh, they’re from the same country; they’ll get on together”. But, actually, the homophobia in some of these places is so severe that they are not safe. I do not see how anybody who is LGBT can be considered not vulnerable or considered safe in a detention centre.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, mentioned children a few moments ago. It would be nice to hear from the Minister whether we have now moved on from painting over cartoon characters in centres. How we care for the most vulnerable in our society really matters.

Above all, I am trying to get a sense of whether these regulations and the changes we are talking about today will create a regime that will promote and prioritise safety and well-being, as referred to earlier. I echo what my right reverend friend said: yes, everybody is vulnerable—these are people who have fled the most horrific circumstances, and they are all vulnerable and traumatised when they get here—but, to misquote George Orwell, all are vulnerable but some are more vulnerable than others. Today, we are thinking about the most vulnerable.

I end with Douglas Adams who, in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, famously got a computer to come up with the answer to the ultimate question. The answer was 42. The trouble was, they had not worked out what the question was. I am left thinking: if these sorts of detention centres and regulations are the answer, what is the question? Is it genuinely a real risk that significant numbers of people will take flight? If so, where is the evidence base for that? Is it in order just to make the UK look a really unwelcoming and unfriendly place? If so, what is the evidence that that makes a difference to the numbers of people who come here and seek asylum? We might have the answer, but what is the question?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his Select Committee’s report and for highlighting some of the questions that the statutory instruments raise. I also thank the noble Lords and right reverend Prelates who have spoken.

I comment first on the context of the wider debate, which these statutory instruments seek to address part of. As we know, there has been an increase in illegal immigration, including by small boats. This is greatly to be regretted, from the point of view of the people themselves, as has been pointed out time and again in your Lordships’ House. These people cross the channel in small and unseaworthy vessels, endangering their lives and damaging every aspect of their medical and physical health.

The reduction of current levels of migration, legal and illegal, was—this is the political context, not the human context—a core aim of the previous Government and is indeed the stated aim of the present Government, in response to the democratic wish of the people. To meet the political aim, the Government use detention centres and have published both guidance and an impact assessment for the statutory instrument’s update for 2024. The core changes include guidance on removing references to the reduction of places, which was in the 2016 statutory instrument. The Secretary of State has greater powers to decide, and there will be an expansion of detention places.

We see, therefore, that there are two separate tensions in this debate. It is perfectly clear from the Home Office’s published guidance and statements that it seeks to balance the vulnerability risk for people who are detained against immigration factors, one of which is the likelihood to abscond and another is the potential danger to the public.

I share your Lordships’ concerns about the conditions of the detention centres, which certainly should be addressed. However, I do not oppose the use of detention centres to manage migration factors. Managing migration is in the interests of those who are victims of traffickers, and I applaud the new Government for doing their utmost to tackle the problem there. I know that they are continuing the work of the previous Government, but anything on that front is very welcome. That will help.

However, having detention centres will serve as a deterrent. It is harder to sell your wares to unfortunate asylum seekers and encourage them to cross the channel on small boats if there is a likelihood that they will be detained at the other end, unlikely to be able to abscond. It is as much in the interests of victims of traffickers as it is in the interests of a constitutional democracy, with Governments of both colours—blue and red—seeking to address the real concerns of the voters in this country and to manage both legal and illegal migration.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his support and the support of his party. We have covered some ground here and I will do my very best to answer the questions.

Why have we decided to proscribe the Terrogram collective now? I think I explained much of this in my opening remarks but to proscribe an organisation the Home Secretary must believe that it is concerned in terrorism and it is right that any decision to proscribe must be proportionate and necessary. As the House has heard, Terrorgram involves itself in preparing for terrorism through instruction material. It also promotes and encourages terrorism through its publications which contain violent narratives. As proscription is such a powerful counterterrorism tool, cases are scrutinised carefully to ensure that the decisions we take are lawful, consistent and proportionate. Proscription sends such a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out this activity wherever it is committed, but the evidence has to be very carefully scrutinised and that is, in essence, the reason why it has taken a while to get to this point.

The noble Lord also asked me about what is happening with the counter-extremism strategy and what has replaced the old one. The Government remain very much focused on disrupting the activities and influence of extremists, supporting those who stand up to extremism and stopping people from being drawn into terrorism. We keep our response to extremism under constant review, for the reasons the noble Lord laid out, in particular things such as the CREST research that he referred to. We have to make sure that it is best placed to tackle evolving threats. The Government’s current focus is to use existing mechanisms to analyse, prevent and disrupt the spread of high-harm extremist ideologies that can lead from community division and radicalisation into terrorism, particularly those that radicalise others but deliberately operate below counterterrorism thresholds. Where there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate disruptive action will be considered.

The noble Lord made comments on incel and misogyny. We will not tolerate the spread of the harmful ideologies that can lead to these sorts of activities. There is a wide range of offences and powers that can be used to counter the threat from these areas and we are working to maximise their use. Of course, we know, as the noble Lord said, that the extremism landscape is constantly evolving and therefore that we have to continually seek to build and refresh our knowledge of the threat it poses. From 1 April 2023, the Government instructed all police forces in England and Wales to identify any violence against the person, including stalking and harassment, or sexual offences where the crime is deemed to be motivated by a hostility towards the victim’s sex. The implementation of sex-based hostility recording illustrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a better understanding of these abhorrent crimes, and that will obviously assist us in future policy development.

I conclude by again offering my thanks for the House’s consideration of and support for this very important measure. As I have outlined, it is proportionate and necessary in our ongoing effort to tackle terrorism to protect the public and to defend our values. There is no place whatever for the vile ideology espoused by the Terrorgram collective, and we will not stand for it. We will never relent in showing up terrorism for what it is: a poisonous, corrosive force that will always fail. With that, I commend the order to the House.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory order. I support the addition of the Terrorgram collective to follow the recent addition of Hizb ut-Tahrir to the proscribed organisation list under this order. This online terror collective, as has been said, supported acts of terrorism in Norway and Slovakia, and incitement in the Baltimore case of attacks on power substations. In common with its immediate predecessor on the list, it seeks to incite violence against Jewish people in the State of Israel, including by supporting Hamas’s attack of 7 October.

Such a proscription therefore has my support, but it prompts a wider question about the Terrorism Act 2000, under which the proscriptions are made. That Act defines terrorism in Section 1, which includes

“the use or threat of action where … the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and … the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious … or ideological cause”.

In subsection (2)(d), it refers to creating

“a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public”

and so on.

Therefore, I have a question for my noble friend the Minister. While proscription outlaws an organisation, it does not address the blatant advocacy on our streets during the pro-Palestine marches—actions of intimidation against the Jewish community in Israel or at home. These, in the words of the 2000 Act, create

“a serious risk to the … safety of the public or a section of the public”,

and are

“designed to influence the government … or to intimidate”.

I urge my noble friend, in the same spirit of this addition to the proscribed list, to reconsider the arrangements for these marches in this context. Surely it is time for His Majesty’s Government to go beyond the standard reply that policing of marches is an operational matter for the police. Does the intimidation and threat to a section of our people—the Jewish minority here and overseas—not require a more direct address by the law, given that policing to date has proved inadequate, in addition to this proscription, which I welcome?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate the sentiments behind my noble friend’s questions. I am not sure they are entirely appropriate for this format, but I will just rehash the powers conferred on the Government under the Public Order Act 1986. The Home Secretary does not have the direct power to prohibit a public procession; the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has the power to prohibit public processions under Section 13 of the Act. Before this power can be used, they must reasonably believe that the power to impose conditions under Section 12 of the Act would not be sufficient to prevent serious public disorder, and must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. I am afraid that those are questions that would be better addressed to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lawlor]

17: Clause 2, page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) This Act and the Illegal Migration Act 2023 will have effect in relation to removals to Rwanda notwithstanding—(a) any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts,(b) the Human Rights Act 1998,(c) EU derived law and case law retained under sections 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018,(d) any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law), and(e) international law, including any interpretation of international law by the court or tribunal.(6) Nothing identified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (5) may prevent or delay the removal to Rwanda of an individual under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023, or affect the interpretation or application of any provision of this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023, including the actions or policies of public authorities, in relation to the removal of a person to Rwanda. (7) To the extent that any provision or requirement included in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (5) has been given effect to in legislation (including the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004), that legislation does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in relation to the removal of an individual to Rwanda, and shall not prevent or delay the removal to Rwanda of an individual under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023.(8) A person or body to which subsection (9) applies may not have regard to international law, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (11).(9) This subsection applies to —(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when exercising any function related to removing, or considering for removal a person to Rwanda under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023;(b) a court or tribunal when considering any application or appeal which relates to a decision or purported decision to remove, or to consider the removal of a person to Rwanda under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023.(10) No inference is to be drawn from this section as to whether or not a person or body mentioned in subsection (9) would otherwise have been required to have regard to international law.(11) The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 is amended as follows. (12) In section 2, at end insert “except in relation to the removal of a person to Rwanda under the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023”.”

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the aims of the Bill and I hope that it—and they—will succeed, that it will not be challenged and that there will be no further obstacles put in the way of removing people who come to this country illegally and by these dangerous routes.

My Amendment 17 would leave out Clause 2(5) and substitute the text on the Marshalled List. The aim is to tighten the Bill on what may

“prevent or delay the removal to Rwanda of an individual”

under any of the Immigration Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998,

“EU derived law and case law … under sections 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”

and

“any … provision … of domestic law (including … common law), and … international law”

relevant to the aim, so as to limit legal challenges to the Bill. I do not share the views of those who say that the Bill contravenes the rule of law. Their view rests on assumptions about the role of international law, its place within our own system, the creative approach of the Strasbourg court in applying the convention and the tendency now to accord something of a primacy to courts over Parliament.

These assumptions are contested within the legal profession itself. I will refer to one KC, Anthony Speaight, whose paper was published at the weekend by Politeia, of which I am research director. I therefore declare a special interest in the matter. Speaight explains the comparative novelty of the view, which he dates from Lord Bingham’s 2010 book, that the rule of law requires adherence to international law.

I am not a lawyer. I approach the question as a historian of British political and constitutional history. It is a history, by and large—and certainly in the era since the franchise was extended in the 19th century—of the interplay between Executive and Parliament, with the Government accountable through Parliament to the will of the people, even before the extension of the franchise. At the moment, both the Government and Parliament are intent on being accountable on the matter of curbing illegal immigration. But they are prevented by laws and the judiciary that operates them or, as in the case of the Strasbourg court, interprets them in a manner that takes from and does not protect their liberty, on which good law is based—the freely expressed will of the people who are governed.

On immigration, legal and illegal, the people have spoken loud and clear. They want Britain’s borders controlled and the flow of immigration curbed. Parliament has passed the laws to bring such control, but each Bill it brings forward meets a challenge in the courts. Is removal to Rwanda to be stopped not by a recalcitrant authoritarian monarch or an oligarchic, aristocratic, landowning Parliament, as in the past, but by a judiciary acting—I do not doubt in good faith—to give effect to a cocktail of legislation binding this country from an era whose laws are not our own and from times that are not our own?

There are practical limits to what a good Government can achieve. It is recognised, perhaps more clearly by voters than by rulers, that uncontrolled immigration facilitated by the obstacles now put by the courts, often—as in the case of illegal immigration through asylum claims—has consequences for the economy in terms of the budgetary costs. It puts demands that cannot be satisfied on Britain’s domestic arrangements—not just for processing claims but on every manner of the support that the UK’s people have over the centuries shown to those who, for whatever reason, come to make their lives in this country.

If our constitution is to survive the onslaught of legal challenge, the will of Parliament, reflecting the mandate of the voters, must triumph and, with it, the stability, transparency and accountability it has brought to Britain and its people, rather than be challenged on account of international or our own laws.

This country is no outlier. Across the channel, the political systems of western European neighbours are buckling under the political immediacy of uncontrolled immigration, each seeking to exploit or avoid the system to which in law they are bound under EU law, convention law and the mass of internal legislation to which these have given rise. They also have to take account of Schengen.

Take the case of France. Its political system was practically frozen for two years, haggling over an immigration Bill that many see as promising too little, too late. The problems with which it grapples are immense. Constitutional arrangements and stability are under threat at different levels. Departments are pitted against national powers, as in the recent stand-off with some mayors, who refuse to accept and look after unaccompanied minors because they have no ability to do so. At government level, against the ruling of the Strasbourg court, it is voters against the traditional systems of the political parties, the republicans and the socialists.

In this country, we are free to make our own laws. Other noble Lords will speak to their amendments on the same theme. My amendment aims to tighten the Bill and to pre-empt further challenge. As the Minister mentioned earlier, a core principle and aim of the Bill is to prevent further challenge to the workings of ordered, representative and accountable democracy. It aims to promote the aims of the Bill to delay illegal and unsafe crossings and deter the horrid loss of life, such as the death of a little girl of seven in freezing waters in the channel on Sunday night. I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak in favour of Amendment 17, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, to which I have added my name. As I said at Second Reading, I support the Bill. I am afraid that the Rwanda policy is a bit of a Heath Robinson arrangement. It shies away from some of the tough decisions needed to solve the problems. But I support the Bill because it is the plan we have, and we must hope it makes a difference.

It can certainly be improved. Most of the amendments discussed today would make it worse rather than better, and less effective rather than more effective. Amendment 17 is one of the few exceptions to that. It aims to provide a more clearly drawn Bill—one that can withstand challenges and fulfil its purpose more effectively, by making clear that no other legal provisions of any kind, whether in domestic or international law, can be used to frustrate the policy.

I do not want to repeat issues that have already been raised in Committee and discussed again at length today, but I will briefly explain why I support this amendment and then make one comment based on my involvement in recent years in the intersection between international and domestic law.

First, it is absolutely clear that this Parliament may legislate against international law, and indeed the Government may act in contravention of international law. As we have already heard, Clause 1(4) makes that clear and nobody is seeking to amend that. It is a long-standing, fundamental element of our constitution. It is not some sort of weird, UK-specific provision; there is good reason for the dualism in our system. First, otherwise Governments could act to create domestic law merely by signing an international treaty and thereby sidestep normal democratic processes. Secondly, it reflects the reality that international treaties are in practice very difficult to adapt to changing conditions because all the parties must agree to changes. It has been suggested by some noble Lords today and in previous debates that that is what should happen and that we should seek to renegotiate the international framework. The refugee convention, for example, has 149 state parties, including such well-known supporters of international law as China, Russia and Iran. Are we going to wait for them all to agree to amend this framework? We are clearly not, but if national Governments accept that they can deal with pressing national challenges only by renegotiating these treaties, they are in effect abandoning their duty to govern their own countries on matters of huge importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 18, and Amendment 20 which I share with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. I support the starred Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German.

Amendments 20 and 21 both restore Human Rights Act protection in full for those subject to the Bill pending removal to Rwanda. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord German, does this in even clearer language by not referring internally to last year’s immigration Bill but clearly stating for the lay reader that Human Rights Act protection is restored.

However, Amendment 18 is a revision of the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. It is a modest revision to address the concerns of some of his noble friends. He is not able to be here this evening. I begin with that one because it is so mild and in keeping with the thrust of the Bill, and it cannot be described as wrecking or disturbing the framework—even of a Bill I object to—in any way.

Noble Lords will know that, in Clause 3, most Human Rights Act protection is removed for these vulnerable people. The one thing that is left is the possibility of a declaration of incompatibility. Contrary, I fear, to some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and others, there is no possibility in our arrangements for the Supreme Court to strike down the Bill, were it to become an Act, because that is not the arrangement that we have in the elegant British constitutional compromise of the Human Rights Act and the balance it strikes between the rule of law, which is the bedrock of any democracy, and parliamentary sovereignty.

If an Act is declared incompatible, that declaration has merely moral and persuasive effect, and the Act continues in operation. That is why, with the greatest of respect to him, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, was optimistic to the point of being wrong about that. What the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, came up with last time was just the suggestion that, if there were to be a declaration of incompatibility made by a higher court in relation to this legislation, there should be accelerated consideration in Parliament. That is it. I am flabbergasted by the Government’s response, that they would not even have a look at that most modest amendment from their noble friend—a former Immigration Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate.

In the noble Lord’s absence, I have retabled the amendment, and it has been tweaked slightly to address some of the points made by his noble friends last time—and I really look forward to hearing what the objection is to that modest suggestion that he made, that, if is there is a declaration, Parliament should have an accelerated timetable, and Ministers should put their arguments to Parliament, not to a court, and Parliament should be given the opportunity to consider what to do next.

As for our amendments to restore Human Rights Act protection, that is another way of trying to restore the protection of the domestic courts. I say to the Government—and here the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has a point—that where they have left us with this Bill, if it passes unamended, is in a situation whereby the only court that will really be seized of these matters and have full jurisdiction over the safety of Rwanda and individual removals, from this country to that country, will be the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, interim measures will be ignorable by a Minister of State, but final orders of the European court will still be an international legal obligation, which is not removed by the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, is the one who is telling the truth about the logic of where this Government are heading—really, for walking out of the European Court of Human Rights and walking out of the Council of Europe. We can follow Russia and be the next one out. At least the noble Lord is honest about that position, whereas the Government are trying to have it both ways. They have defenestrated domestic courts and gaslit the Supreme Court, but the only court that will be left for redress in any real terms will be the Strasbourg court. Then the Prime Minister can say, “I told you what I said about foreign courts”, because foreign courts will be all that is left, if that is what we now say about international courts. Goodness me, what terrible politics.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has had enough of international law, really—that is where he is coming from—but how on earth are we going to address in a unilateral way the pressing challenges of the 21st century, facing not just the United Kingdom but the world today, whether it is climate change, war and peace or the challenge of the ungoverned continent that is the internet, AI or robotics? It is just nonsense.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, does not seem to like law, whether it is domestic or international, I hope that she never has need of it and that she is never subject to the kind of abuse of power that sometimes people are subject to, and they need the protection of the courts.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I ask the noble Baroness to be clear about what I proposed and to what I was referring. I was referring to the laws of this country, made by the people of this country, with the support of the people of this country—good laws. Yes, they support international treaty law, when that is in the interests of this country, and other wider interests that arise, whether they are trade treaties or international agreements over other matters. It is wrong to suggest that I am not in favour of law; I am in favour of good law, but not politicised law, as it very often is, by the interpretations of the Strasbourg court of the convention.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her clarification. As I pointed out, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Frost, was nodding, the Strasbourg court is unaffected in its final jurisdiction by the Bill—it is our domestic courts that are defenestrated by this government policy.

I look to the noble Baroness’s amendment, which abrogates domestic laws. It refers to

“any provision made by … the Immigration Acts … the Human Rights Act”

and other domestic statute, as well as

“any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law)”—

in case Magna Carta still got a shout-out there—and, of course, international law. The noble Baroness has been pretty comprehensive in her approach to law in the amendment, whether domestic or international.

Of course, the noble Baroness says that it is only bad law that she does not like—but of course we all have our own views about good and bad law. Some of us believe that there should be referees in a democracy that is built on the rule of law, and the rule of law was invoked by the Prime Minister, even in his slightly odd Downing Street declaration on Friday.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

May I clarify that my amendment is designed to promote the aims of the Bill to remove people who come to this country illegally to Rwanda and stop obstructions on that matter?

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words to this debate on the Human Rights Act. I point out that this is the first time that I have spoken in this group. This amendment seeks to return the responsibility of interpreting the law to the courts and specifically underlines the unacceptability of a law on the statute book that is incompatible with domestic law, which of course includes the UK Human Rights Act. Unless and until the courts affirm that the Act conforms with the strictures of the Human Rights Act, it must not have any effect; to do otherwise would be to reject the rule of law, which is one of the pillars of the UK constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

As I say, the provisions in the Bill, while novel, are not without precedent. We are satisfied that the Bill can be implemented in line with the convention rights. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister; I am very grateful to him for his courteous and thoughtful reply on my amendment. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. As others have commented, we have had a very refreshing debate, and it has been very spirited too. We all share a commitment to and a respect for the rule of law, but we differ over the interpretation we give to that, and the weight we give to the different parts of our constitutional powers: government, the judiciary and Parliament.

I especially thank my noble friend Lord Frost for reflecting on the continuing tension between laws made in this Parliament on the express wish of the people of this country, which command popular support, and laws made elsewhere, very often originating from different times to apply to different circumstances. I understand that my noble friend the Minister is keen to reject this amendment, but I hope he will reflect further on the aims of this measure: to prevent legal challenge to removing to Rwanda people who come to this country illegally, and to ensure that we operate a deterrence to stop the ghastly tragedies that we see too often in the channel. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Security of Elected Representatives

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes some good points. I would say that the other House is not the vox populi; it is elected to represent its constituents’ concerns, whatever those concerns might be. I take his points about the Whip system. I noticed that that system was enacted speedily and swiftly in circumstances that I suspect he was referring to earlier this week.

With regard to the general election, the ultimate decider of whether or not the messages being delivered on the doorstep are acceptable or appropriate is the electors in those constituencies. It is clear that parties—I would extend this to all parties—have clear rules about what is and is not acceptable, and I am sure they will be enforcing those rules as ruthlessly as necessary.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, but I want to ask for some clarification. The Statement explains the support that the police are giving to ensure that the marchers and demonstrations do not have the appearance, to people going about their daily business, of being intimidatory. Could my noble friend explain more precisely what powers the police have to curtail marches in public places or where people are going about elected office, whether in town halls or in these Houses of Parliament, and whether they will use such powers to stop the very aggressive flag-waving and surrounding of buildings by marchers, which has the appearance to many people of being intimidatory? I note here that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police did not think that flashing or having banners saying “From the river to the sea” was anti-Semitic or intimidatory when the subject was first raised with him some months ago. Do the police have any powers to stop such inflammatory and, to my mind, anti-Semitic slogans being posted publicly or advertised, which are taken as intimidatory? To clarify, I am asking about the very aggressive flag-waving on some occasions of Palestinian flags and the flashing or use of that slogan on public marches.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend asks some interesting and, if I may say so, slightly difficult questions, because there is an invitation in there to comment on operational policing matters, as she describes, around Parliament and indeed on protests in general. I think the police have sufficient powers. Obviously, those coalesce around intimidation, harassment and intent, but it is a matter for context-specific decisions to be made by the police at the time. They are accountable for those decisions after the facts, but at the time it is difficult to second-guess why or how they did what they did.

With regard to projecting things on buildings, the legality of slogans and so on, I am sure that is one of those matters where we all have our own opinions. The act of projecting light on to a building is not itself illegal in the UK and it is not obviously likely to engage public order offences, but it is possible in principle to do certain things about it. This is a debate that will continue, and I do not think I should go any further on it.

Anti-Semitism in the UK

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, if I make a correct the record, I may have said three-year funding but I should have said two-year funding. If I mis-spoke, I apologise.

On the points that the noble Lord raises, I completely agree. The targeted stuff that he refers to is a particularly pernicious form of anti-Semitism, and I too have seen evidence of it. The police are aware of it, and I hope they will crack down on the perpetrators. The noble Lord is right that it needs a cross-party response, but to some extent he is missing the point: it needs a cross-society response. It is not just us in here; everyone has to get on board with this.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House and I thank the Government for making it.

I too welcome the Community Security Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the reported figures of anti-Semitic incidents being up by 147% last year on the previous year. One such incident, which was reported on 12.55 pm on 7 October, was of a car passing a synagogue in Hertfordshire with a Palestinian flag raised and an occupant inside putting his fist and arm out, shaking his fist in the air towards the synagogue that he was passing. By Monday 9 October other crimes were on the increase. A piece of graffiti was sprayed on a bridge in Golders Green, saying “Free Palestine”. I ask the Minister: what steps have been taken to find the perpetrators of each of the incidents that have been reported and recorded? No perpetrator should go without the sanction of the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to the pro-Palestine demonstrations that we see on our streets in this country. In today’s protest outside Parliament, crowds were chanting “Free Palestine” and waving Palestine flags. They were right up to the metal barriers of this Parliament. Does the Minister not consider that if the police do not have the powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions, perhaps that Act might be considered so that such conditions could involve moving those crowds across the road, so that they are not intimidating people trying to get into Parliament? Whether those are parliamentarians, members of their teams or people working on the Parliamentary Estate, it is something of an ordeal to have to pass through those crowds. Now I hear that the people working in this Parliament must leave the estate by an exit where they will not encounter these crowds. In another age, they might have been called mobs.

Do the Government not think it a stain on the honour not only of the country but of the way we are conducting our policing for such marches and intimidation to take place? There is a very fine line dividing the words “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” from the slogans we see on the railings at our entries to Parliament of “Free Palestine” and the flag waving. I would like to know whether there are powers to impose conditions of moving them away from these Houses of Parliament, where we applaud free speech and no one should feel intimidated when coming in. What powers are needed?

I am glad about the increased funding but I would like the Minister to think further. Can he say whether, in providing all this money to protect synagogues, we need to do more to protect people going about their normal business when they are interrupted or intimidated by marchers?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend asks a number of questions which I am afraid impinge on the operational activities of the police. I am obviously not able to comment on those. On whether we are satisfied that the police are sufficiently aware and have sufficient powers to stop marches and control public protest, we are, and I went into that in some detail earlier. Crowd policing is a very difficult thing to do, for obvious reasons. In some cases, I would absolutely defend the police’s right to carefully gather evidence and consult the experts whom they have available to them before potentially inflaming tensions—this is me dangerously straying into operational areas; I probably should not say even that—because the decisions that the police take have to be context-specific. It is not right for us to second-guess those decisions; the police could of course be challenged on them afterwards if they are found wanting.

We need to be careful when talking about these things, but we are confident that the police have the right powers. I am not aware of any particular incidents today. I did not feel particularly intimidated, although I completely accept that my noble friend might well have done. I am sure all those feelings and thoughts are being taken into account by the House authorities and by other police when they keep us safe.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for introducing this Bill to deter illegal migrants from making the perilous journey across the high seas.

Despite the law being there, it has not been executed because of successful legal challenge and will not deter. It remains a hollow threat. The new Bill responds to this legal challenge and the Supreme Court judgment by ruling out any generic challenge based on debate about the safety of Rwanda. However, the Bill is not without its own problems, some of which have been referred to today. I will raise two.

Will a successful challenge on individual circumstances become the prototype for other challenges of the same sort? Will there be a successful challenge to the Strasbourg court and what will be the response from a Minister of the Crown to an interim remedy? While I am willing to give the Bill a chance, I am concerned that it is not a satisfactory basis on which to ask the UK Parliament to pass a law. I am concerned about an attempt to have it every way, to be within international law yet disapply certain parts so that that the UK somehow avoids its parameters. I urge my noble and learned friend to ask the Government to exclude, clearly and categorically for the purpose of this Bill, the provisions of those international treaties which make it impossible to honour the mandate to the electorate to control the UK’s borders.

The attempt to run with the hare and run with the hounds is bad for politics, bad for the courts and bad for the constitutional arrangements where Parliament makes the law and the courts interpret it. We have a sea border. We have our own Parliament. We have the finest judiciary in the world. It is time to capitalise on these facts. We need to make our law clear and, if need be, clearly exclude those parts of international law which bind this country and replace them with our own law; otherwise, we shall reap the constitutional and political instability faced by many western countries because we seem to be failing to honour the promise that the electorate sees as its priority.

Across Europe, settled Governments are crumbling, political systems have been undermined, constitutional stability and order have been threatened, and voters have lost confidence in the politics of “business as usual”. The EU is now proposing another measure to control illegal migration which involves quotas and fines on countries that do not take their quota and which is not set to come into law for a year. That is no answer; nor do our neighbouring countries consider it sufficient. In Germany, the left coalition seeks control over migration. France finally passed its own immigration law and, within weeks, the constitutional court of that country has challenged parts of it. Denmark is trying its own scheme and in Holland, Geert Wilders was elected because he promises to combat immigration and undermine the stability of the Rutte Government.

The UK Government should clearly and boldly reject those elements of the existing international treaties which make it impossible for them to act against illegal immigration as the electorate wishes. They should aim to return to the initial proposal of the coalition years to introduce their own Bill of Rights, covering these things with the generosity that we have always shown to asylum and protection claims from people in need. Far from making itself an international pariah, the UK would show itself to be a leader, the one country brave enough to face today’s facts and open the way to solving a problem that concerns almost every developed country.

Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and members of the International Agreements Committee for their report on the UK-Rwanda agreement. As other noble Lords have pointed out, it is a model of clarity, precision and informative analysis, as was the noble and learned Lord’s elegant summary today.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, both brought us through the steps proposed in the treaty and those that are still needed to make Rwanda a safe country. I will not go through all the steps to which they referred, but they concluded that those steps have not been put in place yet, as noble Lords across the House have pointed out, and we do not know whether they will be and how effectively that will be done.

The question that has been put is a fair one: are the guarantees proposed by the Government to be agreed in international law under the treaty, which involve legal and practical steps and reassurances on compliance, sufficient to allow Parliament to judge whether Rwanda is safe? Is saying that something is the case, or committing to measures that may make it so, proof that it is so? I also ask: will it reassure the courts? The committee does not think it should reassure Parliament, and nor in my view is it likely that the courts will judge it so.

On the face of it, the committee’s report, arising as it does from the decision of the Supreme Court and dealing with the Government’s response to that decision, is unanswerable. I sympathise with the courts that interpret the law and with the committee, which, following the Supreme Court judgments, asks whether the treaty will do the job that the Government say it does—that is, to reassure Parliament that Rwanda is safe.

Whether the treaty ultimately succeeds and works will be for the courts to decide, but, if a successful challenge is brought against removal to Rwanda, that answer will be no, for, as long as the UK is bound by the current provisions of international laws relating to asylum and refugees, it will not be able to satisfy the obligations. No country can. Such international treaties protecting the human rights, asylum and refugee claims of people from jurisdictions other than our own seem to command priority over the concerns of people in this country. Moreover, ever more complex arrangements seem to be put in place to promote and safeguard such claims, often at the expense of those voters in this country.

We have been told, including by some noble Lords in this House—and here I refer to the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—that, were we to deviate in any way from international law, this would cast doubt on Britain’s standing among other countries party to the law. Well, I do not think we would be out of step with our neighbours. France, Italy and Germany face the same problem. Each of those neighbours is a G7 country and each has seen an explosion in the number of those arriving within their borders to seek asylum. They are generous to asylum seekers—as is Britain, and its people. But Germany, which has taken quite a number of asylum seekers, is, in the words of the left coalition, which I will not repeat in German, full up.

We are living in a make-believe world in which Parliament and the courts seem to be at loggerheads, in practice if not in principle. We claim the centrality of the separation of constitutional powers: many noble Lords have referred to that, and the committee’s report refers to it in paragraph 13. But no longer can I see that the courts, in doing the work they do—which, given the law, they must do—can protect this country from what seems to many people to be arbitrary power. For, whether we like it or not, international laws made, changed, interpreted and imposed, even if under a treaty to which we are a signatory—the consequences of which the majority of people have continued to make clear democratically, through the ballot box and through opinion polling, they do not want—are arbitrary and should not be retained.

I suspect that many noble Lords will warn the Government against proceeding with the Rwanda Bill linked to this treaty. Some will support the second Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I will certainly support the first, but not the second. If it does the trick to reassure, first, Parliament and, ultimately, the courts, well and good: but, given the exceptional ability, ingenuity and inventiveness of those engaged in advising asylum claimants, it will not be long before a successful challenge is brought.

Can my noble friend the Minister ask the Government to prepare and publish the necessary measures to prepare for that eventuality and see off the challenge? For, whether we like it or not, and whether the Government like it or not, we are seeing a constitutional crisis in the making, in which the will of the people, through their MPs, to have a say in the laws under which they are governed, the kind of country they live in, the taxes they pay and the opportunities they have, is flouted because their Parliament is powerless. The constitutional protection of the courts—the traditional role of the courts to protect freedoms—appears to them to have been turned on its head. Given its international obligations, the UK cannot control who comes in and who goes out, for that depends not on Parliament nor the will of the people but on what seems to them to be distant law made for a far-off time and a different world.

Legal Migration

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I have indicated, we estimate that only around 25% of dependants work when they come to the UK—half of the adult dependants; the other half are children.

I now have a marginally better answer for the right reverend Prelate on the family test. I can confirm that the policy is compliant under the Human Rights Act, which includes respect for family life.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for following up on yesterday’s Statement today. I have three questions.

First, on student visas and the granting of permission to dependants to come to this country, which I understand will be restricted to those on designated research programme courses, does this apply primarily to PhD students in laboratories or in both science and humanities subjects?

Secondly, we have 680,000 international students in this country at the moment. The Statement mentioned the daily life strains that can be put on housing, our health services and education for our children. Will my noble friend consider extending the review that he mentioned to the educational strain on the hard-pressed resources of our universities—with teaching and lecturing commitments and additional administration—of having just less than 700,000 additional students?

My third question is a more constructive one on opportunities for the future. At the moment, a number of our universities have campuses abroad; there is a network of such universities in the UK university overseas campuses network. By the end of 2021, it had on its books 17 universities with 27 campuses abroad. Is there more to be said for putting the undoubted energies of the Government into promoting such campuses abroad? Perhaps, later on in his or her course, a student could come to this country for a special additional course, having gone through the undergraduate system in his or her own country. Will my noble friend consider or pass on those questions?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to confirm that PhD students will still be able to bring dependants. I do not believe that there is any differentiation between science and humanities subjects. I absolutely take my noble friend’s point about hard-pressed universities, particularly in accommodation and the schooling system more generally, which, as we are all well aware, is under significant pressure. My noble friend makes some very good points about campuses abroad and the efforts the Government ought to make to promote them. I will certainly take her comments back and perhaps share them with the Department for Education.