Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about Albania. There is no question between us about Albania. Of course, it acted as a deterrent, because it was a situation in which Albanians leaving Albania to come to this country knew that they were going to be sent back there. We got an agreement between the UK Government and Albania. It was a proper returns agreement that people knew was happening, so it had the deterrent effect the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is hoping for.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is fully aware that the people he is referring to are economic migrants who have no right to be here. Therefore, a proper returns and resettlement agreement is completely legitimate. They are not asylum seekers.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

With respect to the answer the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, gave us and the amendment I was speaking to, this Chamber deserves more numbers from the Government. We need to understand what the Government are doing. The whole government policy on small boats is built on deportations. If you ask the majority of people in the country, they would expect that the Government are going to deport thousands upon thousands to Rwanda. The reality is that there will be a few hundred at best. What sort of policy is that to deal with the scale of the problem the Government face? We deserve better than that. I will withdraw the amendment.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, just to be clear, I will be very “Committeeish” about this group of amendments. In the light of that, I will just ask a couple of questions relating to my Amendments 69 and 87, which deal with the value for money and cost of the Bill.

I refer to the point that I made earlier, that the Committee needs no reminding that the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office required a ministerial direction because he repeated his earlier advice to the Public Accounts Committee on 11 December that the Home Office had no evidence that the Bill provided value for money. Therefore, can the Minister start with respect to my Amendments 69 and 87, which call for an ongoing assessment of the costs, as well as an economic impact assessment? Will he share with us a little more detail about the conclusions that Ministers have come to about value for money as opposed to what the Permanent Secretary said? No doubt, the Minister will say that it will act as a deterrent and therefore that is the value for money, but of course that is exactly the point that the Permanent Secretary was also making, that there is no evidence that it will act as a deterrent either. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s assertion and the evidence for it other than just the belief that this will act as a deterrent.

Perhaps the Minister will update us on how much has been spent so far. My calculation got to nearly £400 million. What is the budget, is that the amount that has already been spent, and what is the projected spend over the next period, should the Government get their way with the Bill?

Amendment 86 refers specifically to the establishment of the monitoring committee. I remind the Committee that much of our discussion has been about the Bill asserting that Rwanda is safe and all of us saying that the Government are making an assertion about the factual situation now, whereas the treaty talks about how Rwanda may or will become safe should certain things happen. I have tabled Amendment 86, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, simply to get some more information about the monitoring committee referred to in Article 15 of the treaty. The particular word in my Amendment 86 to which I refer the Committee is “fully”, rather than a part being established here and another part there.

The Government have made all sorts of points about the monitoring committee. Given that it is supposed to oversee the operation of the treaty and the improvements that are supposed to happen in Rwanda to satisfy us that it is a safe country, could the Minister tell us where we are on the monitoring committee? I apologise if other noble Lords are up to date on this, but perhaps he could tell me how many members of the committee have been appointed, how many are expected to be appointed, where they come from, whether the committee has yet agreed the terms of reference that it is supposed to agree and whether they have been published. I have not seen them; I do not know whether anybody else has, but have they been published yet? If not, when will they be published?

There should be an enhanced initial monitoring period; how is that going? Has it started? It says it will be for a minimum of three months; presumably that does not start until the treaty is enacted or has it started already? When does it start? We need to know when that initial period of three months ends. Can it be extended to become six months, if deemed necessary? The treaty tells us that the monitoring committee needs to engage a support team. What or who is the support team? Has it been engaged and who is funding it?

Article 15(9) says:

“The Monitoring Committee shall develop a system and process to enable Relocated Individuals and legal representatives to lodge confidential complaints direct to the Monitoring Committee of alleged failures to comply with the obligations in this Agreement (including as to the treatment of a Relocated Individual), or any element of the processing of their asylum claim in accordance with this Agreement”.


How is that going and where are we with that?

Obviously, this is Committee, which is the time to ask some of these detailed questions. The wonderful philosophical discussions and debates that we have had are very important to this Bill, but there are some details in there that are fundamental for the Committee and this Chamber to understand, given the importance of the monitoring committee to the Bill. We need to understand how that is going as we continue to consider what amendments may be brought forward on Report— for us to consider further and maybe even vote on—on how the monitoring is going, how the Government expect it to happen and what decisions we may or may not come to on commencement.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 74 in my name in this group and associate myself with all the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked. I will also, with this amendment, seek to follow the money.

We heard in the previous group but one what I thought was an interesting exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Green, and the Minister with regard to the concern about the social fabric and social contract of our nation when it comes to the high level of migration. It is the case that, over the past five years, the number of those seeking asylum in the UK has gone up from 35,000 to 75,000—that is correct.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I will support the noble Baroness if she presses her amendment to the Motion. I wish to make two points very briefly, but before doing so I declare an interest. I returned last night from the Horn of Africa, where, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, many of the discussions I had with parliamentary colleagues from that region related to this Bill and the damage we are doing to our international reputation.

My first point relates to a letter that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, sent me after the conclusion of Report stage. I thank him for it. It referred to one of the existing schemes that the Government operate. It is an uncapped scheme—the UK resettlement scheme. In Committee and on Report I asked for clarification of whether the Government’s uncapped scheme has, by virtue of ministerial discretion, in effect become capped.

That scheme, which is global, is now being prioritised only for those from Afghanistan, in effect closing routes from all other countries that we have debated in this debate so far. It took until the 10th paragraph of the Minister’s letter to say, effectively, that I was correct. He said:

“As a result, we are necessarily prioritising those who have been referred by the UNHCR and who are already awaiting resettlement”.


That means that we have closed the safe and legal routes that we are seeking to expand, as the noble Baroness has argued for.

The Advocate-General for Scotland suggests that the Government should not be criticised for having a delay. The outstanding question is: why do the Government not have a baseline capacity now that any safe and legal routes would operate under, and what funding would be available to it? Which countries are the Government considering as candidate countries for new safe and legal routes? The Government’s opaqueness suggests that they do not have a plan that would be ready on the conclusion of the Bill, so it is necessary that we put in statute the guarantee that we will have these routes.

The second point I wish to ask the Minister for clarification on is the use of overseas development assistance. The Government have used overseas development assistance to score all the budgets for those to be resettled under the Bill—indeed, for asylum under all the schemes for safe and legal routes. This is at a cost of £1.9 billion of ODA, which has been taken away from other development projects in many of the candidate countries from which we are seeking safe and legal routes.

I understand that the Bill, and the way it has been drafted, means that the Home Office will no longer be able to score any of those individuals who will be deemed inadmissible under overseas development assistance. That means that, under the current budget, the Home Office itself would have to find up to £1.9 billion of expenditure which could not be scored against overseas development assistance. Under the Development Assistance Committee rules, the Government are now placing on the taxpayer inordinate sums of money for a Bill that cannot be operated and is inoperable. Will the Advocate-General confirm to me now that that is the case and the measures under this Bill will mean that the current way that the Government are funding those to be resettled will no longer be able to be used and there is an enormous black hole in the funding of this scheme?

Regardless of the answer, we support the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. We need the guarantee because, so far, the Government have been woeful in offering any reassurance.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I would just like to say how much these Benches support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for the reasons she outlined in her introduction. If she seeks to test the opinion of the House, we will certainly support her.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

To follow my noble friend to conclude from these Benches on this part of the Bill, I wish to commend the Minister for listening and taking back to the department a very strong view from this House that more needed to be done in this area. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his persistence on this area. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. Of course, we all know that there is a distinction between the small donors—those who give small sums of money either as a member or as a supporter of a political party: in my case, in my former constituency, there were all too small numbers of small donors, regrettably, but there were those who would bake a cake for a raffle—and individuals who give really quite enormous sums to political parties. On the one hand, I understand the argument that there should not be a distinction between the two groups, if someone is of wealth and means and they believe in the same thing as someone without wealth and means. However, as my noble friend indicated, with regret I share more the view of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in this regard.

We would not be where we are in pursuing and being persistent with this issue if we did not know that the Electoral Commission was in effect asking us to do it. I have met the Electoral Commission frequently, and I do not think that it is relevant to highlight its resources when it has been very clear to us in saying that it does not have the powers to carry out what, ultimately, I believe it should be able to carry out—to ask political parties for due diligence as to the source of large donations. I hope that the government review will take us on that journey and provide an evidence base, on which I believe there will be a degree of consensus.

I thank the Government for their response and look forward to the review taking place, especially as it will start with the competent authorities that will have the information available to them. The Government are taking through the economic crime Bill, reforming and updating the mechanisms through unexplained wealth orders. It strikes me that that is a very good opportunity to look at some of the processes around UWOs, which are designed to be streamlined and not burdensome on authorities, to see whether they can be the model by which we would look at the requirements on political parties. On this issue, I have previously talked about the jarring position that, if a politically exposed person who is open to unexplained wealth order mechanisms, instead of giving to a political party used that money to buy a property, the relevant competent authorities would have to go through a process of due diligence for that property. However, as my noble friend said, on the concern about buying influence rather than buying a property, there is no mechanism that is open. I hope that that loophole will be closed. The Government have been clear in their guidance on the duties on the public and competent authorities to access data for unexplained wealth orders, so we should be in a better position.

Finally, as I said in the previous debate, this is likely to be the most expensive year coming up in British politics. I hope that we will have cleaner hands, but they will not be empty. Therefore, it is how we ensure that with the source of that money going into British politics, especially in the lead-up to election campaigns, the transparency is not just around the donor but around where that money is from for substantial donations. I hope very much that we have started the process of rectifying this deficiency in the British system, and I thank the Minister for starting it.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by saying how much we support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am glad that the Government have listened and come to an amicable agreement with the noble Lord which takes us forward. I thank the Minister for the way he has done that and for the concession that the Government have made on the updating of the memorandum of understanding, although clearly issues remain between the ISC and the Government, hence Motion B1 tabled by my noble friend Lord West, which we support. Aside from the Motion itself, it will allow continuing discussions, and indeed perhaps negotiations, around how the memorandum of understanding can be revised or replaced, including by negotiation, hence its importance.

I think it is really significant that still, even at this late stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord West, speaking on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which gives parliamentary oversight of the activities of the security services, is not happy with where we have arrived at. I think it is incumbent on the Government to reach an agreement with the ISC. Clearly, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord West this afternoon, we are not in a situation where that has occurred. There are all sorts of issues that remain between the Government and the ISC, as has been evidenced by various things that have happened today, and the Government need to respond to those.

I will add just a couple of other points. One is that the Government gave a commitment during the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Minister gave assurances to Parliament that the memorandum of understanding was a live document that would be regularly reviewed and updated. Are the Government of today completely ignoring that commitment that was made to Parliament? If so, we are in a really difficult situation, because it means that parliamentary oversight is undermined by the fact that Ministers making pledges to Parliament can just be ignored in the future by the Government. I say—we often say, all of us say—that we will not press an amendment, on the basis that the Minister, speaking from the Dispatch Box, makes commitments that are read into the record. That is an important part of parliamentary scrutiny. Ministers are asked to do that and Members of Parliament in the other place and noble Lords withdraw amendments. But here we have an example of where the Intelligence and Security Committee is saying that pledges and commitments were made to Parliament that the memorandum of understanding would be regularly updated and the Government have not done that or are still not in agreement with the ISC. I think that is a really important point.

For the avoidance of doubt, I remind your Lordships again that I do not seek to compel the Prime Minister to go to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall just say what I believe, and your Lordships will have to make up their own minds. Given that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the oversight body for this Parliament, I would have thought that if the ISC were regularly asking the Prime Minister to attend, the Prime Minister would go—not because he is compelled to go but because it is an important part of that parliamentary oversight and the Prime Minister of our country negotiating and liaising personally with the Intelligence and Security Committee is of real importance. So I say to noble Lords, as others have heard me say before, that all of us would be surprised by the fact that no Prime Minister has been since 2014; nearly 10 years. It has been nine years, in case I am quoted as not being accurate, since a Prime Minister has been. So I gently say that, while I do not seek to compel the Prime Minister, I politely ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, whether the Home Office has suggested to the Prime Minister that, in his diary, he might consider going to see the Intelligence and Security Committee when he can.

My noble friend Lord West’s amendment raises several important issues, but the most significant is that we need to send a message through supporting it that the ISC is still not at one with the Government. That is a serious issue and needs somehow to be resolved. I believe that supporting my noble friend’s amendment will continue to put pressure on the Government to ensure that they come to an arrangement with the ISC in the end, such is its importance. If my noble friend chooses to test the opinion of the House, we will be happy to support his Motion B1.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Report stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 195, I will not speak at great length. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to propose a new proscription process for actors engaged in hostile state activity on behalf of other states, or indeed non- state organisations acting for a state or those who may act on their behalf.

I am moving this amendment to enable the Government to deal with any legislative problem in proscribing, among others, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, known as the IRGC. The Government will tell the Chamber and me that existing legislation can deal with it, so it is not a problem. So why is there a delay in proscribing the IRGC? If there is no problem with existing legislation, why are Foreign Office officials questioning, as reported in the Times and many other media outlets, how the IRGC can be defined as a terrorist organisation under existing legislation, given that it is a government agency, unlike most of the other groups on the list? Foreign Office officials are being reported in the media as saying that there is a problem with the legislation. The Home Office is saying—I presume this is what the Minister will say—that there is not. Where has that come from? Why is the Foreign Office briefing the media that the reason it is resisting the proscription of the IRGC is that it is not sure that existing legislation will be adequate to define the IRGC as a terrorist organisation because it is a government agency.

There is a problem here at the heart of government. My Amendment 195 seeks to say to the Government, “Here is a legislative vehicle by which you can plug a gap so that the concerns raised by the Foreign Office can be alleviated”. The Home Office and the Foreign Office cannot both be right. So we should pass the legislation as I have laid it out here. I have read—I was advised that this was the way to give the Government a vehicle to deal with any legislative problem in the proscription of the IRGC, as laid out by the Foreign Office—the various parts of the 2000 Act and the 2019 Schedule in front of me and, as much as I can read and understand them, I will have to take the Foreign Office’s word that it is because it is a government agency that there is a problem.

As I said, something is the matter here. It is the will of Parliament, as expressed time and again in this place and in the other place, that the IRGC should be proscribed, but the Government are unable to do it. Therefore, all of us should pass this amendment to get rid of the legislative barrier that the Foreign Office says stays in the way. I am not a legislative expert, but, if the Foreign Office says there is a problem, if I were in the Home Office, I would pass this amendment and call out the Foreign Office if I wanted to proscribe the IRGC. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government wish to proscribe the IRGC and whether there is a problem with the Foreign Office. Clearly there is; the Minister will not say there is, but there is.

We have seen an Iranian TV station in the UK forced to shut down because of activity from Iran. Numerous plots have been foiled, thanks to our security services. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, is here, and the noble Baroness, both former heads of MI5, so we thank them. But the Government are prevaricating on the proscription of the IRGC. My amendment, as I said, seeks to help the Home Office in its disagreement with the Foreign Office by allowing the creation of an improved and clearer process for proscribing hostile state actors.

The Government are divided in the face of this worrying issue. The Government will say they are not, so I was looking for evidence to show that they were. What did I find? In Hansard, Bob Blackman MP—not me trying to create trouble in the Lords but a Conservative MP—said:

“Clearly, the threat from the IRGC to people in this country—be they opposition journalists reporting on what is going on in Iran at the moment or UK citizens—is paramount. Foreign Office Ministers have responded to all the urgent questions the Speaker has granted and the debates we have had, but will my right hon. Friend now take the obvious step, which is supported by all political parties in the Chamber, and proscribe the IRGC in its entirety?”


Tom Tugendhat, Minister, Home Office, responds with this direct quote:

“My hon. Friend will know that it is not me”—


I am quoting this—

“he has to persuade in this matter and that there are many areas where I would like to go. I can assure him that the Government are absolutely listening to exactly what he is saying. The Home Secretary and I are as one on this”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/23; col. 639.]

I am not a genius at working out what that means, but I think anybody who has been in the other Chamber or in this Chamber and has listened to the debate knows that the National Security Minister is telling Bob Blackman MP that the Home Secretary and he agree that the IRGC should be proscribed, but they have a problem with other parts of government, and those other parts of government are the Foreign Office, which believes that it should keep open communication with Iran and that proscribing the IRGC will cause all sorts of other problems, presumably around the nuclear treaty and so on and so forth.

All I am saying to the Minister is that the Foreign Office is clearly blocking the proscription of the IRGC, which is what the majority of people in this Chamber and the other think should happen, and my amendment seeks to take away from it the excuse it is using: namely, that there is a legislative problem, because the IRGC is a government agency and it would therefore be difficult under existing legislation to define it as a terrorist organisation.

Amendment 195 is extremely important, because it will allow the proscription of the IRGC and will take away from the Foreign Office the excuse that it is using to block that proscription. It is in the national security interests of this country for the IRGC to be proscribed as soon as possible. From what I just quoted, it is obvious that the Government, defined as the Home Office, agree, but the Foreign Office is stopping it. This Chamber has the opportunity, in the vote on my Amendment 195, to take away the excuse that the Foreign Office is using to stop that proscription. I hope that noble Lords will take it.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for bringing this issue to the Chamber on Report. He asked very pertinent questions. If he seeks to test the opinion of the House, we shall abstain on this point, but that is not because we do not wish to hear the Minister’s answer—it is because, if we are reforming the Terrorism Act 2000 and the means by which we proscribe organisations, there are perhaps better places for a full and more fundamental review.

I have been on record as supporting the proscription of the IRGC, and I have said that this should not be done without considering the knock-on effects within Iraq and Lebanon. The Terrorism Act 2000 states that it is the Home Secretary who has the specific power to proscribe, so the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked are valid. If this is a Home Office Minister stating that to the House of Commons and it is the Home Secretary’s decision, what is the process by which government will now make decisions on this? I have also repeatedly called for the proscription of the Wagner Group, which is a non-government organisation but clearly has direct links with the Russian Government.

There are, of course, some grey areas. Before we reached this group, I reviewed the whole list of those proscribed organisations, and we have recently proscribed some that are clearly not linked with a Government but are organisations designed to destabilise that country’s Government. However, over the years, there have been other organisations where the lines are more blurred as to whether they are within the framework of aliases or associated organisations, which can be proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, even if they are not directly part of the Government of that nation. It is obviously a large step if we proscribe part of a Government, but, in the past, we have seen that, in many areas, it has not been clear who the Government of a country are. Therefore, the statutory tests that are used, and that need to be satisfied, need to be robust.

I have raised the issue of the Wagner Group since 25 April last year, and I have seen it operating with my own eyes in Sudan—some noble Lords have heard me make this case before—and it is palpably the case that its operations are terrorist in purpose and in nature and that they are directly against the national security interests of the United Kingdom and pose a threat to British nationals and our allies. I called for its proscription last year on 25 April, 23 May, 9 June, 7 July, 15 November and 21 December, and on 26 January this year.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Report stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that our order of business has been changed today. The Government Whip did not consult our Front Bench and, for those of us who had engagements during the dinner-break business, I think it is a discourtesy not to have at least consulted the Front Benches of other parties about changing the order of business.

That said, I welcome the government’s amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is absolutely right. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, had indicated her hope that there would be government amendment in this area, and I thank the Minister for listening during Committee and for bringing forward these amendments. In Committee, I went to some lengths to outline what domestic procedures are in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, asked something I thought was rather threatening: if she could have a quiet word with me outside the Chamber during the hour for other business we had then. I am glad to say now that I will accept that and bring the Minister with me, because there may be an element of consensus on a more sensible way of dealing with concerns raised about immunity for, potentially, very serious crimes committed overseas.

I am grateful that the domestic practices will now be considered similar to extraterritorial processes, acknowledging that there have been distinct differences. My questions, to some extent, are linked with those raised by the noble Lord, Lord West, on how this will be operated. In Committee, I highlighted the Government’s Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers and Service Personnel on the Detention and Interviewing of Detainees Overseas, and on the Passing and Receipt of Intelligence Relating to Detainees. I referenced the Ministry of Defence joint doctrine publications, and I highlighted the Security Service guidelines that had been released in a trial, and we now know more about them. There are a number of existing sets of guidance for the Cabinet Office, from the MoD and within the security services themselves on how, as the amendment states,

“arrangements designed to ensure that acts of a member of the service to which a provision of Schedule 4 applies are necessary”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how guidance will be put together that will be for both domestic activities and now those in regard to defence under this part, whether that will be made public, and how it will interact with MoD guidance to address the similar concerns of my noble friend Lord Beith and the noble Lord, Lord West.

We know what MoD joint doctrine says regarding detainees overseas, but we do not know the principles that will apply to these new areas. Therefore, we need clarification on what they will be. I welcome the Government’s move. There needs to be further illustration of how it will be operable, and I hope the Minister will be able to provide that and give an indication of when guidance will be put together and will be published.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a really important debate. Government Amendment 66 is a considerable improvement on what we had before, with respect to Clause 30. We have heard from noble Lords about their belief in that and their pleasure that we now see Amendment 66 before us. As my noble friend Lord West—I will come back to him—the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, and others have mentioned, there are still questions that the Government need to answer. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly to my noble friend Lord West, who very effectively laid out the fact that although the ISC welcomes the new clause proposed by Amendment 66, there are still some important questions for the Government. It is extremely important that the Government put their answers on the record, so they are there as testimony of what the Government expect of how the new Clause 30—as it will be—will operate.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the inclusion of the Armed Forces in this deserves a proper answer from the Minister. It is good to see the Armed Forces Minister here to have heard the noble Lord.

My noble friend Lord West laid before us how we got here, the relationship between the Home Office and the ISC, and the lack of a speedy response to some of the requests, which have led to some of the difficulties we have seen. If people had attended the committee, spoken to the committee and discussed with the committee —even if some of those discussions may have been difficult—some of these problems would have been resolved. Yet we have debate in the other place, debate here, and now it is only on Report that we get to a position where we seem to be on the verge of achieving what we all want.

I go back to a point I find quite astonishing, referring to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s annual report. My noble friend Lord West pointed to the lack of Home Office response. I lay this before each and every one of you: when do noble Lords think was the last time the Prime Minister went along? Do not answer that—there is no need to shout out. It is quite astonishing to read in the annual report that, despite repeated requests, no Prime Minister has been to the Intelligence and Security Committee since 2014. That is absolutely disgraceful. The committee was set up by this Parliament to oversee intelligence and security matters and to receive intelligence at a level we cannot be briefed on—quite rightly—and, despite repeated requests, the Prime Minister has not gone. How can a Prime Minister not go to the committee set up by Parliament to discuss matters of intelligence? I find it incredible.

A few weeks ago, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, why this has not happened. The Government say, “The Prime Minister has been very busy over the last few weeks”, and he has been; he has been not just to Belfast but to numerous other places, including Parliament, to meet various groups. Why has it not been possible to meet the Intelligence and Security Committee? This is incredibly serious.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s thorough reply, notwithstanding some of his responses, which he prefaced by saying that he knew they would disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There’s nothing new there. I am joking.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I wonder whether the noble Lord is considering Clause 28 rather than Clause 23.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

What was Clause 23 has now become Clause 28, because of various changes made by amendments to the Bill. So my noble friend’s remarks will be perfectly in order when we get to Clause 28, but we are not there yet.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, a legal ruling has said that the Government’s asylum processing deal with Rwanda is legal, although with a number of qualifications.

First, I will spell out clearly, and for the avoidance of any doubt, what His Majesty’s Opposition think about the current situation. We believe that the Government have failed to stop the criminal gangs putting lives at risk; have failed to prosecute or convict the gang members, with convictions for people smuggling down by 75% in the last two years; have failed to take basic asylum decisions, which are down by 40% in the last six years; and have failed on the issue of small boat crossings, which are now at record numbers, with no decisions made in 98% of those cases. The Government’s solution, among other policies, is to put forward a scheme which is unworkable, unethical and extortionately expensive—the so-called Rwanda plan—rather than sorting out the problems I outlined. Indeed, the decision-making processes are so flawed that, despite the decision on legality, each of the eight cases were considered so flawed and chaotic that those individual decisions were quashed by the court.

It is in all our interests that there is a functioning, competent and humane asylum process. The Rwanda plan, however, is not the way for the issues to be resolved. I will ask some detailed and specific questions to show some of the continuing problems, notwithstanding the legal judgment. Given the importance the Government attach to the scheme, when does the Minister expect the first flight to Rwanda to take off? When can the Home Secretary’s dream of such a flight be realised, or is it just a flight of fancy that should never happen anyway?

The Rwandan Government have said publicly that they have the capacity to take 200 people. Bearing in mind that more than 40,000 people have crossed the channel this year alone, what number does the Minister believe will be enough to act as a deterrent? Is 200 still the number, or are there plans for more?

We have already paid Rwanda £140 million, without a single person being sent there. What has that money paid for? Are we committed to additional sums, and, if so, how much and what will it be for? The Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, according to the Home Secretary’s own Statement yesterday, has said again that

“there is not currently sufficient evidence to demonstrate value for money.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/22; col. 33.]

Why have Ministers yet again ignored that advice?

The court found chaos and confusion in the Home Office’s decision-making on the Rwanda cases, including a failure to consider properly torture and trafficking evidence. Why did that happen? Can the Minister assure us that offences such as torture and trafficking will be taken as evidence? On trafficking, the conviction of people smugglers has dropped from 12 a month to three a month in the last two years, even though the number of smuggler gangs has grown. Would it not be better to stop wasting money on the Rwanda scheme and put it towards tackling the people-smuggling gangs instead?

Can the Minister confirm that families and children will not be subject to the Rwanda policy? If they will not, can the Minister explain how the proposed new legislation to detain and deport anyone arriving here irregularly, which is to be brought forward next year, will work and what its relationship with the Rwanda plan is?

The court judgment also referred to the failure of the UK Government to consider the Rwanda-Israel agreement and why that was abandoned. Why did the Government not consider that evidence? Did the evidence about the Rwanda-Israel deal not show that it actually increased trafficking?

The Rwanda scheme is a damaging distraction from the urgent action the Government should be taking to go after criminal gangs and sort out the asylum system. As I have said, the scheme is unworkable, expensive and unethical. It really should be the task of the Government to come forward with a scheme that works and is effective and efficient. Above all, the Government should stop using rhetoric which may make headlines but does not work. All of us understand that action is needed, but let that action be consistent with the values of our country and the proud tradition we have of offering hope and sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution and horror. The Rwanda scheme fails that test and should be abandoned.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I read the judgment this morning; it is a very comprehensive judgment and I respect it. However, it is astonishing to me that, on such a flagship issue, in which the Government have invested so much capital, judicial review has been awarded for all those claimants and, therefore, it is at the moment inoperable.

The Government chose to bring this arrangement through a memorandum of understanding, not a treaty, to avoid scrutiny and a proper ratification process by Parliament. We did our best in this House, through the International Agreements Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to scrutinise this—but the Government chose a route to put this into place to avoid proper scrutiny. So can the Minister be clear today about what the legal, binding basis is on the commitments that have been provided by both parties to this MoU? What is the legal basis for the data-sharing arrangements that are in place?

In June, I visited the Hope Hostel in Kigali, the reception centre. A large banner at the entrance says, “Come as a Guest, Leave as a Friend”. That banner is adjacent to armoured gates with machine-gunned guards. The contract is awarded to a private company on an annual basis. That will run out in March, so will the Minister confirm that that private arrangement will continue from next March, and will he place a copy of the contract for the operation of the Hope Hostel in the Library of this House?

Some £20 million has been given to provide this centre. I saw nothing like £20 million-worth of facilities when I visited it in June. It had no suitable areas for those vulnerable to suicide risk or those who had come through routes of great danger. This is on top of the £120 million provided to the Government of Rwanda. That £140 million is totally inappropriate, given the desperate plight of those here at home, including those dying of diphtheria—which we thought we had got rid of in the Victorian age. As the Minister was unable to confirm it to me, I have an inaccurate understanding of how many unaccounted-for children there are. If he could update me on that, I would be very grateful. There is no guarantee on the timeframe, so when will the centre that we have paid £20 million for be operational?

When I asked the officials in Rwanda about the processing time for those seeking asylum, those in Rwanda for camps because of other conflicts said that the average time was up to 10 years. What commitment has been provided for the process time of those who will be received at the Hope Hostel? I hope that the Minister can be very clear with regards to that.

Finally, we cannot put a price on immorality, but £140 million is a dear price to pay for our reputation being so tarnished. On a previous question, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, referred to the Government’s moral compass. It is pointing in the wrong direction. The UK supported the people of Rwanda, some of the most vulnerable in the world, who are suffering from extreme poverty, with £73.5 million of assistance in 2019-20. This has been slashed by 69% to just £23 million this year—so we are paying £140 million to cover for failed policies at home while denying those most vulnerable in the world and Rwanda UK support. Is this not an immoral, unworkable and inappropriate scheme which, at the very least, should be put to a vote in this House?

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Monday 19th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. I respect the issue of the grey area of tactics, but I equally acknowledge that if we are seeking to secure convictions beyond reasonable doubt for life sentences and sentences of 14 years, then the burden has to be, in my view, on having the primary legislation as clear as it can be. I will come back to the wider areas of concern.

The Government have referenced that this is an update not a wholesale replacement of the 1911 Act, which states in Clause 1:

“safety or interests of the State”.

But that is a very specific reference to the penalties for spying. It does not go beyond that, so the reference for the understanding of the interests of the state with regard to that penalty and that part of the 1911 Act are very clear. The difficulty with this Bill, as my noble friend indicated, is that the Government are now using that across a series of different offences which are very broad in nature. We will no doubt come back to some of those within the Bill.

The Government have also said that we do not need to have it clarified in the Bill because they are relying on case law definition for this; they cite Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions—1964 AC 763—as far as that is concerned. I looked at that case, which was specifically about a decision that was made about protesters seeking to access a site where nuclear bombers were going to be taking off. The court found that it was not for the courts to decide what were national security interests; that was a responsibility of the Executive. That is very understandable.

That decision has also been looked at in other cases including Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman in 2001. In that case, with regard to Chandler v DPP on national security issues, Lord Steyn said:

“But not all the observations in Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions … can be regarded as authoritative in respect of the new statutory system.”


So purely relying on the definition of case law on a whole breadth of different offences under this Bill is not sufficient.

I was slightly concerned by what the Minister, Stephen McPartland, told the House of Commons in Committee. He seemed to imply that the real reason why the definition was so broad in this Bill was that the evidential threshold had to be low to secure prosecutions. He said of any further restrictions, as in my noble friend’s amendment:

“That would create a higher evidential threshold to secure prosecution in an area that is often difficult to evidence due to the sensitive nature of the information that may have been obtained or disclosed. Put simply, we would have to explain why it caused damage, which may require evidence that compounds the damage. That would provide challenges to our law enforcement agencies and courts”.—[Official Report, Commons, National Security Bill Committee, 12/7/2022; cols. 81-2.]


I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that our courts are fairly well equipped to handle such cases, which are sensitive or relating to national security, as they have in the past. I was troubled to read that the Minister gave the argument that we needed to keep the definition so broad to create a lower evidential threshold, but the penalty is life imprisonment. That surely cannot be right.

More alarmingly—this goes to the noble Lord’s point about wider interests—the Minister referred to the wider elements, not just national security but economic interests. He also referred to public health interests, saying that these areas would be covered in the Bill, and not just when they are used to threaten national security. So it is not just the grey tactics that concern us with regard to national security grounds, but the greyness of how, potentially, Ministers and prosecutors will seek to define that wider national interest. On the public health interest, I can understand that a malign interest may wish to use such a tactic, as I understand the North Koreans tried to do with malware and the NHS. Those are all tactics but, ultimately, these are national security concerns and not public health concerns.

Fundamentally destabilising our economy should be a national security interest. The examples my noble friend Lord Beith gave of undermining certain sectors or competition are not sufficient to meet a trigger for national security. Therefore, I believe that that triggering should be in the Bill, which is why I support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments which in many ways goes to the heart of much of the debate that will take place on a number of amendments. It reminds the Committee that the heart of the issue is Clause 1(1)(b), which says that to commit an offence

“the person’s conduct is for a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

Fundamental to that is that what we are discussing here, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, ably set out, is what we actually mean by the interests and safety of the United Kingdom. It is to the great credit of our country that we can debate that here to try to decide what it should be.

I agree with the majority of noble Lords who have said that it is important that we try to understand how to make sure that defending the interests and safety of our country is about national security and defence. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, reminded us that there are grey areas in that respect. That is not a criticism of having the debate, but it means that we have to decide where we want to draw the line. I have mentioned this to the noble and learned Lord Hope, and I pray him in aid. He mentioned it with respect to the Public Order Bill, and again with this one. It is an abrogation of this Parliament’s responsibility if it does not seek to answer these difficult questions and just leaves it to the courts, saying that it is for the courts to decide and determine. We ourselves should try to give greater clarity to what we as legislators think that phrase actually means.

It is incumbent on the Government to say what they will do to try to define this, as Amendment 2 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my Amendment 3 seek to do. Either they should say “We don’t need to do that”, lay out why it is not necessary for Parliament to determine it and why they think we should leave it to the courts, or say how we will get some sort of definition that makes sense and gives greater clarity. To be frank, that is a real problem for the Bill.

As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out in his interesting and incisive remarks, along with other noble Lords, the Government say at paragraph 62 of the Explanatory Notes:

“The term safety or interests of the UK is not defined”.


They have already made up their mind that they do not need to define it. The basis of these amendments is that we think they do. We do not oppose the Bill or think it is not important that we protect the safety and interests of the United Kingdom, but somewhere along the line our Parliament should try to say what that means. The Government say in the Explanatory Notes that it is not defined and, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned,

“case-law has interpreted it as meaning, in summary, the objects of state policy determined by the Crown on the advice of Ministers (see the Court’s view in Chandler v Director Public Prosecutions (1964)”.

I remind noble Lords that in that judgment, the House of Lords—constitutional arrangements were different then—essentially rejected the idea that it was for a jury to determine or decide whether something was in the interests of the state. As Lord Pearce’s judgment stated,

“the interests of the State must in my judgment mean the interests of the State according to the policies laid down for it by its recognised organs of government and authority, the policies of the State as they are, not as they ought, in the opinion of a jury, to be.”

I am not a lawyer—I have been a politician all my life—but I would argue with that. It may be quite correct from a legal point of view, but sometimes Parliament has not caught up with public opinion or where people are. Often, juries are an important way of determining what the public think, and they work.

We have seen recent examples of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reminded us well of all the different issues that have arisen with protests. They are irrelevant to the Bill, but let me give another example: assisted dying. Time and again, juries have refused to convict on assisted dying, because they will not convict somebody in those terrible circumstances and do not believe that Parliament has caught up with the reality of where we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord’s argument. I was just reflecting on the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Of course, the jury will have to reach beyond reasonable doubt whether the individual knew. The question is what the mechanisms are of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the person knew what those interests of the Government were, if those interests are not specific and linked to national security. If the Government have made a case that those interests are as broad as the Minister in the House of Commons indicated—that they were linked with public health or economy—that makes the task in the courts much harder, I would have thought. Therefore, it is in the interest of securing better prosecutions that those restrictions are on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has indicated.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is quite right. As I said, the problem with the Bill is that there is no indication of what else may be covered by the “safety or interests” of the state, or what the limits of those terms might be. As I have been arguing, and as others have said, as well as the prevention of terrorism and espionage, they could extend to policies on energy, national infrastructure, the protection of water, power, food, health services, transport, law and order, organised crime and immigration controls. The extent of the powers that may be taken in the Bill could be used in relation to a wide range of state interests, not just state interests related to national security or to the defence of the realm. The interests of the state clearly are ensuring that we have enough energy, but should that be covered by a National Security Bill? These are questions that the Minister needs to answer, and it will be interesting to hear his answer.

I will make a couple of final remarks. Like many, I am somebody who has never read the Official Secrets Act 1911, but in preparation for Committee—and knowing the depth of knowledge, experience and wisdom that we have around—I thought it was necessary to make sure I was quoting. The Official Secrets Act 1911 says under “Penalties for spying”:

“If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State—”.


The Official Secrets Act 1911 says that it has to be for a purpose “prejudicial” to the interests of the state. Logically, should not defendants or people have the right also to argue that their act was not prejudicial to the state? The Act says that your act has to be prejudicial, so surely you have a right and a responsibility to prove that it was not prejudicial. That argument could take place within the courts or wherever. This argument about someone’s actions in relation to the safety or interests of the state, and whether they were prejudicial, needs some sort of definition. Without it, how on earth do we know whether somebody is going to commit an offence under this Act? It would be for somebody to interpret.

Can the Minister clarify what the Government mean by “safety or interests” of the state? Who determines what they are? How can anybody act against that in a way which does not break the law, whether it be through protests or actions? If I take action outside of an RAF base, protesting against it and trying to disrupt things going in or out, or if I am at the peace camp at Faslane, will that be classed as a protest? Where does it become something that falls foul of the Bill? In other words, where do you draw the line? That is an important question for the Government to answer.

My amendment and those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others say to the Government that it is not good enough just to say the “safety and interests” of the state. What does that mean? People have challenged that over the decades. They have stood up and said that the safety and interests of the state are something that they challenge or do not agree with. Through history, that is how progress and reform have taken place. At the time, those protesting, taking action or conducting various activities have sometimes been accused of undermining national security or acting against the interests of the state.

We do not want to pass a law which leads to more confusion or a greater inability for Parliament to say that these are the sorts of actions we mean. That is the whole point of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which I support. It says that if it does not relate just to defence and national security, where is the grey zone that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, mentioned? Where do we draw the line? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, keeps reminding us, we should not abrogate our responsibility on that. It is our fundamental responsibility to try to answer that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I will very briefly follow my noble friends to agree with that proposition. There has been reference to the foreign power condition, and I will refer to that too.

First, I take the opportunity to say that I am grateful to the Minister for what he said to me earlier by highlighting Clause 29(5). Yes, it does include that the foreign power condition can be met,

“if the person intends the conduct in question to benefit a foreign power”,

without necessarily identifying that foreign power. However, that is not an exclusive meeting of the test, as my noble friend Lord Marks has indicated. The test can be met, for example, if one of two business partners who has some intellectual property or something of commercial value is in negotiations with, say, a sovereign wealth fund in the Gulf and then there is a dispute between the two business partners. While one wants to sell that to the sovereign wealth fund in the Gulf, the other says, “You can’t do that, because that is now in breach of the National Security Bill, because I believe that this is a trade secret.” That is because a foreign power, under Clause 30(1)(c), is

“an agency or authority of a foreign government”,

so a sovereign wealth fund seeking investment could be within that definition. Therefore, I have sympathy for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but a counterpoint has been raised by asking whether the Bill is the most appropriate way for national security to cover those aspects—and, on balance, I do not think that it is.

However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret is unlawful where the acquisition, use or disclosure constitutes a breach of confidence in respect of confidential information. As I understand it, that was the thrust of his argument. That is also the law: we have transposed the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018 into UK law, so we have that intellectual property legislation—including a nine-page trade secrets regulation. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said, and all of it, I think, is covered within existing legislation. The question then arises as to what the intent would be if one is either selling a trade secret or giving a trade secret to a foreign power to advance that foreign power.

That could absolutely be included in the Bill. The concern is that, given the way the Bill is drafted, so many other aspects could also be. That is the point we are trying to tease out: whether the Government intend that trade secrets are, as the noble Baroness indicated, some form of economic warfare, espionage or tactic. That is where the interest of the Bill should lie. It should not be the mechanism whereby trade disputes, commercial disputes or intellectual property disputes are resolved. Ultimately, that is where the Bill could be used. I do not think there are any in this Committee, but I am certain there are creative lawyers who might look for the most appropriate vehicle for the less appropriate cause. I am worried that the Bill would become one of those.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the new offences of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets. We support these new offences and agree that the Government should safeguard against threats to the UK’s trade policy. We see them as important amendments. None the less, we have had an interesting and important debate today. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has outlined, Amendments 8, 9 and 10 are about trying to understand why the Government believe that the offences need to have such a wide scope and whether narrowing them down would really have the unintended or bad consequences that the Government believe they would.

I have a couple of specific questions for the Government. The Bill says that there has to be a direct link to a foreign power, but suppose somebody obtains information such as a trade secret and sells it not to a foreign power but to a competitor business. Is that covered under the legislation? Is it the case that, under the Bill, to prosecute there would need to be a link from the individual to a foreign power and not just to a competitor within the UK?

The measures in Clause 2(4) to (7)—I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to this in his Amendment 11—are really quite important. Why can the offence take place only outside the UK if it is in respect to possession by a UK national, as opposed to a UK national and/or a UK resident, or any other description of persons? Having talked about a narrow definition, I wonder why the Government have restricted the measures in subsections (4) to (7) to a UK national. I would be interested to hear the Government’s answer to that.

An interesting discussion and debate has taken place within the Committee about the JCHR recommendation. It is an interesting point that we will all want the Government to clarify. What is the Minister actually saying to the points from the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford? The JCHR quite clearly states that:

“The theft of trade secrets that pose no risk to national security is more properly governed by the offence of theft (and other breach of confidence and intellectual property rules) than through new espionage offences.”


It would be interesting to understand whether the Government think the JCHR is wrong or whether it has a point. If the JCHR is wrong, why do the Government believe it is wrong? Maybe the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, have greater relevance with respect to this Bill. With those few remarks, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Nuclear Test Veterans: Medals

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Thursday 24th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Government said in their Statement, 70 years ago the UK undertook its first nuclear test, and in doing so confirmed our status as the world’s third nuclear power. Critical to that success, as the Government acknowledged in the Statement, were those who took part in the nuclear testing programme. By taking part in that programme, they made a huge contribution to our national security and that of many other nations. They did so out of duty and pride in their country, but not without consequences. It is right that, at long last, their bravery and sacrifice are to be recognised. Tuesday’s announcement was a huge victory for our nuclear test veterans and their families. Finally, they will receive the long-overdue recognition that they richly deserve through this nuclear test veterans’ medal.

We should also recognise and congratulate all the campaigners who have campaigned over so many years for such recognition. It cannot be overstated that we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their service far away from home and for the fact that, because of their service, we have a nuclear deterrent. As I said, this deterrent has contributed to the defence and security of our democracy and the values we hold dear. We should never forget that and always pay homage to them.

We should also remember that their commitment to our country often came at great personal cost to those individuals and their families. We should never forget that reports state that nuclear test veterans have a legacy of cancers, blood disorders and rare diseases, with their wives and partners reporting three times the usual rate of miscarriage. Their children also have higher rates of various conditions, including infant mortality. That is and was the cost of our nation’s safety. These veterans and their families have paid for that safety.

Given that it is estimated that only 1,500 of the 22,000 service personnel who took part are still alive, does the Minister hope, as I do, that their families and descendants will feel that a historic injustice has at last been recognised? Given that, rightly, the medals can be awarded posthumously, will the Minister ensure that sufficient resources are put into finding the living descendants of nuclear test veterans so that all who served are recognised? Will the Minister also commit to ensuring that the criteria for eligibility for the nuclear test veterans’ medal are made as wide as possible?

It has been reported that some blood test results have been withheld from veterans’ families seeking answers about the long-term effects of their service. Will these records be made available if these reports are accurate? Could the Minister comment on this?

There have also been media reports that the advisory military sub-committee had recommended that the nuclear test veterans should not get a medal but, rightly and thankfully, it is reported that this was overruled by Ministers and the Government. Does this suggest to the Government that there needs to be a wider review of the system of awarding medals to serving military personnel and veterans?

Finally, it has been 70 years since these military personnel doing their duty gave this service to their country. It should not require campaigns, media articles and the bravery of the veterans’ families and the veterans themselves to get their own country to recognise their sacrifice. We very much welcome this announcement from the Government and the subsequent announcements associated with it that the Government have made. In doing so, we at last recognise the campaigners and the families but, above all, the veterans, as their country thanks them properly for their service. It will not be forgotten and, through this medal, it will be honoured.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the very valid questions he asked. I welcome this move. It was a change of heart from the Government, but nevertheless a welcome move for those military and civilian personnel who served their nation and now will, finally, be properly recognised. Notwithstanding views about the weapons system itself, these people served their country and recognition—unfortunately, as the noble Lord indicated—has come too late for many. However, it will provide some comfort to their families that an often-disregarded service is now being recognised.

How many civilians will be eligible for recognition and the medal? On support, which the noble Lord asked so clearly about, in replying to questions on the Statement in the Commons, the Veterans Minister, Mr Mercer, indicated that pensions were available. But, of those who are eligible for pensions, what is the Government’s estimate of the proportion who are receiving them? Often, this is, in effect, an opt-in. There is the very valid point about promoting material through the various networks. Some of these veterans will be part of veterans’ associations and others will not, so how will the Government disseminate and promote this information?

My final question is on the indigenous communities in the areas where these tests took place. The indigenous communities in Australia did not voluntarily offer their land for British nuclear tests, and they too have been impacted. The Minister in the Commons indicated that the UK Government provided £20 million then to clear this up, but the legacy is much longer. I met with the acting high commissioner of Australia this week, and she raised with me the good work now being done with the new Prime Minister of Australia in seeking to enhance recognition of the indigenous communities. We can play our part with our allies and friends in the Australian Government by increasing our recognition of the impact on their communities of something that has made our country safer, as the Government say, but which has unfortunately made many of those communities less safe. So, what do the Government plan to do for the indigenous communities in places where these tests took place?

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Wednesday 6th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will reflect on his comments. At no stage did I criticise officials for not receiving a letter. This is a ministerial responsibility. A Minister gives an undertaking to write to a Member in Committee. A Minister brings forward and moves amendments in Committee which are pertinent to the issue I raised when the Minister said that he would write to me. I was not criticising any officials. If any criticism to be laid, it is against the Minister. I simply said that, in the absence of the letter he promised to send me, I am asking these questions for clarification. That is reasonable.

On exemptions, there has been some reference to legal services. I understand the point that has been raised about making sure that there is a distinction from Scottish legal services as appropriate, and I certainly support the Government doing that. However, my understanding is that, for some of the treaty suppliers, there are obligations under some of the treaties on the mutual recognition of professional and legal qualifications. My understanding is that the exemption for legal services under this Bill will cover those other areas where the mutual recognition of professional qualifications in carrying out certain legal services will also be excluded. I understand that a body would be unable to procure legal services that are separate from those exempted, but they are then covered in other areas of professional qualifications. This will leave certain gaps in our treaty obligations.

I reviewed the Australia agreement on the carve-out on legal services. It is broadly the same, so I understand where the Government are coming from as far as these exemptions are concerned, but it is not exactly the same. Perhaps the Minister could give some further explanation as to what is likely to be allowed under the provision of legal services by certain providers of legal services that have mutual qualification recognition, because the position on legal services is still uncertain. If the Minister could respond to those points, I would be grateful.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord True, those who have been working with him and the officials for the briefing we received this morning and for listening to the anger, frankly, that there was on Monday about the situation. We were where we were; we are grateful to the Minister for doing what he could to degroup the amendments and sort things out as best he could. Clearly, there are still a number of issues, and many of us are still struggling to put together the various mountains of paper we have to try to make sense of it.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on her extremely important Amendment 11A. I must say that, in my reading of Schedule 2, I had not picked that issue up, which shows part of the problem—I know that the Minister accepts this—of not having enough time. The noble Baroness’s point was on decisive influence and what that means. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the definition of particular words and phrases bedevils us at the present time. I pray in aid because, later on, I will point out one word in a couple of phrases that I think makes all the difference; I hope the Committee will bear with me and recognise that I am not being trivial—changing one word would make a significant difference to the meaning in the Bill. As well as pointing something out to us, the noble Baroness has made an extremely important point about what “decisive influence” means in paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3) of Schedule 2.

I would add to what the noble Baroness said. This is really important because is it not only

“a decisive influence on the activities of the person”;

it is also “directly or indirectly”. You then really get into the question of what on earth it means. To be frank, when you get into “decisive influence” and “indirectly”, it becomes extremely difficult. Again, I thank the noble Baroness. Like her, I look forward to listening to the answer the Minister gives with respect to that.

I agree with most of the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, and others. I have decided not to read out my notes, because I want to try to get to the heart of this for the benefit of those who read our proceedings. If I get this wrong, the Minister will need to correct me. We need to understand where we are and what is happening.

My understanding is that the current procurement regime—not the regime envisaged by the Procurement Bill—operates under the existing Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Because we left the EU, the original Procurement Bill sought to transpose the 2015 regulations into British law. Unfortunately, in doing that, the Bill made a series of errors, and in particular around the Teckal exemption—however it is pronounced; I do not have the same mastery of languages as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. That exemption was not actually in the original drafting. The Local Government Association and all the other bodies were horrified—from what I have seen of the statements they have made to the Government—because it meant that many of the things they were able to do under the 2015 regulations with the Teckal exemption would no longer be allowed and they would have to change their procurement processes. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who gave the very good example of the transport initiative, of which he was proud, but the LGA and other bodies were worried that these sorts of arrangements would not be operational in the same way as was drafted in the original Procurement Bill.

The Committee will correct me if I am wrong, but this is the million-dollar question for me, and the reason I abandoned my notes: do the Government amendments in this group, led by Amendment 10, mean—as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, other noble Lords, the LGA and many other organisations which have made representations to us are concerned it does—that the 2015 regulations have been transposed into the amended version of the Bill, along with the Teckal exemption to those regulations? That is what people will be looking for, because British law, as it will stand when this Bill becomes an Act, will mean that they can operate the various arrangements that they have either vertically with an entity in themselves, or horizontally with other local authorities or bodies.

If we look across the country, we see that in all the areas in which we live—including, I presume, Wales; I am not sure about Scotland, about which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, may wish to say something—there are hundreds upon hundreds of models of procurement that have been adopted and worked on to deliver services in the way that a local authority, body or entity has decided to follow. The Minister will know this better than me, because of his experience. What they will be looking at is whether the Government’s amendments mean that their concerns have been met. That is why I decided to put down my amendment. I cannot debate law as well as many other noble Lords, but if I were someone from the outside looking at this, I would ask whether this means that I can carry on procuring in the way that I have been able to procure previously. That was my concern with the way that the Bill was originally drafted. That is the million-dollar question for the Minister.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Monday 4th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 19 and comment very briefly, because it was a pleasure to follow my noble friend, simply to emphasise the point that he and my noble friend Lord Scriven made about local authorities. I want to add just two other elements of that and combine it with a comment, since we started on this group with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about universities. In the case of my former constituency, Heriot-Watt University was part of a number of consortia with other universities and other organisations, which included charitable trusts, research trusts and other groups. Since they became procurement bodies themselves, it would be very useful for the Government to be very clear as to how this Act will consider an institution as a procuring body, including as part of a consortium of which the partners are not covered by this legislation.

On the point about local authorities, I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify for those local authorities that work cross-border. There is the borderlands consortium of local authorities in England and Scotland. In my understanding of how the Bill is drafted, that consortium would not come under the Bill because only local authorities, or local authorities in Scotland that operate on fully reserved matters, would do so. The consortium does not operate on fully reserved matters but it is a single consortium that receives a borderland deal from the Treasury and is a procuring authority. It would be very helpful if the Minister would clarify the status, under the legislation, of the border consortium of local authorities.

The purpose behind Amendment 19 is to develop that probing and to ask for consideration of the treaty state suppliers and the international agreements. What comes under the terminology of international agreements? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I have raised questions on many occasions about what the Government consider to be a treaty for international agreement purposes. I understand entirely that the Government’s purpose behind this legislation is flexibility, but also transparency. I support those, particularly the transparency angle. We therefore need to look carefully at the areas that are exempted.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the point about ARIA; I will not intervene in the mutual relationship between her and my noble friend Lord Fox on the relationship with ARIA, and I know that UK Research and Innovation is not linked with ARIA. However, I found it interesting that UK Research and Innovation is included in our trade agreement with Australia under the procurement chapter by virtue of it being a listed body. If we need to look at which bodies will be included in this legislation, there are exhaustive lists—it says: “This list is exhaustive”—in our trade agreements, which are now in scope of this legislation but which many Members may think are not. For example, at 6.9, UK Research and Innovation is included.

Most interestingly, the Bill excludes Government Communications Headquarters, but it is included in the list of bodies in our FTA with Australia under the procurement chapter. I do not know how they will interact. We will come to this when we come to the elements of international trade, but where does GCHQ sit as regards procurement? We are obliged to cover it under the Australia FTA but we are seeking to exclude it under the Bill. I simply do not know the answer, so I look forward to the Minister clarifying that point.

The amendment on international agreements is to clarify what the Government consider an international agreement. Paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 states:

“A contract awarded under a procedure specified in an international agreement of which the United Kingdom is a signatory relating to … the implementation of a joint project between the signatories to that agreement.”


That could be extraordinarily wide, and if it includes agreements which are not under FTAs it could be enormously wide.

I just need to look at two contemporaneous cases under memoranda of understanding. These are agreements which the Government say are underpinned, with commitments to honour them. One is the Rwanda MoU on immigration—I visited the centre in Kigali two weeks ago. There is procurement that could be under that agreement, whether for the aircraft which have been brought from Spain to fly individuals out there, or indeed the Hope Guest House Ltd, a private limited company in Kigali that is to be the reception centre for these people and which I visited myself. I asked the authorities there: “If it is a limited company, how do I know what the details are—the terms and conditions?” They told me that it was under a one-year rolling contract but I have no idea how it was procured, and the same goes for the British side. This is a joint agreement with joint procurement, and I believe that it should be transparent, but under the Bill the Government are seeking to exclude that.

There are a number of different areas. There are international higher education partnership agreements. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is successful with his amendment, it would be rendered useless under paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 because the Government will be able to say that it is under an international higher education agreement. We have signed between 15 and 18 agreements with China on preferential market access, including investments through UK pension funds, which potentially come within scope of this as well. We have an investment partnership with the UAE, the details of which have not been published; I have not been able to find them and the Library has asked the DIT for the text but it has not been forthcoming. However, these are potentially joint procurement agreements. Some may be beneficial; others I look at with a cautious eye. Depending on how they are defined and on how the Government wish to use them, the transparency elements of procurement could be bypassed because of paragraph 19 of Schedule 2. Therefore, I would like the Government to explain.

In closing, because it links to a number of international agreements and has been previously referenced on treaties, I recognise the 24 treaties listed in Schedule 20, but the impact assessment relates only to 20, so I do not know why there is that discrepancy. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the discrepancy between the two.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Hayman after her remarks. I apologise to the Committee for being a few minutes late; I was unavoidably detained on other business. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for dealing with a really difficult situation with—as we might all agree—his normal courtesy. I think it was the best that could be done in the circumstances; withdrawing government Amendment 1 allowed us to move to this group of amendments. We all appreciate his offer of continuing discussions in the next day or so to consider how we take all this forward. It would be remiss to not start with thanks to the Minister for that, otherwise the Committee would have been a complete and utter catastrophe. As we can see, however, with this group of amendments we have got on to the real purpose of the Committee, which is to get to the real detail, as seen in the various contributions made by all noble Lords. All the amendments put forward have asked very reasonable questions, which seek to clarify the Government’s intentions. I shall certainly make those points in the few minutes that I speak for.

I start by saying that I was really interested in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because it goes to the heart of the issue. You can read “pecuniary” in all sorts of ways. I looked it up with the help of my noble friend Lady Hayman and it has to do with money, so I was quite pleased to read that—from a non-legislative point of view—because I thought it meant that it was about the supply of the contracts, the pecuniary interests would not matter and it was a “standards in public life” type of approach, but of course it is not. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has clarified that for me. What “pecuniary” means in this context is a really interesting point: why are the Government including it and why would the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, not be an improvement? Again, the details of some of these amendments are really worthwhile points to look at.

I wanted to raise some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, started to get to in the debate on whether Clause 2 and Schedule 2 should stand part. There is also the question of where Schedule 1 takes us. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, will be interested in this, having asked who will police this. The Government use the term “estimated value” in Clause 2 and, to be fair to them, that is very important for this aspect of a public contract. Clause 3 deals with how estimated value is worked out; then, in Schedule 3, it is done by regulation. Schedule 3 lays out how the estimated value may be set, so I will not go through it. What I could not find out—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—is who ensures that it is properly done; in other words, that the estimated value is a proper estimated value and that the system laid out in Schedule 3 works. If I understood the Minister, he said that it is a matter for the Minister—a matter for the Crown. Could he just clarify who polices this? Who ensures that the estimated value is indeed a proper estimated value? That would be helpful to the Committee.

Ajax Noise and Vibration Review

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, £3.2 billion has been spent, with only a couple of dozen of the Ajax tanks delivered out of an order for 589, all of which are supposed to be delivered by 2024 with a total cost of £5.5 billion. The Public Accounts Committee in the other place has called it a catastrophe. How has it come to this? It has to be the biggest defence procurement failure of the last decade, does it not?

Now we have a further damning review just published by the Government called the Ajax Noise and Vibration Review. It catalogues failure after failure of process, accountability and procedures. Some 310 soldiers were exposed to noise and vibration, with a small number discharged because of hearing loss. According to the review, senior Army officers and MoD officials knew of these problems for two years before any action was taken. How and why was that possible? Who knew? Did Ministers know?

The review’s conclusions are stark and extremely worrying, not only first and foremost for our soldiers but for what it means for a central part of our future military capability. I quote directly from the Government’s own report:

“Nothing in this Review detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification.”


What does the Minister have to say to that specific quote? The report concludes that

“from a cultural perspective, the Army did not believe it was potentially causing harm to people, especially from vibration, as it was tacitly expected that soldiers can and should endure such issues. Society and the law expect MOD to do better”.

Is the MoD doing better? What has changed? Who is being held to account? We cannot tell from the review what is actually happening.

One of my final quotes directly from the review is:

“Within the acquisition system, safety is not viewed as an equal partner to cost, schedule and military capability, and the culture in MOD does not currently ensure safety is considered within strategic decision-making.”


The word is “currently”. Does the Minister recognise that term—not 10 years ago but currently? What is urgently being done to change that culture? What steps are being taken? Are any other defence procurement projects subject to such a culture? Even during the Minister’s Statement yesterday in the other place, he talked of reports such as that from the Defence Safety Authority in May 2020 identifying some of these issues, entitled Serious Safety Concerns on Ajax, and then tells us that that was retracted and not pursued. Who retracted the report? Who decided not to pursue it? Where are they now? Have they been promoted? Have they been sacked? Was any Minister aware of it and, if not, why not? The Government’s response is to have announced that following this review they are to launch another review. To what purpose and timescale is that further review to operate?

This is deeply disturbing and unsatisfactory. Ajax is in limbo. A major military capability for this country is in real trouble. Are the Government sticking with Ajax or are they going to scrap it? What confidence can we have that they have a grip of the Ajax programme? Are we sure that there is no impact on the Army’s ability to deploy the planned strike brigade?

As the review concludes:

“To have confidence that the events covered in this report will not be repeated, culture change needs to be progressed.”


For the sake of our Armed Forces and the security of our country, it certainly needs to be. I am sure that we will all appreciate the remarks of the Minister in response to this serious and damning report.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I can associate these Benches with many of the questions from the noble Lord. He rightly highlights the fact that many government assertions over recent years have not been matched with what we now learn from the review.

I agree with the Minister in the House of Commons when he indicated that he read the report with a deep sense of regret. If anything, he needs a degree of commendation for highlighting these issues. The problem had been that many of them had not been highlighted thus far, and we have had to rely on this review. As the noble Lord indicated, the review states that nothing in it

“detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification”.

The Minister replied that the key element of that was “thus far”, but he did not tell the House of Commons when he believed that these vehicles would be fit for purpose, and he did not say when they would meet the contracted specification. As the noble Lord indicated, the National Audit Office, in reviewing the procurement of MoD equipment, highlighted that the expenditure as of March 2021 had been £3.755 billion. How on earth can that amount, of a total of £5.5 billion, be committed when the review had indicated that these vehicles were not fit for purpose and would not meet the specification? If the Government’s position is that the vehicles will do so, when will that happen?

The NAO in paragraph 11 of its report highlighted part of the challenge as being the Government changing the specification. However, it said that that accounted for an 11 months’ delay to the programme. It high- lighted more than 13 programmes with 254 months of delays in MoD procurement—an astonishing amount. Paragraph 5.11 indicated in relation to Her Majesty’s Treasury that:

“The assessment for the Ajax armoured vehicle (October 2020), stated the programme remained a VFM”—


value-for-money—

“solution despite slippage of entry into service from July 2020 to June 2021, with a worst-case scenario of slippage to December 2022.”

How can the Treasury claim that there is a continued value-for-money solution while this review indicated that the vehicles were not fit for purpose and did not meet the contracted specification? Will all the vehicles now be in operation for our servicemen and women by the time of the worst-case scenario of December 2022 or are the Government changing that position?

I should declare that I represented a military barracks in my former constituency and was in northern Iraq last week. I know well the great pressure that our Armed Forces personnel have had to endure over many years. The welfare of those individuals should of course be a paramount priority. The Minister in the Commons did not indicate any detail about how support will be provided to those affected, so if the noble Baroness could provide more details, I should be grateful.

My final question relates to a Statement that the Minister made to this House in March this year. When asked about procurement in the MoD, she said in relation to a question from my noble friend Lord Addington about overruns and expenditure increases:

“The scenario that the noble Lord envisages is unlikely to arise because from now on procurement will proceed on a very different basis from what we have known in the past.”—[Official Report, 24/3/21; col. 845.]


However, we had to rely on this report and the Minister in the Commons stating in his concluding remarks yesterday that the report

“lays bare a deep malaise, which is cultural and results in systemic failures across our organisations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/21; col. 1082.]

How on earth can those two areas be reconciled? Can that department be relied upon, even by commissioning a senior legal figure, to learn these lessons? Would it not be better if that legal figure responded to a different and external organisation to ensure that deep malaise and cultural and systemic failures are not repeated in the future?