China Audit

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and David Lammy

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

It is a good question, and I refer my hon. Friend to the industrial strategy and the further work that we have to do on supply chains. From day one, this Government have taken a big interest in global supply chains in critical minerals. Together with many partners across the world, we are working with the Global Clean Power Alliance to create new supply chains, in order to deal with the issues that she has raised.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his efforts in raising the issue of my being refused entry to Hong Kong. I look forward to reassurances that no UK MP will be refused entry to any Chinese territories.

The Foreign Secretary’s statement mentioned that China is our universities’ second largest source of international students, and that includes my university, the University of Bath. Global academic exchange and the free flow of ideas is at the heart of our liberal values and should be welcomed, but should the Government not be aware of the fine balance that must be kept? We should not allow young researchers and students access to certain knowledge that could ultimately be used against the UK.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a fine balance. We need to invest more in our police capability, and that is an outcome of this audit. We need to continue to work with our universities, so that they understand the threats in this area, as well as the opportunities.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and David Lammy

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I have not reflected on that statement very much.

I was reminded recently of the importance of judicial review by the infamous “Judge over your shoulder” leaflet, which has been published since 1987 to remind civil servants of the importance of sound decision making. The leaflet advises civil servants of the importance of good governance and of making decisions effectively and fairly to avoid those decisions being found unlawful. It recognises that administrative law and, in this case, judicial review played an important part in securing good administration by providing a powerful method of ensuring that the improper exercise of power can be checked.

Frankly, that is why having effective judicial remedies is so important to maintain good governance. The threat of judicial review is a powerful tool to encourage decision makers to make decisions well and fairly. If the power of quashing orders were to be neutered in the way clause 1 seeks, not only would that leave victims of unlawful decisions without the remedy they deserve, but it would reduce the motivation for public bodies to take care when making decisions. I agree with the Law Society of England and Wales when it says that that would have a truly chilling effect on justice in this country and we must question why the Government are even considering the changes in clause 1. Those changes go far beyond what was recommended by the Government’s own independent review of administrative law. The review made no recommendation that quashing orders should be prospective only. It specifically recommended against that type of presumption.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sign of a mature democracy is that it protects the marginalised and vulnerable? Government Members completely misunderstand that point.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That ought to be a principle across the House, not a party political issue.

To return to the review of administrative law that the Government set up, in their consultation response, the Government acknowledge that presumptions were not recommended by the review panel, and they were generally met with scepticism from respondents to the consultation. Indeed, it is not even certain whether prospective-only remedies would withstand a challenge before the European Court of Human Rights for failure to provide an effective remedy. Given the Government’s own panel of experts, and the sector, are opposed to that change, and given the harmful effect that it would have on victims of unlawful decisions, as well as on governmental decision making, we must ask why the Government are keen to make this change. Is it really, as they suggest, to provide courts with greater flexibility, or is it simply to insulate the Government from being held to account, and to weaken the power of claimants to seek compensation?

Clause 2 seeks to abolish Cart-type judicial reviews. For Members who may not be familiar with what those are, Cart judicial reviews allow individuals to ask the High Court to review decisions made by the upper tribunal to refuse a right of appeal. The vast majority of Cart reviews are sought by those who find themselves in horrendously desperate situations and they invoke some of our most fundamental human rights, including in some cases the difference between life and death. During the review of administrative law that the Government set up and the consultation stage, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association provided the panel with 57 case studies of when Cart judicial review has been used to put right an incorrect decision made by the upper tribunal. Those case studies included parents’ applications to be reunited with their children, a child’s application to remain in the UK to receive lifesaving treatment, the asylum claim of a victim of human trafficking and female genital mutilation, and many other deportation and asylum decisions where, if deported, individuals faced persecution or their lives would be at risk.