Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Thursday 7th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am fully aware that China is not a member—I do not think there is any doubt about that—but surely the noble Viscount is aware that the growth levels of the Vietnam economy have been entirely, or at least very largely, dependent on the growth of the Chinese economy. Given that New Zealand has had a free trade agreement with China for more than 20 years, the growth of the Chinese economy has been a major, if not the predominant, factor in the growth of the Asia-Pacific economy, which—it is regularly cited—is the fastest-growing economy and one we need to be part of. It is the fastest growing because it has been dependent on the growth of the Chinese economy—but that is an overall debate.

On the CPTPP members, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely right: with some of them, such as Australia, we are still awaiting the police of the GIs—the European Union, for us—to make an agreement with it. We are still in that situation. My noble friend Lord Foster raised that where businesses have an opportunity to choose between two systems, for some businesses that is a burden because of the complexities associated with that and therefore clarity on advice about the preferential way of utilising this is important. The Minister responded very fairly.

I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. I know that he will be in the Chamber for the Rwanda Statement, but in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, with regard to my drafting, there are even greater powers than the Minister or others in this Committee. They are the clerks in the Public Bill Office who tell us what is or is not in scope of the Bill, so my drafting was in order to satisfy the greatest authority, the Public Bill Office, in order to put down an amendment so we could discuss it. However, I am very happy to explore further options. This issue, connected with those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we will discuss in future, is significant.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. Given what the Minister said a few moments ago about Malaysia, I draw his attention to a report in today’s Daily Telegraph about Shimano, which I think is the biggest bicycle parts company in the world, which operates out of Japan. It is selling through a supplier in Malaysia products that have been made by slave labour in Nepal. That is a good illustration of the kind of problems that we will run into. Although that is not necessarily part of the treaty, it is part of our obligations under British law to ensure that such things do not enter our supply chain.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because he and I often think alike in many of these areas. He slightly pre-empted me because I was specifically mentioning Malaysia to close and to stress why it is important. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, I think it is valid to know on the record what the interest in Malaysia is since we will be debating it going forward. In 2021, in the Chamber I raised the fact that the UK had a £316 million contract with a Malaysian firm, Supermax, to supply PPE gloves through NHS Supply Chain. That company’s exports to the United States were impounded by the United States because of contraventions of ILO standards and slave labour concerns. This has still not been resolved. I raised that, and I was grateful to the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who initiated a review within the department. As I understand it, this is still being litigated. I do not expect the Minister to have an answer today, but I would be grateful if he would write to me because this is pertinent to the next stage in Committee with regard to multi-million-pound contracts through supply chains. I know that NHS Supply Chain is a distinct part of the NHS. With regard to this Malaysian firm, the United States activated powers which we did not. Now, with regard to procurement, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated, supply chains and the standards that we seek, there are genuine, valid concerns. I remind the Committee that the contract was worth £316 million. The United States had the equivalent impounded.

I know that we will come back to some of these general issues. I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part and grateful to the Minister, who as always is open and accessible to discuss these aspects. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Report stage
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 20 and 24 to 28 in my name.

It is notable that, despite Government Ministers on the Front Bench trying to promote this Bill in such vehement terms, for the votes in this Chamber the Conservatives cannot get more than 50% of their Members to support the Government’s position. That speaks volumes.

Amendment 20 seeks to restore the fundamental principle that, if people are to be deemed admissible to be removed to a safe country, it should be on the basis of the individual circumstances of their case and after a review of the circumstances that they will face. The Government are turning this on its head, which is simply wrong. We heard earlier about the due process of law. Amendment 20 seeks to restore what the Government seek to remove—the due process of law.

Amendments 24 to 28 follow from the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on those countries in the schedule that are not party to the refugee convention—India, Kosovo, Mauritius, Mongolia and South Korea. We do not know, and the Minister will not tell us, whether we have a return and resettlement agreement with any of those countries because, as he told me earlier, these are secret agreements. What kind of arrangements do a Government enter into with another Government that would be secret? The only thing I can think is that the other Government have asked us to keep it secret, for reasons that the Minister will not divulge. But he is asking us to legislate and determine that they are safe countries.

There is an inconsistency with the Government’s position on Section 80B of the 2002 Act, which was amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, over the definition of a “safe third state”. As amended, the 2002 Act is clear about what it is: a safe third state is to be judged with regard to what is relevant to the individual person. Section 80B(4) defines a safe third state, and Section 80B(4)(b) states that one of the characteristics of a safe state is that the person will not be sent to another state—refoulement. There is nothing in this Bill that will give protection to that individual.

In that same section, the refugee convention is specifically mentioned, both in subsection (4)(b)(i) and (4)(c), with regard to a criterion of safety for an individual. I regret very much that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, is not in his place. We had a constitutional law lecture at the start of Report on the duality of the system, and if I understood correctly, we should not impose requirements on Executives with regard to international conventions. The law—and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was Justice Minister at the time of the 2022 Bill being taken through Parliament—states categorically that this is a requirement we have put in statute: other Executives have to be a member of the refugee convention or we will not send people to them. What kind of double standard is it that it is fine for us to insist on receiving countries adhering to the convention, but it would be fundamentally wrong for us to adhere to that same convention? This is a double standard we absolutely should not support.

I have leave from my colleagues to say that we on these Benches will strongly support Amendment 37 if the opinion of the House is tested. These aspects are fundamental to the Bill; they are about principle, but also practicalities and our standing in the world. Process of law is very important and we should protect it, and that is why these amendments should be supported.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I too strongly support Amendment 37 and will vote for it if the opinion of the House is tested. I would also like to support the remarks of my noble and learned friend Baroness Butler-Sloss, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in moving those earlier amendments, particularly as they relate to safe countries.

My Amendment 21 would insert into Clause 5 the following:

“No person may be removed to a country listed in Schedule 1 if doing so would put that person at risk due to their protected characteristics as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010”.


I raised this issue in Committee and I made a long speech, but I will not detain the House for long this evening. I especially cited the example of Nigeria and I do so again this evening, not least because I heard this morning of the case of Usman Buda, a Muslim, who was murdered in Sokoto state in north-west Nigeria in the last few days, because it was alleged—I repeat: alleged—that he had blasphemed. It is just over a year since the lynching of Deborah Emmanuel, a Christian, at Shehu Shagari College of Education, again following an unsubstantiated accusation of blasphemy. Nigeria is one of the 71 countries that criminalises blasphemy. It is worth remembering that this year is the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 of which insists that everyone has the right to believe, not to believe or to change their belief. That is why my amendment seeks to protect people who will be in danger if they are sent back to places like Nigeria because of their belief, non-belief or their desire to change belief.

When the Minister replies, will he say also how the Bill is compatible with Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010? Especially in light of what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said a moment ago about amendments affecting people because of their orientation, it is clearly in breach of that and of Article 18, for reasons of faith. That is enough on that subject for now. It is an issue we can return to later in our proceedings, when we come to not just safe countries but how we deal with people with these protected characteristics.