Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Bryan of Partick

Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support this group of amendments.

I recognise that some aspects of the Bill should be welcomed. It has the potential to produce a more flexible and responsive system. The ability to streamline could make a crucial difference to local economies. What is concerning about the Bill is that the devolved Administrations are treated as having the same role in their economies as that of local authorities. It fails to recognise that each has a strategic responsibility for their national economy. Despite the Minister’s assurance that

“the Government have worked closely with the devolved Administrations, including sharing the consultation response document ahead of publication and carefully considering their representations”—[Official Report, 19/1/22; col. 1711.]

the devolved Administrations disagree and feel that they have been told rather than consulted.

The Scottish Government argue that the Bill should give Scottish Ministers the same powers as the Secretary of State has over matters such as referring subsidies to the Competition and Markets Authority, making streamlined subsidy schemes, and providing subsidies in response to natural disasters and other emergencies. The Welsh Government are concerned by the powers being given to the Secretary of State to shape the regime in future, with little scrutiny by the UK Parliament and none by Welsh Ministers or the Senedd. Both Governments agree that this legislation undermines powers which are fundamental to their ability to shape their own economies and industrial development.

People in Scotland and Wales view their devolved Governments and Parliaments as being responsible for the economy of their country. When they voted in last May’s elections, they chose to vote for policies that were different from those of the UK Government. My worry is that this Government want to turn back the clock to pre-devolution times.

Having looked closely at the Minister’s response at Second Reading, and the concerns raised about the exclusion of the devolved Administrations from some of the powers given to UK Ministers, I could find no explanation for why this should be the case. I hope the Minister will give a clear reason why these Parliaments and elected Governments should not have similar powers to those that the Bill awards to UK Ministers.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, these amendments, which I fully support, allow the Senedd Cymru and the Scottish Parliament actually to decide issues for themselves. The legislation itself is deeply annoying because this should be standard in every Bill. I do not understand why the Government keep leaving it out.

In the Scottish independence referendum, the people of Scotland were promised devo-max. They received no such thing and then Brexit came along and gave this Government an excuse to steadily unpick devolution and centralise power in the UK Government. This is evidenced by Clause 1(7), which allows the UK Parliament to legislate contrary to the Bill but does not allow the devolved Parliaments any similar power. I simply do not understand that.

I will support these amendments if they come back on Report. I hope by then the Minister will understand that this should be in every single Bill. It should not be fought over every time. We do not want constant battles in Parliament to enact the devo-max that Scotland was promised. So please let us get some movement on this and actually make it fit for purpose.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Bryan of Partick

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I love these two amendments because they get to the heart of one of the two biggest problems with the Bill, which is immunity. I take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about using the phrase “undercover operatives”. I have personally been saying “police spies”, which is a more generally understood concept for people outside the Chamber.

The Minister did not answer my questions in the previous debate. He did not address the proceeds of crime or the concept of ongoing crime that is not specifically given immunity but will happen anyway. Is that given immunity as well?

The Government are claiming that the Bill just puts everything on a regular footing and that we can all relax because we know exactly what will happen, but it is in fact nothing to do with that. It is about heading off all the legal uncertainty caused by the current legal challenge—the spy cops inquiry. It is nothing to do with protecting the general public. I find it infuriating that the two groups that are constantly referred to as being vulnerable to this legislation are paedophiles and terrorist organisations when we all know perfectly well that other organisations will be contaminated by this system and have undercover operatives and police spies. It will be unions and political groups, such as campaign groups, as we are seeing at the moment with the spy cops inquiry.

It is obvious that the Bill hugely expands the state’s ability to authorise criminal conduct and grant legal immunity to criminals. It is worrying that criminal conduct will go unpunished because of the Bill, but also, as several noble Peers have already mentioned, that the victims of these crimes will have no legal rights. They are left by the Government as collateral damage, which we have again seen in the spy cops inquiry. We have seen just how badly people have been harmed by undercover policing: innocent women’s lives ruined, children fathered by police officers using fake identities who then run off and avoid all their parental responsibilities because they have another family elsewhere who they want to go back to, and people betrayed by state agents.

The Bill’s provisions will prevent any entitlement to compensation for the damage caused by a police spy. You were tricked into a sexual relationship with a police officer? Too bad. Your house was burgled by a police spy? Too bad. You were beaten up by a gang acting as informants for the police? Too bad. Innocent people will be hit by the Bill. It is so obviously wrong. Innocent lives will be ruined. Surely the Government understand this and can see that it is wrong to try to legislate like this.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the speakers before me, who have such a range of experience. Many excellent amendments to the Bill have been proposed. Some are probing, looking for a response that might help to clarify the Government’s intentions. Others could serve to safeguard individuals who might be recruited as undercover operatives or those who might be affected by their actions.

Amendments 3 and 5, tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and others from across the House, take us to the very heart of the issue. The ultimate safeguard we have from criminal activity is the rule of law. The very well-argued briefing from Justice points out that granting prior immunity would completely undermine the core principle of criminal law: that it should apply equally to all, both citizen and state.

At the briefing the Minister provided early in November, she was asked what would happen if an undercover operative exceeded their criminal conduct authorisation. To my mind there was not a clear answer. Another participant pointed out that the second part of the CPS test when deciding whether to proceed with a prosecution allows for public interest factors to be taken into account. During the Second Reading debate, I asked the Minister whether she could give an example of an undercover operative being prosecuted after having been authorised. She did not answer that point. My understanding is that the current test of the public interest has protected such activity, so why is there a need for prior immunity?

The statement made by the Minister for Security during the debate in the other place that criminal action can become lawful is a clear example of doublethink, whereby we can accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct: the action is criminal, but it is lawful. We have been reassured repeatedly that actions carried out cannot be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister assured us that

“nothing in the Bill detracts from a public authority’s obligations under the Human Rights Act”

and that

“there are checks in place to ensure that no activity is authorised that is in breach of human rights obligations”—[Official Report, 11/11/20; cols. 1046-47.]

but, as the Justice briefing points out, the very act of granting immunity might be a breach by denying a victim of the crime the right to an effective remedy.

In seeking to give reassurance at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, directed us to the covert human intelligence source draft code of practice. He said that this would give authorising authorities

“clear and detailed guidance that they must follow in deciding whether to grant an authorisation.”—[Official Report, 11/11/20; col. 1045.]

The code accepts that there will sometimes be mistakes and there is a section covering that eventuality headed “serious errors”. It says:

“In deciding whether it is in the public interest for the person concerned to be informed of the error, the Commissioner must in particular consider: The seriousness of the error and its effect on the person concerned; The extent to which disclosing the error would be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to: national security; the prevention or detection of serious crime; the economic well-being of the United Kingdom; or the continued discharge of the functions of any of the intelligence services.”


These were the very criteria used to issue the erroneous CCA in the first place.

I support Amendments 3 and 5 and the retention of the public interest test, which has, over the years, been sufficient protection for CHIS activity. I hope that we can take this amendment forward to the next stage.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness Bryan of Partick

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in view of the time constraints, I will limit my comments to just two issues. The first is that Committee has been limited to an afternoon, which I think is absolutely appalling. It is all in line with the way the Government are reducing Parliament to a series of nods that they think they can control. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, that there are, in fact, two huge gaps in the Bill. The first is the environment, which I spoke about at Second Reading. There is an absence of any thought of protecting our environment, when the Bill could play quite a major role in our transition to a net-zero carbon economy.

As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, pointed out, the Bill has another major flaw, which is the lack of protection for workers’ interests in this special insolvency scheme. Without these provisions, the Government will just have to hope that already wealthy people will not take advantage of this emergency scheme, but we all know that predatory capitalists use whatever legal loopholes they can to trash our planet, cheat our workers and strip the assets of companies to extract as much cash as possible. I think we will be able to point to today’s Hansard in six months’ time, when the inevitable happens and people are driven out of their livelihoods while bosses and shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank. I look forward to seeing the Government’s new amendments next week and I hope that Report will perhaps show that this Government have a heart.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 110, 112 and 114, but I shall speak only to Amendment 114, which is a recognition that workers are truly a company’s greatest asset. But how many company mission statements have used those words but gone on to treat their workers as expendable? If a restructuring plan is to work, it will need the benefit of workers at boardroom level. If the company is ready for insolvency, the ability of the current board to turn things around must be open to question. Elected workers’ representatives are uniquely placed to identify improvements and ways to increase productivity, while at the same time assuring workers that their interests will be safeguarded. So, along with the other amendments, I hope that the Minister will reflect on this one in particular and bring some alternative to the next stage of the Bill.