Nepal: Protests

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, and for his service and close association with the Gurkha regiment. The UK remains Nepal’s largest bilateral aid donor, with funding currently invested in areas such as green growth, education and gender equality; we spend some £46.5 million each year on that. There is no indication at all that that figure will change downwards as a result of the incidents happening currently. He mentioned good governance, which is really important. Of the £46.5 million, approximately £5 million is spent on security and justice elements, and £1.6 million on rights, inclusion and voice, and gender recognition. I will take from his comments that need to keep good governance. We condemn the violence and will continue to work to ensure stability in what is a really important partner for the United Kingdom.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, what support are His Majesty’s Government—or, for that matter, any Government—providing to civil society organisations and human rights defenders in Nepal as they alone work to promote accountability for the violence that caused 19 deaths, and to protect fundamental freedoms?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an important point. As I have mentioned to the noble Lord previously, the UK is a long-standing partner, and the British embassy in Kathmandu currently forecasts that the entire spend of £46.5 million bilateral overseas aid for this year will be spent. There is a range of programmes within that, on business, resilience, infrastructure, rights inclusions, security and justice. Obviously, in the light of the instability that has occurred, the purpose and objective of the overseas development department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office there is to ensure that we help regain that stability, but to look at the causes and how we can provide resilience to ensure that we tackle some of the issues that have led to that instability.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

104: Clause 38, page 31, line 13, leave out “58” and insert “59”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 104 in my name and that of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. In so doing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Dubs, who, in my absence, moved and spoke to amendments in my name. He did so with characteristic thoughtfulness, eloquence and rigour, and I am pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude. I am also pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who was willing to move and speak to Amendment 104 on 10 July, had he not been defeated by time.

This amendment seeks to do something essentially very simple to the Bill that is before the Committee and the legislation it relates to. However, I hope that the Committee will bear with me as in some ways it requires a complicated explanation—I will do my best not to complicate it even more. Essentially, it seeks to repeal Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act and, in so doing, remove certain anomalies, which I will come to.

Section 59 extends the current inadmissibility process for certain asylum claims and other human rights claims from what was, initially, broadly nationals or those who came from the EEA states, one or two other European states and other countries that are deemed safe. The mechanism for this in Section 59 is a list of safe states—countries from which an asylum or human rights claim must be declared inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances apply. That list can be added to, and the list that was originally drafted in the clause was increased to include India and Georgia by regulations that were laid on 8 November 2023.

I could detain the Committee for quite a time explaining the state these countries were in in respect of human rights on that date. I will read, in short, from the United States’s 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Georgia—that is the source of the information and noble Lords can find it and read it for themselves. I will read only two of about seven lines:

“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: torture or inhuman, cruel, or degrading treatment; arbitrary arrest or incarcerations; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary, along with investigations and prosecutions widely considered to be politically motivated; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media”.


The first three lines of the United States’s 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: India included the following:

“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful and arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government or its agents; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by police and prison officials; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners or detainees; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy”.


I will stop there—that is enough. There are many other lines that come with that.

Despite this and other information from other sources, the then Government thought that these two countries were candidates for a list of safe states, and therefore places from which certain asylum or human rights claims would be declared inadmissible.

I believe that this amendment to repeal this is in harmony with the animating spirit of this legislation. Repealing Section 59 would terminate the proposition in it that you can declare states to be safe in this way, despite the evidence, and would remove certain anomalies that I will come to. It presently extends the inadmissibility process for asylum claims and other human rights claims. The distinction between human rights claims and claims to asylum is critical, but Section 59 conflates them. Unlike asylum claims, many human rights claims are founded not on an assessment of a country’s safety but on an individual’s connection with this country: family ties and relationships. As it stands, we risk imposing what amounts, in an anomalous fashion, to a blanket ban on consideration of human rights claims from a country because it is deemed safe, when that is irrelevant to the nature of the claim.

Section 59 deprives individuals of a right to appeal, as these claims, because they are disregarded from the outset, go unconsidered rather than refused, and therefore there is no right of appeal unless there are exceptional circumstances. But what might be considered exceptional circumstances are defined in the legislation in a non-exhaustive way, with narrow examples, such as derogations from human rights obligations under the ECHR or suspension from the EU by the country itself. They are simply inapplicable to states such as India, leaving us with legal uncertainty, over and above all the other problems with this process.

Noble Lords will know that exceptional circumstances have been narrowly interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the past as requiring compelling reasons to believe that there is a clear risk that the individual will be liable to persecution in the country of origin. This test is clearly incorrect for private and family life claims—again a result of the conflation of human rights and asylum claims.

Returning to the list of safe countries, I believe that this involves the other place and your Lordships’ House being asked to do something that they are plainly ill-equipped to do. The list of safe states in Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act may be altered by the Government and future Governments through affirmative regulations, but I for one would feel myself placed in an invidious situation if asked to vote on whether a member of a religious minority could be considered safe in parts of India; on whether a young Bohra girl is safe in India, given the very high incidence of FGM in that community; or on whether a gay man in Georgia can be considered as residing in a safe country. To reach an informed judgment in these cases would require an omniscience that I do not pretend to possess.

I am grateful to the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, which, in the case of Georgia, drew my attention to the case of Noah, a man who, mere months before Georgia was declared safe, was granted refugee status in the UK. After coming out as gay, he was physically attacked by his own family members, he was forced to stay in a hospital for people with mental illnesses, and he had an exorcism performed on him at his local church. His partner was attacked too, but the police in Georgia did not protect either of them—but the United Kingdom did, despite this legislation being in power at the time.

Considering this case and others like it, the lack of an obligation to keep the list of safe countries under constant review is troubling, over and above all the criticism that I have. The Committee needs no reminder of the tortuous logic-chopping that accompanied the decision to legislate as to the absolute and perpetual safety of the country of Rwanda. I worry that the absence of a reviewing mechanism for this list threatens to put us in a similarly invidious position.

Of course, Section 59 has not been fully commenced, but, given that the Home Office has granted asylum or human rights protections to hundreds of people from the countries on the list in recent years, even the shadow of the Section 59 provision is damaging. If commenced, these individuals would have no way to challenge a decision wrongfully to deport them. So either the Home Office has, in granting asylum or human rights claims, been acting out of a superfluity of compassion, or the suggestion that these countries are in all circumstances safe is wrong.

It is my belief that Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is ill-conceived and that it ties the hands of the Home Secretary, who, under its provision, must declare asylum and human rights claims from these countries as an inadmissible, save where largely undefined exceptional circumstances are detected. If fully commenced, it risks involving us, going forward under a new Government, in multiple breaches of our obligations under international law. I urge the Committee to support Amendment 104. I beg to move.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 104 and I am proud to follow my noble friend after the passionate and eloquent way he introduced it. He spoke passionately and deeply about the young man, Noah, and the experience that he had in Georgia. Before I speak further in support of this amendment, to which I have added my name, I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who, as your Lordships know, died on 6 May this year. I had the privilege to work alongside him on immigration and asylum legislation in this House. He was always seeking to bring justice and fairness where there was none and to give a voice to the voiceless. His contributions will be greatly missed. It is clear to me, having listened to previous interventions on this Bill and from the media stigmatisation of migrants, that this vital work of bringing justice and fairness to the system must go on.

I support Amendment 104, which, as I said, has been put before your Lordships’ House so eloquently by my noble friend. I also welcome and support Amendment 203E. These amendments bring us back to addressing the primary reasons of those seeking asylum. It is vital that each case is processed solely on its merits and not on the presumption of the safety of the country from which the person has fled, despite the issue of exceptional circumstances to which my noble friend has already referred. I am pleased to say the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has put the case exhaustively and therefore there is very little for me to add.

I believe this amendment to be essential because Section 59, once fully commenced, will make far-reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals, introduced by the Nationalities and Borders Act 2022. This could result in violations of the UK’s international human rights obligations, and I am grateful for the briefings that I have received, particularly from the Refugee Council. Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act extends the current general inadmissibility of asylum claims from nationals of EU member states to cover human rights claims and to cover nationals of other countries deemed to be safe, despite concerns expressed about the safety of three of those states: India, Albania and Georgia.

There can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community. Concerns have been raised by numerous organisations on protection issues in India, Albania and Georgia, including those faced by women and girls, victims of trafficking, and minorities such as certain religious groups and LGBTQ+ people. In relation to the latter, we must recall and recognise the Supreme Court judgment of 2010, HG (Iran) and HT (Cameroon) v the Home Secretary, particularly in relation to the lived experiences of such individuals seeking asylum.

Finally, there is a fundamental issue with legislating for so-called safe states. The list of safe states in Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 may be altered by the Executive through affirmative regulations, but Members of this House have expressed concern time and time again, particularly throughout the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, that we are institutionally ill-equipped to act decisively to determine the safety of a state.

We have also expressed in your Lordships’ House concerns that we have been repeatedly asked to rubber-stamp such decisions of the Government of the day. It is our contention that the safety of a state must be designated by a review on the basis of reliable and objective information from a range of sources and regularly updated and published. I urge the Government to consider and reflect widely on this sensible and notable amendment and to work with us and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, to accept this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thought that was what I said. I hope we can agree, at the end of this group of amendments that was livelier than I initially anticipated, that the Committee can support the Government’s direction of travel. However, I hope the amendment before the Committee today will be withdrawn.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I offer my final remarks with the traditional thanks to all those who have contributed to the debate on Amendment 104. When I saw that I had the overt support of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Brinton—whose support was more implied than overt—and the noble Lord, Lord German, whose support was overt, I began to think the only group that is of similar value to this one are the players that Liverpool signed in the transfer window. I thought, “I cannot possibly lose this argument”, until my noble friend explained operational benefit. I do not know if I should be pleased about the noble Lord, Lord German, reminding him of the possibility of “operational benefit”, but he found it—I will come back to that in a moment.

I heard nine Conservative speeches. I was astonished that, until the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, not one defended it—not one—and I think at least one of them may well have been responsible for the drafting of the legislation that Section 59 was in. I was therefore surprised when the noble Lord found that there was a pretty straightforward principle for Section 59, which is not that much different in its outcome to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hanson. However, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—and I will spend some time expanding this argument—if one looks at Clause 38 of the Bill, Section 59 is going to be pretty much alone as something that was in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. It is going to find itself in a very lonely context. The noble Lord’s argument was that one had to see this in context, but that will disappear if this Bill is passed. I will spend some more time between now and Report looking at just what that means for the ambitions that people have for Section 59 as it is presently drafted.

Some of the most important points that were made in this debate are well worth repeating. I do not intend to repeat very many of them because it has been a very wide-ranging debate and there has been a lot of repetition. It is important to start as my friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, encourages us to do, not only in debates but in conversations: to remember that it is people’s lived experience that should decide whether they deserve asylum or human rights protection, not conclusions that Governments or officials have come to about the temporary safety of the environments in which they may be living. This is all about people, and if we start from there and take into account all the other complexities of this legislation, we get to a point where there should be no room for Section 59 in the legislation going forward. There may need to be something similar to provide a benefit to the management of an issue of this scale, but it will not be that particular section in my view. This is a matter that I will come to again.

Corporate Liquidations

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, private equity plays an important role in business support in this country. We have seen private equity companies that have acquired businesses and actually grown them as well. Yes, their track record is not great, but there is definitely a role for private equity in business in this country. Do not listen to the Government. Listen to people in the private equity business. Jamie Dimon said:

“I’ve always been a believer in the UK’s … strengths as a place to do business and there’s much to like about the new government’s pro-growth agenda”.


Yesterday, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued that the UK was in the “Goldilocks” zone with great universities, a good start-up culture and the third-largest amount of investment in AI companies globally outside the US and China.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the 2024-25 financial year, the Insolvency Service disqualified more than 1,000 company directors? Of those, a significant proportion—736—were banned for abusing the Covid-19 Bounce Back Loan Scheme. Additionally, there were 131 individuals subject to bankruptcy restriction orders, with 87 of them also linked to the misuse of Covid-19 loans. How many businesses had to wind up because of those facts?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. Yes, those figures are quite high. It is right that the full force of the law should come down on company directors who are found to be trading insolvently. Basically, there are different forms of liquidation, from creditors’ voluntary liquidation to compulsory liquidation, which I mentioned earlier, which has increased mainly because of HMRC prosecution. HMRC, Companies House and insolvency practices target abuses such as tax evasion and this whole area of phoenixism with tougher enforcement, personal liability for directors and upfront tax demand. That should be the way.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the Bill and to follow a characteristically comprehensive and persuasive opening speech by my noble friend the Minister, as well as the well-informed and forensic contribution of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

It would be impossible in six minutes for me to engage with any substantial amount of the issues that have been alluded to or discussed; everything that has been said thus far in today’s proceedings has been wide ranging and reflective of the broader debate on these questions. So, mindful of time and of the specificity of previous contributions, I plan to restrict myself to one or two observations about the Bill’s provisions, as well as the broader challenges that they seek to engage. Given the nature and tone of other contributions, I do not intend to belabour the point about the inheritance bequeathed to my noble friend the Minister and the Government by the party opposite, but it is worth emphasising that the measures we are debating today are necessitated by 14 years, or thereabouts, of largely ineffectual policy, with occasional performative harshness here and there in that period.

Here, I will depart from my script to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on his excellent maiden speech. I look forward to debating with him and hearing him debate in future.

I welcome the commitment in the Bill to cross-agency working under the aegis of the new border security commander. It is unquestionably true that previous efforts to reduce illegal arrivals in the UK were hamstrung by a lack of co-ordination and a tendency for government departments and agencies to work in silos. Under the provisions of Clauses 3 and 5, partner authorities in their activities must only “have regard” for the strategic priorities document produced by the commander. Thinking over the strength of those provisions, I read the Second Reading proceedings in the other place, and while picking my way through the comments of the shadow Home Secretary, I realised, peering through a mist of disbelief and astonishment on some occasions, that I found myself responsive to one, but only one, element of his remarks. He suggested something supported by a briefing from the Law Society of Scotland, which other noble Lords may have received; that the title “border security commander” is something of a misnomer, given that these provisions presuppose a system based on co-operation rather than compliance. What precedent have the Government drawn upon in coming to the decision that the commander and partner authorities should have regard for, rather than comply with, the priorities in the strategic document?

Clause 37, repealing the entirety of the safety of Rwanda Act, is, of course, entirely welcome. I cannot help but be struck by the criticism levelled at the Government by the Benches opposite in this context. We have been told on a number of occasions already that we are removing a deterrent that could have a transformational effect on the inflow of illegal migration. In order to take this critique seriously—which, frankly, I do not—we have to accept that, having finally found a silver bullet for a problem that has bedevilled this country for years, the previous Government did not discharge it or receive a consequent wave of acclimation from a grateful nation, but called a general election before the first flight had taken off. This repeal only confirms what we already knew: that this scheme was performative rather than substantive in conception and intent.

In this context, I should also mention those voices who urge the UK to disregard elements of international law to ensure that we can take appropriately severe measures to discourage illegal migration. Apart from comments already made in this speech, although this is a national problem, it can be solved only with international co-operation. The new agreements that this Government have reached with Germany, Iraq, the Calais group and the G7 are testament to this. Displaying a disregard for international law before asking for co-operation with international partners, would, to say the least, represent a somewhat quixotic approach.

On the wider point of the international picture, I have a question for the Minister about the retention of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act. As noble Lords will be aware, Section 59 makes any asylum or human rights claim by a national of a safe state inadmissible, save in exceptional circumstances. I know that the Section 59 powers have not been commenced, but if they are not going to be used, why not use this Bill to remove them altogether? To take but one example of the commencement of these powers possibly posing a problem, which has already been alluded to, Georgia was added to the safe states list by the previous Government but is an increasingly hostile environment for LGBTQ people. Given that the Home Office recently granted asylum to people from Georgia, the purpose of Section 59, even in abeyance, is somewhat questionable.

Mindful of time, I limit myself to one final question. On 10 February, the Home Office published significant changes to the good character requirement guidance for British citizenship applications. The updated guidance stipulates that asylum seekers who previously entered the UK illegally will typically be refused citizenship regardless of the time elapsed since their entry. I accept that, where safe and legal routes exist, taking the alternative of illicit entry can legitimately be seen as evidence of an absence of good character. However, if someone has a legitimate claim to asylum but came from a country with no safe legal route in place at the time they entered, is this really evidence of want of good character? I would be grateful for the Minister’s reflections on that question.

Telecommunications Fraud: Reimbursement of Victims

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely; that is an extremely valuable point. Again in the upcoming fraud strategy, we will look at a number of countries from which fraud emanates. We have put just under £1 million into supporting the United Nations conference on this very issue, which will be held next year; the UK is leading the charge on that. For those noble Lords who may have missed me, a couple of weeks ago I spent four days in Nigeria dealing with the Nigerian Government and, with them, signing a charter to look at joint co-operation on fraud that emanates from both our country and theirs collectively; that is the first of a number of charters and codes of practice that we will look at with other countries. This is an extremely important point: there are certain areas from which fraud emanates very strongly. We need an international response to what is an international criminal gang operation.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I recollect that, when I was a member of the special Select Committee on fraud, we had the privilege of hearing evidence from a representative of the company that was providing me with mobile telephony. Of course, the first sentence of the evidence that they gave was, “We take this issue very seriously”. I had in fact spent five hours, on a train from Scotland, reading the terms and conditions of my contract with the company; I suspect that no other Member of your Lordships’ House has done that. The word “fraud” appeared nowhere in the contract that I had with it. It would be simple for providers to make it clear to those to whom they give the privilege of using their system that, if they use it for fraud, not only will the contract be terminated but all other mobile providers will be told that they have that background. When we revise the fraud strategy, can we insist that that simple requirement is made of mobile providers?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One key area that we are focusing on in the revised fraud strategy is data sharing. I want to ensure that telecoms companies, telecommunications providers, platforms, the police and others share data where there is fraudulent activity. I hope that Members will bear with me but, when the fraud strategy comes out in due course, data sharing and how we can improve it will be one of our key aims as a Government.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support the comments that have just been made. My concern is that we should live in the world that actually exists, rather than some mythical world that we might like to exist.

Some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Frost seem intent on trying to make it impossible for people to organise themselves in the world in which we live, because of the particular view that he takes about the rest of Europe. I do not want that to be the view that we should have. We should have a fundamental view: first, that our regulation should be in accordance with the science—which is why I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley—and, secondly, that we should take into account where our major markets are and where it is important that we have common standards, if they are possible. We should not be hidebound by some past view.

It happens to be true that the world in which we live includes the fact that the rest of Europe is pretty close to us, and we will therefore find that it is probably true that the area where we will most need to have common views will be there. I say that not to try to reverse the decision made by Britain but to face the facts of geography and trade.

In my business life, I advise a very large number of big and small businesses. We do not discuss whether we were in favour of our leaving the European Union; we discuss how we should run the business and make it work today. One thing that we all agree on is that the present system does not work very well. We can leave the past aside, but if we are to make it work in the future, we must give the Government the opportunity to align where alignment seems sensible in the context of the science. We will have to accept, by the nature of life, that much of that alignment may be with the countries with which we do most of our business and with which we will continue to do so.

We must not insert into the Bill matters that are not about it, but about reasserting a particular view of the way the world ought to work. We in this House should be prepared to accept that we are where we are, and that our job is to make life easier for the businesses we want to grow and to be able to work with other countries in our continent as well as beyond. Sometimes it will be more sensible to be aligned in a much wider sense. Much of the time it will not be, but that will be for the particular issue, the particular moment and the particular decision. We should not make it more difficult here to make the best decision on every occasion.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Fox. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whose common sense I often agree with. I am happy to echo his request that we treat and judge these amendments in the world we live in, rather than the world we would like to live in.

My name was attached to a predecessor of this amendment when the Bill came before your Lordships’ Committee. Its absence at this stage does not reflect any diminution of my belief that its provisions would both enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and strengthen Parliament’s scrutinising role. The fact is, I just left it too late to add my name.

The moving spirit behind this amendment is a desire for the greatest possible transparency and, leading from that, the greatest role possible for your Lordships’ House and the other place in examining regulatory decisions and subjecting them to scrutiny. The coverage surrounding this legislation has frequently described it as an enabling Bill, but I see this amendment as one that enables Parliament to have access to the thinking of relevant Ministers when they choose to align with or diverge from EU or other law. These decisions should and will be made according to a calculus of national self-interest, rather than—as I suspect some on the Opposition Benches are determined to believe—a desire unthinkingly to ape EU regulations, whether such alignment is in the interest of British business and industry or not.

In that respect, this amendment is rather more narrowly drawn than its predecessor, to which I put my name. It does not represent dynamic alignment but offers a greater measure of regulatory certainty for business, while ensuring that decisions that prove not to be in our interest are regularly reviewed. As I have said, I am aware of the fears of some on the Opposition Benches, and the suggestion that the Bill encompasses the extinction of British regulatory independence. I do not agree with them but suggest that if this is indeed their belief, the greater transparency and reviewing requirements of this amendment should offer a vehicle for more effective scrutiny.

This amendment has been drafted carefully and is consonant with the aims of the Bill as a whole. It does not suggest or conform to any preconceived determination that alignment with EU standards is inherently desirable. As we have heard, it simply imposes on Ministers a duty to report to Parliament when a decision has been made against or in favour of regulatory alignment. In a further departure from this amendment’s predecessor, the yardstick against which that decision has been taken will be a simple one: whether the decision is to the benefit of British businesses.

Recent weeks have made it abundantly clear that we now live in a more transactional world. Although I might regret that fact, I recognise it and accept that this is the world that we live in, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, would say. Even judged by that metric, this amendment’s value is clear. Its starting point is what is good for our national economy and businesses; it ensures that Parliament is to be apprised of the basis on which Ministers make their regulatory determinations; and it ensures that if these have proved mistaken, they can be scrutinised and, where necessary, reversed. For those reasons, it should be part of the Bill. Whether through proceedings in your Lordships’ House or the other place—which, I am sure, will have an opportunity to consider it—I hope that this amendment, or something very like it, will make its way on to the statute book.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendments in this group, tabled in his and other noble Lords’ names.

I begin by focusing on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others. It would be churlish and unreasonable not to concede that it is slightly different from the amendment tabled in Committee and that it is slightly better, although I am surprised by the noble Lord’s comments, echoed by my noble friend Lord Lansley, about the basis on which we seek to legislate with primary legislation. We do not do it for businesses; we do it for the good of the greater population of this country and not necessarily a small group, however estimable it is in the case of the British Chambers of Commerce. This is not a bad amendment but it is potentially a Trojan horse amendment, in that it closes out options other than the regulatory and legal regime of the European Union.

That brings me to Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost. The key issue here is that we are considering a Bill that we hope will improve the productivity and competitiveness of British business and commerce and reduce trade frictions. It is not sensible to close off the possibility of different opportunities for the United Kingdom to prosper outside the European Union. The ideas are not mutually exclusive. Being open and transparent, and putting in legislation the means to improve trade globally, does not necessarily mean that we are resiling from our friends in the European Union and our trade with them. However, by dollar denomination, global trade with the EU has reduced from, I think, 32% 30 years ago; it is likely within the next 10 years to drop to about 14%.

Therefore, we have a duty and a responsibility. It is imperative for us as legislators to put in place legislation that recognises those economic realities—that we will be trading more with Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and other countries. Of course, we are not taking the view that Europe cannot prosper. It is in our best interests that the European Union prospers. But to put in the Bill only the legal and regulatory regime of one part of the global trade possibilities closes off options that Ministers would be sensible not to close off.

My final remarks are on my noble friend’s Amendment 25, which affects Clause 2, on page 3 of the Bill, concerning the legal jurisdiction of potential supranational legal entities and the impact they will have on the regulatory regime of the United Kingdom. Again, I press the Minister to answer my noble friend’s question: as a result of this Bill passing, are we going to have a situation in the near future analogous to that of Switzerland—a fractious and difficult relationship as a result of many bilateral agreements with the European Union, and is that in the best interests of the United Kingdom? That is the rationale behind this very sensible amendment. For those reasons, I support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendment, and I would resist the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

County Lines Drug Trafficking

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. The legal definition of child criminal exploitation will be in the police and crime Bill, which will be published very shortly, almost certainly tomorrow. On immigration and criminal penalties, this is down to penalties around the supply of boats, engines and materials to ensure that the use of that material in small boats is criminalised, which currently it is not. That helps downstream and we have done some work with Germany, France, Belgium and Holland to look at how we can prevent that equipment reaching channel shores in France, Belgium and Holland, where it is used to transport people illegally to the United Kingdom across the channel.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for asking this Question. Not for the first time, a Question coming from the Opposition Benches has caused me to do some research into how the current strategy for a particular policy came about. He will know that on 9 July 2024—five days after the general election—the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the Disrupting County Lines Policing Strategy 2024-2027, which presumably had been approved by the Home Office when he was then a Minister. So if it is not performing that strategy which he agreed to, I say to my noble friend the Minister that it is good that there is a piece of legislation coming forward to clear up the problems in the legacy that we got from that strategy, is it not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

How can I not say yes to my noble friend? Let me reach out the hand of friendship to the Opposition. I know that they do not want to see county lines and drug runners in place. I know that they do not want to see exploitation of children or the crime that results from that such as car theft, theft from houses and other thefts. My hand of friendship to them is that when the police and crime Bill is published shortly, I hope they will reach out and support the measures in the Bill on child exploitation and other areas of real importance to support the ending of these county drug lines—test the measures, by all means, but ultimately support them when they come to this House.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that your Lordships’ House is in pretty well universal agreement, and I count myself part of that supportive chorus in saying that mandatory reporting is critical for the accountability for and prevention of child sexual abuse and the safeguarding of our children.

I have questions about the Bill, but no questions whatever about the seriousness, rigour and passion that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, brings to her campaigning on this and other issues that come before your Lordships’ House. So, although I have questions, they are offered in a constructive, not to say supportive, fashion.

The Government say that mandatory reporting will be part of the crime and policing Bill planned for the spring. This will, I suspect, preclude them from accepting this Bill, preferring to introduce measures as part of their own legislation. However, I suggest that my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint, the Minister, finds a way to embrace this Bill, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because it makes a substantial contribution to that ambition of the Government, and we should work together with the noble Baroness to ensure that the Bill is reflected in the eventual legislation as quickly as possible.

As part of a previous life practising law, largely child law, in Scotland, I have some experience of these issues, albeit in a—very—different jurisdiction. However, I am conscious that there are other Members of your Lordships’ House who have more direct and substantive experience of this jurisdiction. I will therefore take up as little time as possible—well, I have little time anyway—to make the two points I want to make.

I will focus first on the provisions under Clause 2(1), which stipulates that

“if the report under section 1 is made orally, the maker of the report must confirm the report in writing no later than seven days thereafter”.

Clause 3(1) makes a failure to do so an offence. In principle, I see nothing wrong in that, but I worry about its ability to survive a test of the real world. Imagine the following scenario: a newly qualified teaching assistant or other member of staff in their general welfare role, as defined by Clause 2(6)(a), wishing to pass on a suspicion of sexual abuse, makes an oral report under conditions of high emotion. Some six days later, they then have to sit down and attempt to write a letter to the local authority-designated officer to support their claim. It seems possible, if not likely, that there, the delay in the change of medium might lead to discrepancies between the two accounts, which could become significant later on and which could be challenged in some other circumstances.

The production of such a letter is not something I would do without legal support—I say that even with many years’ experience of practising law. I suspect that any difference between oral and written affirmation would be fraught with legal jeopardy at some point in the future. If written evidence is necessary, as I believe those who helped draft the legislation think it is, would it not be better to impose the duty of producing such written testimony on the person who receives it, whether the local authority-designated officer or an employee of the local authority children’s services?

My other question centres around Clause 2(7), which describes exceptional cases in which a Secretary of State can suspend or rescind temporarily the duty to refer. I am not seeking to score points here, but what “exceptional” circumstances is this provision designed to cover? I am not short of imagination, but, even after several days of devising hypothetical scenarios to meet this case, I have thus far been unable to conceive of circumstances in which it would be better for a child’s “welfare, safety or protection” to continue to be abused rather than to have that stopped. As I say, I know those who drafted the Bill would have done so with specific circumstances in mind and, just as a point of information, I would be grateful if they could be outlined.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill and a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, who has a long and distinguished record in this area of policy. I share her concerns about the appropriateness of the SIA as a regulator and, as she is aware, I have a few of my own.

Because of my noble friend the Minister’s characteristically collaborative approach and his and his officials’ openness to discussion not only in this context but outside aspects of the Bill, I have had the opportunity, as other Members of your Lordships’ House who will speak in this debate had yesterday, to discuss aspects of the Bill with him at his invitation. I shared those discussions to some extent, but I do not intend to take up much time today on the details of that; I will wait to see how far those off-piste conversations get me before I decide what I will say further. But in any event, I thank him and commend him for his comprehensive and helpful introductory speech. I am very conscious that he will live up to the offer he has made to be engaging and collaborative.

When measuring the effectiveness of legislation, the simple law of cause and effect should be adhered to. We should always ask ourselves two questions. First, why is the Bill needed? Secondly, does it do what it purports to do and address the problem that led to its creation in the first place? I believe that this legislation offers an answer to both questions. As your Lordships’ House has already been reminded—as if a reminder were needed—it is tragedy that has brought us here today. I do not intend to rehearse the circumstances at length, but I pay my own tribute to Figen Murray, whose indefatigable campaigning, with others, is not only a model of its kind but reflective of her selfless determination to ensure that no other parent should have to suffer the same grief she has suffered. Indeed, that is itself an answer to the first question I posed. The Bill is necessary to help protect our people from co-ordinated malign terrorist activity, to protect their families from unimaginable grief, and to increase our collective preparedness for acts of terror where they seem feasible.

The answer to the second question I posed is less stark but none the less positive. As we heard, the Bill establishes a tiered approach, linked to the activity that takes place at premises or an event, balanced against the number of individuals it is reasonable to expect might be present at the same time. It does not, and does not purport to, prevent terrorism, save, perhaps, at the margins. That is the job of the police and the security services.

In recognising that, I note the extraordinary work of the security services in disrupting 39 late-stage terrorist plots since 2017. In that context, can the Minister indicate what percentage of those plots would have affected premises within the scope of the Bill? Again, I realise that it is not a Bill designed to mitigate terrorist activity but to ensure that staff and volunteers know what to do in the event of an emergency. I ask that question because, when reading proceedings in the other place and the briefings that I suspect we have all received—I do not think they were sent to me for any particular reason other than that I was on the list of speakers—the bombings of two Birmingham pubs in 1974 came to mind. The Mulberry Bush and The Tavern in the Town were the two pubs in question. I re-read some of the things I was familiar with, and the testimony from a survivor who was in The Tavern in the Town tells us that everyone who was in the pub was either injured or killed. That was 111 people in total, with similar figures tragically reflected in The Mulberry Bush. If that information is correct, neither of these pubs would have been within the scope of the legislation.

The briefing that I and other speakers received from Survivors Against Terror suggested that the threshold has significantly reduced the impact of the Bill and that we should support, as it does, reducing that threshold, either now or in due course, to 100 or below. I am not making a case for this; I am simply reflecting the case that was made to us all. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is familiar with the detail of its advocacy for such an approach. Interestingly, the Birmingham pub bombings, and possibly other atrocities, support that approach too.

The iterative approach by which the Bill has emerged from its chrysalis phase under the last Government into the proportionate, measured and effective shape of the legislation we are gathered to examine this afternoon, is testament to the value of our proceedings. It is Parliament’s scrutiny—principally in the other place, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, reminded us—that has achieved this.

In July 2023, a previous attempt at this legislation was described as a “not fit for purpose” by the Home Affairs Committee, which also outlined serious concerns about its proportionality. I do not often praise them, but the previous Government received this feedback in a constructive spirit and launched a further public consultation to remedy these shortcomings, the findings of which enabled the new Administration to fashion this improved legislation.

This spirit of constructive cross-party unity around this Bill has its dangers—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, reminded us—but, from my perspective, it is not merely enormously helpful from a practical standpoint but also holds symbolic value in that, in response to the amoral exercise of terrorist violence, we show the value of quiet diligence and a willingness to work across the House to find the remedy for it.

One of the comparatively small areas of contention has been the existence of the discretionary powers afforded to the Secretary of State to reduce the numerical threshold for the standard tier from 200 to 100 people. I recognise that the current number has been chosen for good reasons, not merely financial but in terms of freeing small businesses and organisations, such as village halls and community cafés, from more than necessary regulatory burdens. But, while they are all equally important in absolute terms, some venues of equivalent sizes are at significantly divergent risk of terrorist attack: for instance, a pub or a café near a military base that habitually hosts off-duty soldiers incurs a more significant terrorist threat than a hospitality business located elsewhere. With the proviso that the responsibility for monitoring such threats lies elsewhere, is any scope being considered to take specific venues of this type into either the standard or the enhanced tier?

My final point of clarification at this stage in the debate is that, subject to some minor qualifications, the extent of this Bill is for the whole of the UK. However, it has implications for policy areas that are devolved. I understand that officials are discussing these areas. I know from my experience as Secretary of State for Scotland that that process has proven positive many times before in relationships between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Government in Scotland, for example. Can the Minister confirm that these discussions will be appropriately supported by Minister-to-Minister dialogue to preclude any difficulties in this respect further down the track? They can arise very quickly.

Despite my few points of clarification, I emphasise that I support this Bill, its intentions and the way in which they have been reflected in the drafting of its provisions. As it stands, this legislation is referred to as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, but we all know, as we were appropriately reminded by noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, in his speech, that it will forever be known as Martyn’s law. I believe we owe it to his memory, and to all those who have been victims or survivors of terrorism, to ensure that it undergoes that transformation as soon as possible.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Speaker’s Conference is a matter for the parliamentary authorities, and we will feed into that as a Government. The Defending Democracy Taskforce is very clear that we need to look at what we need to do to protect the integrity of UK elections and to stop intimidation. Therefore, in that context, I hope the noble Lord will welcome the fact that, in February, we will be particularly looking at the issues of harassment and intimidation and making recommendations accordingly that I hope can help feed into the Speaker’s Conference in due course.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the day after the Prime Minister’s predecessor announced his intention to hold a general election—a decision that terminated the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s inquiry into defending democracy—my noble friend Lady Beckett, the chair of that committee, of which I was a member, wrote to the then Prime Minister and outlined the committee’s provisional findings, which emphasised the limits of our democratic resilience. That letter, which is still unanswered, contained the recommendation that the creation of political deepfakes should be made illegal. Will the task-force review take into account the work of the Joint Committee and, in particular, that recommendation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I hope I can assure my noble friend that the Government take the issue of deepfakes, AI and misrepresentation extremely seriously. We will be looking at that as part of the task-force remit. There are also powers within the Online Safety Act, and we are certainly reflecting on the points mentioned by my noble friend because it is important that we have integrity in our elections. People need to understand what that integrity means. It does not mean deepfakes purporting to be somebody or something they are not.