21/02/2017

:00:00. > :00:00.Government services telecommunication charges bill.

:00:00. > :00:08.Second reading. Friday 24th of March. Friday 24th of

:00:09. > :00:12.March, thank you. Now we will read the orders of the day.

:00:13. > :00:16.Criminal Finances Bill as amended in the public bill committee to be

:00:17. > :00:20.considered. Thank you. We begin with Government

:00:21. > :00:25.new course seven which will be convenient to consider with the new

:00:26. > :00:33.clause and Amendments group together on the selection paper. To move new

:00:34. > :00:37.clause seven, I called the Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some time has

:00:38. > :00:41.passed since we last considered this bill. There was, as honourable

:00:42. > :00:44.members recall, cross-party consensus on the provision that both

:00:45. > :00:48.secondary and committee stage. I hope we will be able to Italy that

:00:49. > :00:52.in the spirit of constructive debate in how the scrutiny during the

:00:53. > :00:58.proceedings. The first Amendment group we are considering concerned

:00:59. > :01:01.gross human rights abuses of violations. The Government is

:01:02. > :01:04.committed to promoting and strengthening universal rights

:01:05. > :01:07.globally and I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. In

:01:08. > :01:14.particular these have been prompted by the harrowing case of one person,

:01:15. > :01:17.who was not a serious criminal but a lawyer who tried to blow the whistle

:01:18. > :01:21.on large-scale tax fraud in Russia and he believed he would be

:01:22. > :01:26.protected by the law. Unfortunately, he died in state custody in 2009

:01:27. > :01:30.after suffering of mistreatment and assault, and being denied medical

:01:31. > :01:32.attention. I share the strong feelings of many honourable members

:01:33. > :01:36.about this case and I want to reassure the house that the

:01:37. > :01:38.Government is expressing and has expressed both publicly to the

:01:39. > :01:43.Russian Government our serious concerns about the man's death. We

:01:44. > :01:46.must also remember that his case is only one of many atrocious human

:01:47. > :01:52.rights violations committed globally each year. As I am sure honourable

:01:53. > :01:56.members will highlight, the US legislated to prohibit the entry of

:01:57. > :02:02.certain known individuals to the US and forbid their use of the US

:02:03. > :02:05.banking system. This legislation was extended by the Obama administration

:02:06. > :02:08.less than two months ago, so could be applied to those involved in

:02:09. > :02:13.human rights violations were ever in the world they had taken place. This

:02:14. > :02:17.sent an important signal that the perpetrators of gross human rights

:02:18. > :02:21.violations would face consequences. However, we have an entirely

:02:22. > :02:24.different legal system which merits a different approach. I want to pay

:02:25. > :02:27.tribute to those honourable members that have raised the issue by

:02:28. > :02:34.tabling new clause one. In particular, right honourable friend

:02:35. > :02:42.for Walton, and the honourable lady there, and the honourable member of

:02:43. > :02:44.Ross Skye and Lochaber. I am thankful to buy honourable members

:02:45. > :02:48.for giving the advance notice of the amendments and I'm pleased to have

:02:49. > :02:51.had the opportunity to discuss it with many signatories. It has a

:02:52. > :02:56.listing the Government position that for further legislation to be

:02:57. > :02:58.correct, there would need to be a real case that existing powers are

:02:59. > :03:04.insufficient. Help honourable members should agree that we would

:03:05. > :03:08.avoid doing anything that hinders the effectiveness of our existing

:03:09. > :03:12.powers. The National Crime Agency have confirmed they have considered

:03:13. > :03:18.all of the material divided in relation to that affirmation case.

:03:19. > :03:22.We have decided that if individuals do not reside in the UK, and have no

:03:23. > :03:29.assets of value connected to the case was in the United Kingdom... On

:03:30. > :03:31.that additional powers proposed by new clause once if temps will need

:03:32. > :03:38.to use them against individuals in this case.

:03:39. > :03:44.The point about the act in the US is that it pulls together the Visa

:03:45. > :03:47.bands with the no use of the American banks and the inability to

:03:48. > :03:51.trade, and the problem, they do agree and appreciate we have a

:03:52. > :03:55.different scenario in this country, but it is brought together. Could

:03:56. > :03:59.the minister explain how he intends to pull the links together in this

:04:00. > :04:05.country, using the different pieces of legislation that exist? In

:04:06. > :04:09.relation to the Magnitsky Act. Al get into that further into the

:04:10. > :04:13.speech, but the thing we must recognise different in the United

:04:14. > :04:16.States do here is that most of our sanctions are under the European

:04:17. > :04:23.umbrella, so there is a time to discuss those sections at a later

:04:24. > :04:26.date, post-Brexit. We have slightly different dispersals of authority

:04:27. > :04:30.and power when it comes to sanctions than the United States and can act

:04:31. > :04:39.unilaterally and often do in that area. I think that is one point we

:04:40. > :04:43.should point out. It contains no derogations. That is the problem

:04:44. > :04:46.with the current clause as drafted. One of the problems as we think it

:04:47. > :04:49.would be noncompliant with domestic human rights law here, because it

:04:50. > :04:53.contains no derogations and would freeze of the assets of a designated

:04:54. > :04:56.individuals or they would have no funds for living expenses, medical

:04:57. > :05:00.treatment or to pay for legal representation. And the reversal of

:05:01. > :05:06.the burden of proof to assume that all assets owned by the individual

:05:07. > :05:09.are the proceeds of their unlawful conduct would be an unprecedented

:05:10. > :05:16.step. This is different to the existing civil recovery regimes and

:05:17. > :05:21.could be judged as disproportionate. We recognise the strength of feeling

:05:22. > :05:27.and understand the deterrent effect this might have on those who may be

:05:28. > :05:30.seeking a profit of gross abuse of violation of human rights overseas.

:05:31. > :05:32.That is why the Government... I give way.

:05:33. > :05:35.He is well informed about this issue because I know he has had meetings

:05:36. > :05:39.on the subject. Any give confirmation that if, in fact,

:05:40. > :05:44.assets were identified in the UK, and I know there is a dispute that

:05:45. > :05:48.some people believe they are located in the UK, but assuming in the

:05:49. > :05:52.future they were identified in the UK, is the Minister confident that

:05:53. > :05:58.neither the existing legislation or indeed this new clause seven would

:05:59. > :06:05.enable those assets to be frozen? I'm grateful for that point. What I

:06:06. > :06:09.can say in I must respect that I as a minister cannot direct them to

:06:10. > :06:12.take action because that is an operational freedom and independence

:06:13. > :06:15.we value in this country but I can say they have said to me there

:06:16. > :06:18.should be... If you are actionable evidence should be presented then of

:06:19. > :06:21.course they are free to follow that and to enforce the law. I would say

:06:22. > :06:26.as the Government minister on this that where we see evidence of gross

:06:27. > :06:32.human rights abuse or other criminal offences, and there is presented

:06:33. > :06:35.that could be actionable, we would like to see things. It is not about

:06:36. > :06:39.trying to shelter people involved Mr trying to make sure appropriate

:06:40. > :06:43.actions are taken and the correct evidence is presented. I concur with

:06:44. > :06:47.his point that it is important to understand that we need to act on

:06:48. > :06:50.the evidence. If there is evidence, even without this legislation, we

:06:51. > :06:56.could take action, and I would certainly urge agencies of law

:06:57. > :06:59.enforcement to take action to make sure these people are held to

:07:00. > :07:05.account for the atrocious murder they carried out in Russia against

:07:06. > :07:09.Mr Magnitsky That is why we have tried to come some way to beating

:07:10. > :07:17.many of the concerns of this house by tabling new clause seven with the

:07:18. > :07:27.50 and 59. I would widen the unlawful conduct within part 52

:07:28. > :07:29.include torture, cruel, inhumane treatment of those identified as

:07:30. > :07:33.promoting human rights. Including in cases where that conduct was not of

:07:34. > :07:36.offence in the jurisdiction with which it applies. This would allow

:07:37. > :07:40.any assets held in the UK which were deemed to be the proceeds of such

:07:41. > :07:47.activity to be recovered under the provisions of part five. Yes.

:07:48. > :07:52.In the Government's version, there is no requirement and no duty on the

:07:53. > :07:54.Government to act at all. They can simply ignore the provisions. That

:07:55. > :08:02.is one of the key differences between his version and the

:08:03. > :08:05.honourable member version. The honourable member's makes a

:08:06. > :08:08.point about duty and there are lots of criminal offences on the statute

:08:09. > :08:14.book that the Government not have a duty to act on. We leave it to the

:08:15. > :08:18.interpretation and the freedom of our law enforcement agencies to act

:08:19. > :08:24.on them. Are we to say that the duty here is greater than the duty on,

:08:25. > :08:29.perhaps, the police to act on burglary? Or the duty of the police

:08:30. > :08:33.to act on a whole range of other criminal offences? He wants to put a

:08:34. > :08:37.duty on the Government on one specific type of criminal offence,

:08:38. > :08:41.which would, I'm afraid, hinder the freedom of our law enforcement

:08:42. > :08:44.agencies to take the appropriate action when the evidence is

:08:45. > :08:50.presented to them in order to do that.

:08:51. > :08:59.Varies no ability to third parties to be able to bring their case to

:09:00. > :09:02.the court to allow such things. It is closing off the options of

:09:03. > :09:09.tackling this problem of money-laundering in London and the

:09:10. > :09:13.UK. The National crime agency, HMRC are not full of people who don't

:09:14. > :09:22.want to do their job. They want to enforce the law. It is insulting to

:09:23. > :09:27.infer that if we didn't put a duty on them, they wouldn't do it. The

:09:28. > :09:34.problem with that clause drafted is it allows for NGO's individuals to

:09:35. > :09:39.go to the court with limited liability to force the Government to

:09:40. > :09:48.take action without a high level of threshold. You could find a Cuban

:09:49. > :09:53.exile living in Florida who doesn't like the Cuban Government come to

:09:54. > :10:00.our courts to make accusation to alleged human rights abuse and

:10:01. > :10:05.confiscate or freeze that asset. It would include as making peace and

:10:06. > :10:13.would allow massive amounts of claims based on gimmick politics

:10:14. > :10:17.will stop that is why we have to respect the independence of our law

:10:18. > :10:23.enforcement agencies to make the case based on the evidence presented

:10:24. > :10:29.to them. That is simply not the case. We already have applications

:10:30. > :10:36.for extradition from the Russians and for lots of people who are now

:10:37. > :10:41.resident in the UK. The court decides. An individual cannot decide

:10:42. > :10:49.that somebody's assets must be frozen. It is a court that decides.

:10:50. > :10:56.The honourable member misses the point. Pollute -- the courts do not

:10:57. > :11:00.like time wasting applications with limited liability for those people

:11:01. > :11:09.that want to come and use the courts to make a statement. Applications

:11:10. > :11:15.for deportation is often made by the state. He would open it up to

:11:16. > :11:20.individuals all over the world to come to our courts without

:11:21. > :11:25.liabilities, to make the case or to make a gesture to freeze assets of

:11:26. > :11:32.individuals without any recourse to the state ought to evidence that

:11:33. > :11:38.would open up a whole can of worms for countries around world. We have

:11:39. > :11:41.sponsored and supported the peace deal in Colombia. Should the

:11:42. > :11:49.Colombian Government choose to send somebody from the background to

:11:50. > :11:52.represent them or be a culture tache in the embassy and somebody in

:11:53. > :11:56.Colombia doesn't like that, they could come to this court as an

:11:57. > :12:05.individual and make a tokenistic application. Court's time can be

:12:06. > :12:10.wasted by lots of people making statements and causing the courts to

:12:11. > :12:16.be blocked up. On this specific debate we are having here, has the

:12:17. > :12:18.Government considered any application should go to the

:12:19. > :12:28.Attorney General before being allowed to go forward? To stop the

:12:29. > :12:35.abuse they are suggesting. We did consider that. It was felt it was

:12:36. > :12:51.not the appropriate need to do that so we progressed as we have done.

:12:52. > :13:00.That is a major signal to countries around the world. We could interdict

:13:01. > :13:04.with their assets and make sure we send that powerful message that

:13:05. > :13:12.London, the UK is not a base for them to put their assets from such

:13:13. > :13:18.behaviour. That is a point. The concern and worry would be that we

:13:19. > :13:25.would get not just fixations complaints but complains the line

:13:26. > :13:30.and -- designed in the knowledge that the complaint would not be seen

:13:31. > :13:35.through the courts. There will be virtually no cost to the people

:13:36. > :13:39.making the complaint. This gives the opportunity of nabbing the guilty

:13:40. > :13:45.and saying that bloodstained dictators have no place putting

:13:46. > :13:50.their money in this country. Bicester send a message but it with

:13:51. > :13:54.specs the independence of our law enforcement agencies to apply the

:13:55. > :14:00.law, to take action where they are presented with evidence, to make

:14:01. > :14:02.sure that court's times aren't wasted and get successful results in

:14:03. > :14:11.dealing with these individuals but it is done in a way that the state

:14:12. > :14:15.retains the initiative to carry out the process and make sure by

:14:16. > :14:18.taxation is complaints... The judges will tell you they don't want that

:14:19. > :14:21.court rooms to become public relations arenas where people carry

:14:22. > :14:26.out and make these applications. They want their courts to be able to

:14:27. > :14:32.decide on the basis of evidence. They will be able to do that but we

:14:33. > :14:38.respect the independence of our law enforcement agencies. That is why we

:14:39. > :14:45.tabled this amendment. It would allow for any assets held in the UK

:14:46. > :14:53.where they drained -- deemed to be in the process of subjectivity. The

:14:54. > :14:57.court would need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that

:14:58. > :15:03.the property in question and was the proceeds of crime used to further

:15:04. > :15:08.pay for other activity. They need to consider which of their powers to

:15:09. > :15:11.utilise on a case-by-case basis. I hope this measure would send a clear

:15:12. > :15:17.statement that the UK will not stand by and allow those who have

:15:18. > :15:24.committed gross abuse and violations to launder their money here. I want

:15:25. > :15:28.to say that as the Minister with this bill, when my colleagues table

:15:29. > :15:33.amendments, I have said to my officials from the beginning, do

:15:34. > :15:39.they have a point? I want Asp about the evidence set against his killers

:15:40. > :15:44.and find out if we have done the work we say we ordering. I don't

:15:45. > :15:50.just take things at face value. What is important is I am confident that

:15:51. > :15:54.we haven't taken action in this case because we have not had the evidence

:15:55. > :15:58.all yet have the evidence to take action or the assets located in the

:15:59. > :16:02.right place to be able to do something about that. I have

:16:03. > :16:11.verified that made sure I have that out. I have come to the House with

:16:12. > :16:15.an attempt to put a compromise on record. Hopefully we can send the

:16:16. > :16:19.right message to those regimes around the world and those criminals

:16:20. > :16:25.and individuals but respect the law enforcement agencies to make sure

:16:26. > :16:31.they can carry out their job unhindered by political interference

:16:32. > :16:36.or anyone else who may want to use publicity rather than evidence as

:16:37. > :16:42.furthering their cause. That is something that is really important.

:16:43. > :16:44.I will wait for other Government members in the debate and open

:16:45. > :16:55.hopefully respond at the end. The question is new clause seven

:16:56. > :17:13.should be read a second time. I don't think it is fair to live in

:17:14. > :17:16.a world where criminals can generate cash and spend it without fear of

:17:17. > :17:21.repercussions. Given what I have learned across the passage of this

:17:22. > :17:26.Bill, all members would agree with that sentiment. For the vast

:17:27. > :17:32.majority in society who choose to play by the rules. Until now the

:17:33. > :17:35.focus has been on anti-money-laundering regulations

:17:36. > :17:40.and proceeds of crime legislations which have been geared towards

:17:41. > :17:45.tackling the process -- proceeds of drug traffickers and bank robbers.

:17:46. > :17:52.It is not as easy to launder money as it used to be although it is not

:17:53. > :17:57.impossible. It used to be the perception of criminals that if they

:17:58. > :18:02.could evade capture and not flush the cash, they could eventually

:18:03. > :18:05.spend their gains. Criminals would look forward to spending their gains

:18:06. > :18:12.when they are released. This Bill has moved another step ahead of the

:18:13. > :18:19.criminals so we as a society fit to face an attack. The finance of the

:18:20. > :18:25.criminals in 2017 and beyond. I did think you could agree or buy into

:18:26. > :18:30.the rule of law unless you could agree and buy into this affirmation

:18:31. > :18:33.of regulations surrounding the financial industry that has happened

:18:34. > :18:39.over the years. Today it is the threat grand corruption that we face

:18:40. > :18:43.stop to clearly in relation to exposed people. Facilitated by the

:18:44. > :18:50.City of London. Earlier this year, the Guardian revealed through the

:18:51. > :18:53.Panama papers how powerful member of Gaddafi's inner circle have built a

:18:54. > :19:01.multi-million pound portfolio of boutique scholars in Scotland,

:19:02. > :19:05.London and he was head of Libya's infrastructure fund and has be

:19:06. > :19:12.accused of plundering money intended for schools, hospitals and

:19:13. > :19:16.infrastructure projects. Scottish police have confirmed they are

:19:17. > :19:21.investigating. Libya has made a request for an asset seizure but it

:19:22. > :19:26.has not been implemented. With the powers in this Bill, we have -- we

:19:27. > :19:36.could've dealt with injustices like that so much quicker. Our issue has

:19:37. > :19:52.been... It doesn't deal with the issue of

:19:53. > :19:58.Scottish limited partnerships which my honourable friend has done so

:19:59. > :20:03.much to campaign on. It doesn't deal with what in my view is the

:20:04. > :20:09.facilitator of criminal finances which is the profit-seeking

:20:10. > :20:12.responsibility sharing self-serving banking culture and the wider

:20:13. > :20:18.western world. Until we challenge the attitude of the banks who house

:20:19. > :20:24.this money, he will never deal with the criminality. This Bill attempts

:20:25. > :20:28.to deal with the symptoms of the criminality. Getting at the assets

:20:29. > :20:33.and seizing member it doesn't deal with the facilitators, the banks. I

:20:34. > :20:39.think that is a great shame as I will discuss later. The two new

:20:40. > :20:45.clause is the discussion in the first group have been touched upon

:20:46. > :20:48.by the Minister and in interventions and much of the talk has been about

:20:49. > :20:56.the scope of applicants able to bring an application under these

:20:57. > :21:02.provisions. In general terms, new clause one and seven seek to extend

:21:03. > :21:07.the scope of unlawful conduct. It makes sense in that a public

:21:08. > :21:11.official or someone acting with the acquiescence of a public official

:21:12. > :21:16.depositing funds in the UK should not be safe on account of that

:21:17. > :21:20.criminality having occurred abroad. Most people would agree with that

:21:21. > :21:24.sentence. It is a logical step and one which we support in principle.

:21:25. > :21:29.We believe in the protection of human rights. It was a good thing

:21:30. > :21:33.and we don't believe that violations of human rights should be able to be

:21:34. > :21:39.hidden behind international borders. It should be there for the world to

:21:40. > :21:43.see and I believe the consequences should be global consequences. Now

:21:44. > :21:49.at least with the adoption of new clause one or seven, the UK will not

:21:50. > :21:58.be a hiding place in this respect. That is worth looking at. New clause

:21:59. > :22:02.seven and one. What is the difference? There is wider scope for

:22:03. > :22:08.more applicants to make applications under new clause one. The

:22:09. > :22:11.Government's says that will not be necessary as the judiciary would

:22:12. > :22:15.that these claims. They would decide these claims and it wouldn't be up

:22:16. > :22:21.to the applicants to decide the merits. It would be for the court to

:22:22. > :22:26.decide. One other difference between you clause seven and new clause one

:22:27. > :22:31.which I would like the Minister to remark upon is that it seems to me

:22:32. > :22:36.that the amber of new clause seven, sorry, new clause one, is wider in

:22:37. > :22:41.that it includes more connected persons to criminality with new

:22:42. > :22:46.clause one which doesn't go to that extent. I will be grateful of the

:22:47. > :22:50.Minister could touch upon the scope of respondents as well as the scope

:22:51. > :22:54.of applicants and the difference between one and seven. There is

:22:55. > :22:59.provision in new clause seven which is mirrored in sections 58 and 59 to

:23:00. > :23:06.increase the limitation period to bring claims or applications under

:23:07. > :23:09.these provisions. In one sense we welcome it because without it the

:23:10. > :23:16.standard of limitation periods of five or six years would apply. Given

:23:17. > :23:21.that we are talking about gross violations of human rights, torture

:23:22. > :23:25.and the like, should a purple crepe -- perpetrator ever be free from

:23:26. > :23:29.these crimes? I was saying that 20 years after you commit gross

:23:30. > :23:34.violations of human rights that your money saved? Given some of abuses

:23:35. > :23:39.take years and years and years to come to light, are they going to be

:23:40. > :23:43.consequences that could let some of the criminals off?

:23:44. > :23:52.Other questions I have are that within new clause seven, is the mere

:23:53. > :23:56.suspicion of the act of gross violation enough? It seems to me

:23:57. > :24:00.that a conviction in either jurisdiction would not be necessary,

:24:01. > :24:05.but would suspicion be enough, and how does he see that playing out?

:24:06. > :24:11.Could the prime minister explain if he is not minded to accept this

:24:12. > :24:18.amendment that the new clause one -- could the Minister explain. --

:24:19. > :24:30.explain why you think this is better and pick up one point because I have

:24:31. > :24:35.much more points to make? Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to

:24:36. > :24:42.speak to new clause one, known as the Magnitsky part, and will touch

:24:43. > :24:45.on the Government's new clause seven. New clause one has been

:24:46. > :24:51.tabled by myself also with the honourable member for Barking and in

:24:52. > :24:53.total 50 honourable members representing eight different

:24:54. > :24:57.political parties right across the house, testament to the cross-party

:24:58. > :25:03.nature of our ambition here today. That ambition was kindled by the

:25:04. > :25:11.tragic murder on the instructions of the Russian state of the young

:25:12. > :25:15.Russian lawyer Mr Magnitsky, and in November 2008, Magnitsky was

:25:16. > :25:20.arrested and detained. His crime had been to identify the perpetrators of

:25:21. > :25:23.the biggest tax fraud in Russian history, committed by the Russian

:25:24. > :25:30.Government against the investment firm that employed Magnitsky,

:25:31. > :25:36.Hermitage Capital but also against the Russian taxpayer to the tune of

:25:37. > :25:39.a mind-boggling 230 million US dollars. For his courage, Magnitsky

:25:40. > :25:45.was jailed and tortured from was a year and that ultimately murdered.

:25:46. > :25:49.The crime was perpetrated by some of the very officials that Magnitsky at

:25:50. > :25:53.himself identified, and whilst these appalling crimes were documented by

:25:54. > :25:58.two domestic Russian investigations, no one has ever been brought to

:25:59. > :26:02.justice in Russia. Perversely, it was Magnitsky who himself was

:26:03. > :26:09.convicted posthumously of fraud, frankly a rather sickening snapshot

:26:10. > :26:12.of the corrupt state of the Russian justice system today. Large amounts

:26:13. > :26:18.of the stolen money was subsequently laundered out of Russia, and

:26:19. > :26:29.Hermitage Capital submitted evidence to all the UK authorities of

:26:30. > :26:31.30,000,000% in 2000 and 82 2004, including firms owned by Russian

:26:32. > :26:42.Mafia. Despite receiving this evidence. -- ?13 million. None of

:26:43. > :26:48.the crime agencies have opened a single investigation. Understanding

:26:49. > :26:52.the Minister made... This case does shine a light, I believe, and the

:26:53. > :26:56.weaknesses of our own justice system, which is really what we're

:26:57. > :27:02.here to address today. We should be clear in this house that Magnitsky

:27:03. > :27:09.has been the standard bearer of the case for reform, but it is by no

:27:10. > :27:14.means an isolated case. According to the Home Affairs Committee's 2016

:27:15. > :27:18.report on the proceeds of crime, the UK sees ?100 million laundered

:27:19. > :27:25.through UK banks alone each year, -- ?100 billion. That is an astonishing

:27:26. > :27:30.sum and we know that it is only around 0.2% of that figure that is

:27:31. > :27:39.currently frozen. Not one wants Britain to be a competitive global

:27:40. > :27:42.hub that attract investment and open to international talent than I do,

:27:43. > :27:48.but I want us to be known for our integrity as well. I want us to be

:27:49. > :27:53.known for our adherence to the most basic of moral principles. That

:27:54. > :28:00.means we have to stop turning a blind eye to the blood money that

:28:01. > :28:04.butchers and despots, which frankly flows all too clearly through some

:28:05. > :28:08.UK businesses, banks and property. New clause one is designed to

:28:09. > :28:14.address the weaknesses in the current UK asset freezing regime,

:28:15. > :28:18.and I ought to pay tribute to Jonathan Fisher QC, the expert in

:28:19. > :28:21.this field, who helped as carefully craft the mechanism. He is one of

:28:22. > :28:29.the leading experts in public law, human rights law as well. The

:28:30. > :28:32.clause, new clause one, would enable the secretary of state, an

:28:33. > :28:38.individual or an NGO to convince the High Court to make in order to

:28:39. > :28:41.empower the UK authorities to freeze assets, work can be demonstrated on

:28:42. > :28:45.the balance of probability to a senior judge that those assets

:28:46. > :28:50.relate to an individual involved in or profiting from gross human rights

:28:51. > :28:55.abuses. The clause puts a duty on the Secretary of State to produce

:28:56. > :29:00.such an order where is sufficient evidence but where it is also in the

:29:01. > :29:04.public interest. It will also establish a public register of those

:29:05. > :29:11.subject to such an order, or against the backdrop of appropriate

:29:12. > :29:18.safeguards in due process for law. The Government has responded to its

:29:19. > :29:21.own proposal new clause seven. We must start by paying tribute to the

:29:22. > :29:25.Security Minister and Foreign Secretary for engaging seriously on

:29:26. > :29:31.this issue. Ultimately, in the end, for being willing to act. New clause

:29:32. > :29:37.seven will indeed mark a significant step forward. Principally because it

:29:38. > :29:41.would provide specific statutory grounds for an asset freezing order

:29:42. > :29:43.based on gross human rights abuses, and targeting individuals

:29:44. > :29:45.responsible for or profiting from such crimes against whistle-blowers

:29:46. > :29:53.and defenders of human rights abroad. My view is that new clause

:29:54. > :29:58.seven is not as robust as new clause one, mainly because it does not

:29:59. > :30:03.impose a duty on UK law enforcement agencies, subject to the fight

:30:04. > :30:05.ability I have described. It omits the third-party application

:30:06. > :30:09.procedure and rev the public register. On each of those three

:30:10. > :30:13.cases, I understand and recognise the reasons that might right

:30:14. > :30:18.honourable friend the Minister has put forward as to why that is the

:30:19. > :30:22.position of the Government, to remove the public register. It is to

:30:23. > :30:28.be expected and I do not want to let this be the enemy of the good. I

:30:29. > :30:31.retain a measure of underlying concern, and that touches on

:30:32. > :30:34.something which is often the case with the criminal justice

:30:35. > :30:37.legislation, that is the extent to which the new power will actually be

:30:38. > :30:41.in force in practice. That is something the honourable member was

:30:42. > :30:47.touching on and is something which we share across all sides of the

:30:48. > :30:52.House. If I may be so bold, Mr Speaker, I would like to elicit some

:30:53. > :30:56.further reassurances from the Minister, which he may feel free to

:30:57. > :30:59.indicate in the course of my speech or the windups, which could give us

:31:00. > :31:04.a measure of reassurance on that issue of enforcement. And he commit

:31:05. > :31:10.the Government to collect in particular data on the exercise of

:31:11. > :31:13.the new clause, say, annually, so the House and the public can

:31:14. > :31:17.properly scrutinise the extent to which it is being exercised in

:31:18. > :31:21.practice? I did recognise and understand the point the Minister

:31:22. > :31:25.made in relation to that, that the success of the clause should not

:31:26. > :31:28.just be judged by how many times it is exercised but also the deterrent

:31:29. > :31:33.effect it would have. I think that would be a valuable source of

:31:34. > :31:38.reassurance. I give way. I am delighted to tell my honourable

:31:39. > :31:41.friend that I will commit to both collecting this and making sure they

:31:42. > :31:45.are published annually alongside other stats about the proceeds of

:31:46. > :31:49.crime. Can I thank the Minister for such

:31:50. > :31:52.immediate, swift and decisive accidents and provision of that

:31:53. > :31:57.assurance? I think it will be extremely useful. The only other

:31:58. > :32:00.aspect of which I think it will be useful to have some reassurance is

:32:01. > :32:04.understanding that there is a wider ongoing review of UK wide asset

:32:05. > :32:09.freezing powers. I appreciate why the Government may be reticent about

:32:10. > :32:11.reinventing a bespoke procedural mechanism for one new power, given

:32:12. > :32:15.its relationship with those other white proposals which may be

:32:16. > :32:20.forthcoming in future. I hope you will undertake to factor in the

:32:21. > :32:25.proposals that have been made in new clause one to the review process,

:32:26. > :32:27.and make sure that in the new proposals under enforcement,

:32:28. > :32:34.whenever they may be forthcoming in future, we have the most robust, the

:32:35. > :32:39.most rigorous mechanisms available under UK law, applying to the

:32:40. > :32:41.Government's new clause seven. If my honourable friend the Minister is

:32:42. > :32:47.able to give that assurance on top of the one he has just given, I say

:32:48. > :32:51.for my part I am inclined to accept new clause seven and not to move new

:32:52. > :32:54.clause one, heartened by the Government commitment to strive to

:32:55. > :33:00.make the new power work as possible in practice. For those of us who

:33:01. > :33:06.have campaigned for change, Mr Speaker, the remains the further

:33:07. > :33:10.issue of these bands. That is for another day, Mr Speaker. Today the

:33:11. > :33:14.house has the opportunity to lay down some moral red lines in UK

:33:15. > :33:18.foreign policy, to take a lead in denying safe haven to the dirty

:33:19. > :33:21.money of those profiting from the most appalling of international

:33:22. > :33:28.crimes, and we have the opportunity to send... I give way.

:33:29. > :33:31.Thank you for giving way. He says the Visa bands for another day, but

:33:32. > :33:40.these bands already exist as a possibility. -- bands on Visas.

:33:41. > :33:46.Could we reflect on how the existing band system could be, lamenting

:33:47. > :33:48.this. -- could it be complementing this?

:33:49. > :33:53.He is right and I think we will need a separate legislative vehicle to

:33:54. > :33:56.address the wider question of visa bans and he has made his point and

:33:57. > :34:01.he has been tenacious in campaigning for this. I want to move on to this

:34:02. > :34:07.at the appropriate time, I do. Today is really about the asset freezing

:34:08. > :34:11.side of things, and we have, Mr Speaker, the opportunity to send a

:34:12. > :34:15.message of solidarity to those fighting for their liberty that we

:34:16. > :34:18.in this country hold so dear. We have the opportunity to nurture the

:34:19. > :34:23.flame of freedom on behalf of those brave souls like a Magnitsky, who

:34:24. > :34:28.separate the very worst of crimes, standing up for the highest of

:34:29. > :34:34.principles. I rise to speak specifically on this

:34:35. > :34:36.grouping. It was going to be new clause seven and new clause wanted

:34:37. > :34:40.it looks like new clause one is being withdrawn in favour of the

:34:41. > :34:44.Government new clause seven. The Minister started off by saying that

:34:45. > :34:48.this bill has enjoyed a degree of cross-party consensus up to now in

:34:49. > :34:52.this parliamentary capacity, so I would like to say that His Majesty's

:34:53. > :34:58.loyal opposition will not stand in the way of the new new clause. --

:34:59. > :35:01.Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I want to welcome the amendment

:35:02. > :35:06.targeting asset seizure for those guilty of human rights abuses

:35:07. > :35:10.outside Britain who seek to use the UK to conceal their wealth. It has

:35:11. > :35:14.become colloquially known as the Magnitsky Amendment, we have heard

:35:15. > :35:17.some of the tragic details of that case just now. This bolsters the

:35:18. > :35:21.bill's in to tackle the growing concern around money-laundering,

:35:22. > :35:24.terrorist financing and corruption. There are figures out there, the

:35:25. > :35:35.estimated annual loss to money laundered globally is between two

:35:36. > :35:37.and 5% of global GDP. A staggering ?800 billion to ?2 trillion. We do

:35:38. > :35:43.not know the figures because it is heading, white-collar crime, but

:35:44. > :35:47.these are IMF World Bank figures. It is suggested that serious crime

:35:48. > :35:52.across the UK economy, ?24 billion at least annually per year, and the

:35:53. > :35:57.amount of money wondered every year here is between ?36 billion and ?90

:35:58. > :36:01.billion. That is a loss to our exchequer, so it is only right that

:36:02. > :36:06.we tighten up these things in this Bill. And this amendment tightens

:36:07. > :36:10.them up even further. Simply, those who have blood on their hands for

:36:11. > :36:14.the worst human rights abuses should not be able to bundle their dirty

:36:15. > :36:20.money through our country. In a recent article in the New York

:36:21. > :36:24.Times, the journalist Ben Judah, he attests, and I quote verbatim, just

:36:25. > :36:27.because there are not bodies piled up on the streets of London does not

:36:28. > :36:32.mean that London is not abetting those who pile them up elsewhere.

:36:33. > :36:35.The British establishment has long think ignorance of the business but

:36:36. > :36:42.the London laundromat is destroying this country's reputation. He uses

:36:43. > :36:47.colourful language but under this amendment, individuals who have been

:36:48. > :36:51.involved in or profited from human rights abuses, their names would be

:36:52. > :36:55.published and the ministers would be obliged to go forth with a freezing

:36:56. > :36:58.order for up to two years if provided with compelling evidence of

:36:59. > :37:03.abuse and it is in the public interest to do so. It will make

:37:04. > :37:07.despots think twice about using the UK as a safe place to stash dirty

:37:08. > :37:13.cash. By creating personal costs for the perpetrators, of these human

:37:14. > :37:16.rights abuses, we can protect whistle-blowers around the world, a

:37:17. > :37:25.fitting tribute to the legacy of surrogate Magnitsky. -- Sergei

:37:26. > :37:28.Magnitsky. And pleased to be given the

:37:29. > :37:32.opportunity to speak to the significant legislation which will

:37:33. > :37:36.help the overall objective of stopping the UK being used as a safe

:37:37. > :37:42.harbour for illegal proceeds as it currently is being used all too

:37:43. > :37:46.frequently. Like Sergei Magnitsky, I practised as a corporate lawyer. I

:37:47. > :37:50.ask if his situation, uncovering the largest tax fraud, would I have

:37:51. > :37:54.risked reporting to the authorities? Would I have refused to withdraw my

:37:55. > :38:01.statement was being imprisoned, beaten and denied medical help?

:38:02. > :38:06.Indeed, whilst being accused by the same perpetrators of the crime I

:38:07. > :38:09.blew the whistle of? With the connivance of politicians, judges,

:38:10. > :38:12.tax authorities, prosecutors and police, all the people running to be

:38:13. > :38:17.there to keep people safe. I would like to think I would stand up for

:38:18. > :38:20.what is right but I also appreciate that it is easier for me to say that

:38:21. > :38:26.living here in the UK under the rule of law rather than in the vicious,

:38:27. > :38:28.pernicious claptrap proceed that modern Russia has become elected for

:38:29. > :38:42.Sergei Magnitsky. These amendments are doing with

:38:43. > :38:46.individuals who have committed gross human rights abuses overseas against

:38:47. > :38:52.whistle-blowers. These provisions do not stop with Sergei Magnitsky all

:38:53. > :38:57.Russia and not all Russians are bad people. Russia is as good as an

:38:58. > :39:02.example as any as to show how these amendments address a glaring

:39:03. > :39:06.omission in our laws. Animation that has two long allowed the

:39:07. > :39:10.perpetrators of this is crimes against mutuality to base themselves

:39:11. > :39:16.and their ill gotten gains in the UK as though nothing had happened. On

:39:17. > :39:23.the unwritten law that they do not do anything illegal whilst in the

:39:24. > :39:27.UK. They will almost come from countries where the crimes of the

:39:28. > :39:32.person are mixed up with crimes of the state. Russia operates a

:39:33. > :39:36.repressive nasty society where human rights are rough and ignored, media

:39:37. > :39:41.suppressed or where journalists are killed. Democratic opposition is

:39:42. > :39:46.suppressed and businessmen have a glass ceiling beyond which they told

:39:47. > :39:52.who to pay and how to toe the line. Russia has and diversify oil reliant

:39:53. > :39:56.economy and a political system by a dictator who looks to address his

:39:57. > :40:07.failures at home with threats abroad. All of this coming from a

:40:08. > :40:13.country with an economy smaller than Italy. How does Putin get away with

:40:14. > :40:20.it? With communism that was a belief and ideology misguided. Now there is

:40:21. > :40:25.no belief in anything except money. Modern Russia is having small

:40:26. > :40:31.numbers of rich people making the decisions and being bound together

:40:32. > :40:35.through their honour. If the thieves thought President Putin was not

:40:36. > :40:39.going to let them keep their money overseas, I have heard many experts

:40:40. > :40:43.say Putin wouldn't last very long. This is one good reason to follow

:40:44. > :40:49.the black money through to where it reaches the UK and sees it. I'm not

:40:50. > :40:52.acting against the thieves and torturers in the UK, we are

:40:53. > :40:57.indirectly bolstering support for many of the worst regimes in the

:40:58. > :41:00.world. The other point is thieves rarely steal for the sake of it.

:41:01. > :41:03.They still because they wish to enjoy the benefits of their ill

:41:04. > :41:09.gotten gains but where should they spend it or how to keep their money

:41:10. > :41:14.safe until they spend it is the challenge. The best places someone

:41:15. > :41:19.like the UK where the rule of law and property rights are sacrosanct.

:41:20. > :41:23.This is why the Home Affairs Select Committee .2 ?100 billion of black

:41:24. > :41:31.money being laundered here in the UK every year. Is why Russian and other

:41:32. > :41:37.human rights abuses money has been pouring into many properties and

:41:38. > :41:43.prized British education. I went on a trip to Hong Kong and heard that

:41:44. > :41:47.after the recent Beijing corruption crackdown, the Hong Kong jewellery

:41:48. > :41:51.shops have reduced takings of up to 60%. Hong Kong commercial and

:41:52. > :41:56.residential property prices have also stopped rocketing. The

:41:57. > :42:03.criminals come to London, many will be happy to pay top property prices

:42:04. > :42:06.if they feel their money is 80% less likely to be confiscated in London

:42:07. > :42:10.man in their home countries should they fall out of favour with the

:42:11. > :42:17.powers that be. Even with higher stamp duty and the annual company

:42:18. > :42:24.overseas tax, the security of the people anonymously owning property

:42:25. > :42:32.can be worth it. Do we want this money here? We have a decision to

:42:33. > :42:37.make. To evaluate the tax revenue more than the human rights abuses

:42:38. > :42:43.and the legality it is connected with. We prepare to leave the EU,

:42:44. > :42:47.this issue will become more relevant as we attempt to negotiate

:42:48. > :42:52.free-trade agreements and cosy up to the regimes around the world. We

:42:53. > :42:57.need to set a marker and new clause one is providing the mechanics of

:42:58. > :43:01.action. It is making a statement against the values of torturers and

:43:02. > :43:05.other criminals who might see it as an easy drop-off point for their

:43:06. > :43:11.assets. This clause has been initiated by my honourable friend

:43:12. > :43:16.and is now also recognised by the Home Secretary's Amendment as an

:43:17. > :43:20.important issue. It is highly commendable. I want to put on record

:43:21. > :43:24.my congratulations to the Minister at his department for listening to

:43:25. > :43:30.the case and come forward with a meaningful compromise amendment. The

:43:31. > :43:37.Government new clause seven falls short of the US Sergei Magnitsky

:43:38. > :43:43.act. Furthermore the Government clearly wishes to keep to themselves

:43:44. > :43:48.the choice of whom to prosecute an asset sees. I am minded to go along

:43:49. > :43:51.with this giving that many or most seizures would have political

:43:52. > :43:56.implications though I doubt they should be left to NGO's to

:43:57. > :43:59.prosecute. I would be happy with this if I am given comfort that the

:44:00. > :44:04.Government intend to use these powers once this bill is passed. On

:44:05. > :44:12.the question of their list, I think we are missing a trick here. One of

:44:13. > :44:19.the strongest aspects of the US listed thousands of seamen who is

:44:20. > :44:22.blamed for what. I note that the US Treasury's office of foreign assets

:44:23. > :44:29.control update the list last month. If you search engine the Sergei

:44:30. > :44:33.Magnitsky act, they look at the job titles. Naming and shaming is a huge

:44:34. > :44:37.negative issue the human rights abuses are wished to live in

:44:38. > :44:42.security of criminal darkness. It is also a strong deterrent to others

:44:43. > :44:47.who might consider such abuse. But the ministers say if he has consider

:44:48. > :44:51.publishing a list of those who will be prosecuted under these

:44:52. > :44:58.provisions? I am not sure if this would be included in the stats which

:44:59. > :45:04.he said he would be publishing. Clarification here would be helpful.

:45:05. > :45:09.My reading is that it is more likely looking at seizing assets but to

:45:10. > :45:16.stop the undesirables travelling to the UK, trading in the UK, using UK

:45:17. > :45:19.banks and buying UK property. Could the ministers say whether these

:45:20. > :45:22.types of issues are dealt with through new clause seven or perhaps

:45:23. > :45:30.other legislation that would be fused at the same time? Perhaps I

:45:31. > :45:35.can inform my honourable friend on this abuse issue. We can refuse

:45:36. > :45:38.visas to a person who does not meet the immigration rules, evidence that

:45:39. > :45:44.a person has been involved in human rights abuse will be taken into

:45:45. > :45:47.account when taking a Visa application. We can do that and the

:45:48. > :45:54.power is there that the Government to do it and we have exercised it in

:45:55. > :45:58.the past. It would be helpful if he would think because the Government's

:45:59. > :46:04.position that when a prosecution is taken, a Visa exclusion should be in

:46:05. > :46:09.that and should be considered by the court. If the sanction person were

:46:10. > :46:13.to have his or her assets confiscated but they could go to buy

:46:14. > :46:18.more assets or conduct business in the UK, the new clause seven

:46:19. > :46:22.provision would lack the required teeth. In new clause seven, it

:46:23. > :46:28.refers to proceedings needed to be brought within 20 years which seems

:46:29. > :46:34.like a short period in any event. It looks to be 20 years from the

:46:35. > :46:38.commission. Can I ask why this is not from the end of the abuse? If

:46:39. > :46:44.someone has been abused with the right to prosecute, what they fail?

:46:45. > :46:48.Would the court be required to connect the human rights abuse to

:46:49. > :46:53.the assets being seized? In a situation where the individual is

:46:54. > :46:57.accused of organising the torch of three people that only steals from

:46:58. > :47:02.one of the three and then moves the stolen goods into the UK, in such a

:47:03. > :47:05.situation, with the seizure have to be tied to the only one incidence of

:47:06. > :47:12.torture which relates to the stolen goods? After the legislation is put

:47:13. > :47:18.in place, is the Government actually intending to act? Mehri -- many

:47:19. > :47:22.foreign nationals want to live here rather than the US so we have

:47:23. > :47:25.significant influence in setting standards of civilised behaviour

:47:26. > :47:34.that we expect the people to live stay here. I ask the Minister how we

:47:35. > :47:38.are now going to say to those that have been merciless of their own

:47:39. > :47:43.country will still bet you'll gotten gains and we do not want you here.

:47:44. > :47:52.We do not want your money here and if you do come here, we will act. If

:47:53. > :48:01.this is -- if this is the Minister's position, when he clarified please.

:48:02. > :48:05.I want to pay tribute to the Minister not least the bringing

:48:06. > :48:12.forward the bill because we all accept across all parts of the House

:48:13. > :48:17.that the corrupt money that is around in the British financial

:48:18. > :48:22.system and our housing market is a source of crime and corruption

:48:23. > :48:28.across the whole of the world and it means it has a detrimental effect on

:48:29. > :48:34.the housing market in the UK. Large number is -- large numbers of houses

:48:35. > :48:38.ought and it is a means of laundering money. It might not

:48:39. > :48:42.affect the majority of our constituents but they will be buying

:48:43. > :48:46.property portfolios all the way down the housing market. By simply

:48:47. > :48:51.increasing the value of those at the top of end -- top end of the market,

:48:52. > :48:57.you are having an effect on the whole of the housing market. We have

:48:58. > :49:00.to tackle this issue of corrupt money in the British system coming

:49:01. > :49:05.from overseas. I welcome the main divisions of the bill and I applaud

:49:06. > :49:11.the Minister for trying to come some way towards a piece of legislation

:49:12. > :49:19.which might be termed the Sergei Magnitsky clause. I want to pay

:49:20. > :49:23.tribute to the honourable member. We have had 70 conversations on the

:49:24. > :49:31.subject for a long time and we still do haven't decided how to say so

:49:32. > :49:38.gay. One of the most depressing things, to add to the long list of

:49:39. > :49:45.what he himself said, that not only was he prosecuted posthumously,

:49:46. > :49:49.which must be a new low and putting two fingers up to the normal

:49:50. > :49:55.standards of criminal prosecution around the world, but also I am

:49:56. > :49:59.absolutely certain that significant numbers of the people who are

:50:00. > :50:04.prohibited from entering the United States of America advent entered the

:50:05. > :50:08.United Kingdom since his death. That is why I say to the Minister, he

:50:09. > :50:16.needs to think again about this issue of Visa bands. I do look to

:50:17. > :50:21.the US. Several members have referred to this already. The United

:50:22. > :50:26.States of America has gone further than us. The Minister tried to say

:50:27. > :50:31.they have a different legal system. Yes, they do but it is based on the

:50:32. > :50:35.fundamental principles as ours and I would have thought on the same

:50:36. > :50:45.values as ours. That is why we ought to be going as far as the US in this

:50:46. > :50:50.regard. I merely note that when the Commons debated this on the 13th of

:50:51. > :50:54.December 2010, the motion was carried unanimously that we should

:50:55. > :51:01.proceed with a Mac members -- with a Sergei Magnitsky act. He said we had

:51:02. > :51:06.to wait to see what the United States of America would do. We are

:51:07. > :51:11.not just going to see what the United States of America does at the

:51:12. > :51:15.moment. We might need to choose our own path in relation to these

:51:16. > :51:23.matters. I sometimes feel as if the UK is dragging its heels on this

:51:24. > :51:30.issue. Magnitsky was killed when I was Minister for Europe in the

:51:31. > :51:37.Foreign Office and so most of this has happened since 2010. Most of the

:51:38. > :51:41.debate has happened between 2010. My personal perception was David

:51:42. > :51:45.Cameron and President Obama were reluctant to show a strong arm to

:51:46. > :51:50.Russia because they thought that by pressing the reset button, that was

:51:51. > :51:57.Barack Obama's view and you would get major concessions out of Putin.

:51:58. > :52:02.That has simply not proved to be an effective strategy. In every single

:52:03. > :52:09.record, Putin has taken that moment as a sign of weakness and proceeded

:52:10. > :52:13.to use force in greater degree. David Cameron, on the Thursday he

:52:14. > :52:18.became leader of the Conservative Party, he went to Georgia to stand

:52:19. > :52:21.with the Georgians against the invasion of Georgia and there are

:52:22. > :52:27.still Russian troops in Georgia. We have had the Ukraine. There is clear

:52:28. > :52:35.evidence of Russian direct corrupt involvement in elections in France,

:52:36. > :52:40.Germany, the US and I would argue also in this country. Many believe

:52:41. > :52:46.that some of the highest levels decisions affecting security in the

:52:47. > :52:52.UK, Germany, France and the US are now compromised by Russian

:52:53. > :53:02.infiltration. The murder of Magnitsky and his -- him

:53:03. > :53:05.posthumously been put on trial shows Russia is a clip Tok received. It is

:53:06. > :53:10.ruled by people that have stolen from the people and use every means

:53:11. > :53:16.to protect themselves and guard their position with jealousy. It is

:53:17. > :53:22.the politics of jealousy at large. My fear is it is always affecting

:53:23. > :53:26.the UK and for that matter, it has affected one of our closest allies,

:53:27. > :53:34.Cyprus, where much Russian money is stored away and laundered illegally.

:53:35. > :53:39.A sign is it is impossible to extradite anyone from Russia because

:53:40. > :53:43.Russia will not allow the extradition in its law and

:53:44. > :53:47.constitution of any Russian National. We are unable to

:53:48. > :53:52.prosecute. In many cases we are talking about... I must say I am

:53:53. > :53:57.still mystified why the authorities in this country have failed in

:53:58. > :54:04.relation to any of the assets belonging to those in this country,

:54:05. > :54:09.who were involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and the corruption

:54:10. > :54:14.he unveiled. Many people have pointed to some ?30 million worth of

:54:15. > :54:22.such assets, none of which has yet been seized or frozen. Whilst in the

:54:23. > :54:27.11 other countries in the world, ?43 million... Sorry, $43 million mark

:54:28. > :54:35.has been seized or frozen. It feels this country has been reluctant or

:54:36. > :54:40.had a knack -- inadequate laws. It is not just in relation to Magnitsky

:54:41. > :54:47.and Russia, but if you look like the situation in Kazakhstan... There is

:54:48. > :54:53.one person reckoned to have ?147 million worth of London property

:54:54. > :55:01.there are, and here's the former secret police in Kazakhstan. He was

:55:02. > :55:04.ambassador to Austria, then Austria, Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia. He

:55:05. > :55:10.amassed an enormous fortune during those jobs from banking, oil

:55:11. > :55:14.refinery, call Communications and virtually every form of state

:55:15. > :55:20.monopoly he could get. He was the son-in-law of the former president,

:55:21. > :55:23.and he was charged with money-laundering through the British

:55:24. > :55:30.Virgin Islands. Again, another reason why we need to take more

:55:31. > :55:33.concerted action. He was charged in Austria of torture, the torture of

:55:34. > :55:38.two bodyguards and the murder of the opposition leader in Kazakhstan, and

:55:39. > :55:45.of a cashback journalist. He committed suicide -- a journalist

:55:46. > :55:48.from Kazakhstan. Up until 2015, up until that moment, there were still

:55:49. > :55:54.no system in the UK which were then we would have been able to tackle

:55:55. > :55:57.his financial assets in the United Kingdom and seek recovery of them.

:55:58. > :56:01.Indeed there is an issue now about what we should do about those who

:56:02. > :56:06.have inherited those substantial assets. I think those who have

:56:07. > :56:13.inherited them would certainly not be covered by the Government's new

:56:14. > :56:15.clause but would be covered by the honourable member for is Jerome

:56:16. > :56:21.Walton's new clause, which is why it still support it, even if he is not

:56:22. > :56:24.going to pitch a vote. The honourable member for the Scottish

:56:25. > :56:29.National party referred earlier to the issue of Libya, a major issue

:56:30. > :56:36.because the Libyan transitional Government found some $10 billion

:56:37. > :56:40.worth had been taken from the Libyan people, depriving schools, hospitals

:56:41. > :56:46.and the whole of the Libyan state infrastructure under Colonel

:56:47. > :56:50.Gaddafi. And that, a lot of that money has clearly come to the UK,

:56:51. > :56:52.and the Libyan authorities have been trying to pursue that money here

:56:53. > :56:58.that have done it phenomenally difficult to do so. As far as I am

:56:59. > :57:06.aware, the only asset that has so far been discovered as a ?10 million

:57:07. > :57:09.hand-out. The minister suggested the threshold in new clause one was too

:57:10. > :57:13.low, and it was just too easy for people to be able to bring

:57:14. > :57:18.prosecutions, and that it would fall foul of the Human Rights Act. I hope

:57:19. > :57:24.we are keeping the Human Rights Act, incidentally. I would argue quite

:57:25. > :57:27.the reverse that in actual fact as a honourable member pointed out, this

:57:28. > :57:32.has to go to a senior judge in the High Court. You do not just turn up

:57:33. > :57:36.and say, I want to have this chap's asset frozen, please can I have it?

:57:37. > :57:40.You must make a proper argument. It is on the balance of probability, a

:57:41. > :57:47.standard evidential basis in most civil actions, and his bill places a

:57:48. > :57:52.duty on the Secretary of State, that is true, to pursue these matters.

:57:53. > :57:58.But only where it is in the public interest to do so. There are plenty

:57:59. > :58:04.of protections against the abuse, which seems to be what the minister

:58:05. > :58:08.was suggesting might otherwise apply. There are significant

:58:09. > :58:15.differences between the two new clauses,, as Huntington's honourable

:58:16. > :58:20.member mentioned. The Government's new clause only applies to abuses by

:58:21. > :58:23.the public officials, and definition of public official in the UK is

:58:24. > :58:30.established in statutory law and that is a significant notation. As

:58:31. > :58:31.said already, no duty for the prosecuting authorities or

:58:32. > :58:39.Government to initiate recovery proceeding at all. It will apply

:58:40. > :58:44.under the new public clause and there will be no public register of

:58:45. > :58:46.abusers subject of human rights abusers, subject to recovery

:58:47. > :58:50.proceedings. There will be no designation orders, which means it

:58:51. > :58:57.will be easy for people who felt they were about to be proceeded

:58:58. > :58:59.against two squirrel their assets away to another domain quickly,

:59:00. > :59:05.because there is no system of freezing them before recovery

:59:06. > :59:10.proceedings start. There is... It only applies to new degrading

:59:11. > :59:13.treatment or punishment after the incorporation of the act, rather

:59:14. > :59:19.than the events that have already taken place, and also, as has been

:59:20. > :59:24.referred to, I does not apply to human rights abuses that happened

:59:25. > :59:27.more than 20 years ago. I hope the Minister will respond to the point

:59:28. > :59:33.made by the honourable member for Huntington when the 20 years begins

:59:34. > :59:38.and ends. In all of this, it just feels as if the Government still has

:59:39. > :59:44.a view in its mind, which as you can somehow or other please some of

:59:45. > :59:48.these people around the world and they want to pussyfoot around the

:59:49. > :59:52.issue. I do not think that needs the present danger and Snead, and in

:59:53. > :59:56.particular the risk that there is to the financial impropriety and

:59:57. > :00:03.reputation of this country around the world. Because we cannot prosper

:00:04. > :00:10.if we allow Gregory and corruption to flourish in this country through

:00:11. > :00:13.the back door. -- bribery and corruption. I think we will say that

:00:14. > :00:18.none of these people whether from Russia or any other country are

:00:19. > :00:21.welcome in this United Kingdom, we should say so. I have said before I

:00:22. > :00:24.believe many of those involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and

:00:25. > :00:27.the corruption he unveiled have actually visited the UK,

:00:28. > :00:35.notwithstanding what the minister says, which is that a visa can be

:00:36. > :00:38.refused or any of these people, which may be the case but we cannot

:00:39. > :00:41.know that they are being excluded and they cannot know that, unless we

:00:42. > :00:48.can bring these two edges together, the visa ban, and the Magnitsky

:00:49. > :00:53.proper acts such as they have in the USA. One final point, Deputy

:00:54. > :00:58.Speaker, is that we are present as... I think the minister said

:00:59. > :01:01.earlier, we are presently operating under unsettling circumstances where

:01:02. > :01:05.we are in the European Union, and we rely... The Prime Minister has

:01:06. > :01:08.regularly set, which yes, from European councils, it has been great

:01:09. > :01:13.to be able to tough sanctions against Russia imposed by the

:01:14. > :01:17.European Union. If we were the only country arguing in that European

:01:18. > :01:20.Council meeting for such tough sanctions, when we are no longer

:01:21. > :01:24.there, it is going to be much more difficult for us to be able to

:01:25. > :01:29.prosecute the foreign policy that we want, and in particular the policy

:01:30. > :01:32.in relation to Russia will stop the honourable member has a completely

:01:33. > :01:35.different view from me on this last point, but I hope he would agree,

:01:36. > :01:40.and I hope the whole House would agree, that we will have to find new

:01:41. > :01:47.mechanisms to be able to ensure that we do not become the centre spot for

:01:48. > :01:53.international corruption, bribery, and human rights abuses who want to

:01:54. > :01:58.abuse the rights and privileges of owning and living in the United

:01:59. > :02:03.Kingdom. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a

:02:04. > :02:07.great pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman. Much as I

:02:08. > :02:12.agreed with what he had to say, some I did not agree with but we will put

:02:13. > :02:16.that to one side. I want to congratulate my honourable friend

:02:17. > :02:25.from East sure and Waltham, never forgetting Waltham, in his patch.

:02:26. > :02:31.Because I think he has achieved an enormous progress on this and when

:02:32. > :02:37.he started, I don't think he had a chance of getting this through. --

:02:38. > :02:45.the honourable member for Esher and Walton. A huge progress from the

:02:46. > :02:48.Government, and it is usually out of panic from defeat but there is no

:02:49. > :02:53.possibility I do not think. These concessions come out of the power of

:02:54. > :02:58.my honourable friend's argument to right a wrong and to include within

:02:59. > :03:03.British law something I think will make a difference. I'm sure the

:03:04. > :03:10.house is very grateful for what he has done. I stand before you as the

:03:11. > :03:16.UK Government's champion of anti-corruption. When I was

:03:17. > :03:27.appointed by David Cameron, I came out to find that he had described me

:03:28. > :03:34.as the czar. -- the anti-corruption czar. The Daily Mail shortened that

:03:35. > :03:44.to corruption czar, one step too close to the Romans. -- Romanovs. I

:03:45. > :03:47.went to a meeting in Paris and one of the speakers, bearing in mind

:03:48. > :03:52.this was an and high corruption conference, one of the speakers

:03:53. > :03:59.talked about taking a lorry worth full of goods that were time

:04:00. > :04:02.sensitive, and customs asked for a facilitation payment, a private

:04:03. > :04:07.facilitation payment, and how many people would make that payment? And,

:04:08. > :04:14.to the amazement of myself, and I suspect the greater amazement of the

:04:15. > :04:20.person asking the question, 60% of the hands went up that they would. I

:04:21. > :04:23.was proud to say that if that lorry driver had been British, not only

:04:24. > :04:28.would he have committed a crime that he would have been prosecuted on his

:04:29. > :04:35.return to the UK for doing that, and so would his company. I think this

:04:36. > :04:44.amendment, amendment seven, the excellent amendment. New clause, I

:04:45. > :04:48.beg your pardon. It has to be seen in that context that we have been

:04:49. > :04:51.gradually translating this. I am old enough to remember listening to a

:04:52. > :04:56.minister, a Conservative minister, I am ashamed to say, saying on the

:04:57. > :05:00.radio a number of years ago, I want British companies to bribe.

:05:01. > :05:06.Everybody bribes and I want Britain to be among those that break. It was

:05:07. > :05:12.a ludicrous thing to say but it was the kind of reaction that we got to

:05:13. > :05:17.the braving. They said, everybody is doing it and we are doing putting UK

:05:18. > :05:25.companies at the till your risk. It has not been the case. -- peculiar

:05:26. > :05:28.risk. After the bribery act, we have seen boardrooms that in due

:05:29. > :05:32.diligence to ensure they do not face the problem, and this is part of

:05:33. > :05:35.that process and progress of triangulating. I do not think we

:05:36. > :05:40.have seen any drop-off in terms of British business. So I am pleased

:05:41. > :05:47.and this has to be seen within the context of the call for a

:05:48. > :05:50.consultation on economic crimes, and in the place of the board on

:05:51. > :05:57.economic crimes. It should be seen within the context of transparency,

:05:58. > :06:05.beneficial ownership, of property in this country owned by people who

:06:06. > :06:13.want to trade with the Government and want to see something positive

:06:14. > :06:18.coming out of that. So, given the degree of consensus that seems to be

:06:19. > :06:23.breaking out around this particular issue, I have a slightly shorter

:06:24. > :06:32.speech than I originally had intended. But what this will do is

:06:33. > :06:36.it should ensure that bloodstained dictators, that those on the take in

:06:37. > :06:44.that Tucker sees around the world, and I do entirely agree that a post

:06:45. > :06:48.you must conviction for dishonesty, for death, is as ridiculous as I

:06:49. > :06:53.think occurred in the French Revolution, of putting animals out

:06:54. > :06:58.on trials. -- in kleptocracies around the world. We must understand

:06:59. > :07:02.there are part of the world, governments and progress business,

:07:03. > :07:11.where governments and Private business move hand-in-hand. It looks

:07:12. > :07:14.like the very epitome of puritan restraint in comparison. And it is

:07:15. > :07:19.to those people we are sending out a clear message that their assets will

:07:20. > :07:27.be seized, that their lives will be interrupted, and that those who seek

:07:28. > :07:32.to buy expensive flats, expensive jewellery, that they will face a

:07:33. > :07:43.problem. We have dealt with, I think, the worry of third parties

:07:44. > :07:47.and vexatious claims, and I think I will not go over that point. There

:07:48. > :07:53.is a further point which needs to be emphasised, which is this. Often,

:07:54. > :07:59.particularly non-government organisations, they play an enormous

:08:00. > :08:07.part in bringing prosecutions together, or bringing evidence to

:08:08. > :08:12.the authorities. Now, I suspect and I have had the privilege of seeing

:08:13. > :08:16.how the Serious Fraud Office works, a lot of those cases are compact and

:08:17. > :08:24.a lot of those cases take a lot of time. I think there would have been

:08:25. > :08:27.a risk where were third parties allied to make these applications

:08:28. > :08:34.that they might actively tip of an ongoing investigation. We must build

:08:35. > :08:36.up a compelling reason why. And why it should be the state of the

:08:37. > :08:44.particular prosecution authorities that bring these.

:08:45. > :08:52.I want to end by agreeing with my honourable friend for Huntingdon.

:08:53. > :08:56.This is pointless unless there are prosecutions. It is useless unless

:08:57. > :09:03.there are prosecutions. I had the honour to talk to various

:09:04. > :09:07.governments around the world and often they will talk about the

:09:08. > :09:11.marvellous laws they have and dealing with bribery. But the number

:09:12. > :09:17.of prosecutions that are not seen through. The number of prosecutions

:09:18. > :09:25.not made. I was with a country which I shan't name, I was pressed on

:09:26. > :09:30.this, they managed to produce that that they had prosecuted a local

:09:31. > :09:34.government official for taking away eight television aerial and making a

:09:35. > :09:39.profit on that. Yet they were dealing, a place riddled with

:09:40. > :09:43.prosecution. Unless the people at the top get their collar felt, this

:09:44. > :09:50.will not be effective. But I think this along with other clauses and

:09:51. > :09:55.amendments in this bill should make a difference so I am pleased to be

:09:56. > :09:58.supporting the government and I entered the game by congratulating

:09:59. > :10:05.my honourable friend foreseeing this through. Deputy Speaker, I would

:10:06. > :10:10.like to make some beef comments and start by thanking the member for

:10:11. > :10:16.Esher and Walton for putting this together. The Minister for

:10:17. > :10:20.responding positively, I have been in House long enough to know that

:10:21. > :10:27.ministers often do not respond positively, even it took cross-party

:10:28. > :10:32.efforts. There was someone else I would like to page review to, that

:10:33. > :10:37.is Bill Browder, who many members will have met. He has really led the

:10:38. > :10:43.charge on this. I am sure that what you'll doesn't want is a tribute but

:10:44. > :10:49.to see action on this. I share some of the reservations that the

:10:50. > :10:53.honourable member for Rhondda has around the fact that there have been

:10:54. > :10:59.in other countries, assets seized that were related to the Magnitsky

:11:00. > :11:12.case. But it seems London as many members would accept, is somewhere

:11:13. > :11:16.where some people dubiously put their assets.

:11:17. > :11:23.The Minister has reassured us that the prosecuting authorities, not

:11:24. > :11:27.that he can put pressure on them but he has confirmed that the

:11:28. > :11:33.prosecuting authorities would indeed prosecute if there was evidence. And

:11:34. > :11:37.I can assure Bill and others that I think he would have the support of

:11:38. > :11:42.the House as expressed by the Minister if this evidence is

:11:43. > :11:47.forthcoming. Or if there is more evidence or more detailed evidence

:11:48. > :11:51.that the Minister for one has endorsed the need for firm action to

:11:52. > :11:55.be taken. Which he says could be taken even under existing

:11:56. > :12:02.legislation but even more effectively in relation to the new

:12:03. > :12:08.clause put forward. I understand the reason why I and others would prefer

:12:09. > :12:11.to see new clause one but I understand why the Minister has put

:12:12. > :12:18.forward his own new clause. And today, in-house, we would not have

:12:19. > :12:20.the numbers to push and win successfully the cross-party

:12:21. > :12:26.amendment. What we will have to do do is follow this matter very

:12:27. > :12:28.closely. I welcome that the Minister is going to publish statistics on

:12:29. > :12:35.it. A number of members have referred to the Magnitsky act. If

:12:36. > :12:44.members want to see the list of names, they could look my motion 113

:12:45. > :12:52.forward I named them. I tabled that and it listed the Russian citizens

:12:53. > :12:57.subject to the Magnitsky act in America. The member for Rhondda

:12:58. > :13:02.reminded me it may need to be redone because there have been new names

:13:03. > :13:07.added in the American version. That information is there if people need

:13:08. > :13:09.to refer to it. With that Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome that the

:13:10. > :13:14.government have moved on this but the proof will be in the pudding. If

:13:15. > :13:19.evidence is forthcoming that these assets are here in the way that Bill

:13:20. > :13:25.Browder and others believe, that the government will ensure that those

:13:26. > :13:29.responsible are prosecuted and brought to justice for the gross

:13:30. > :13:37.human rights railways and is they have committed. That macro human

:13:38. > :13:40.rights violations. I can be brief in my intervention as a symmetry of new

:13:41. > :13:44.clause one. Because my right honourable friend and honourable

:13:45. > :13:49.friends across the House and those across the House have made the case

:13:50. > :13:57.with such eloquence on what is known as the Magnitsky amendment. Also, it

:13:58. > :14:00.seems to me as a signatory that the government has listened and the

:14:01. > :14:05.Minister has quite rightly heard the cross-party voice on these issues

:14:06. > :14:10.and brought forward a new clause seven. I congratulate the Minister

:14:11. > :14:15.on having achieved that. My honourable friend for Esher and

:14:16. > :14:21.Walton who has done such a good job on this pointed out that we must not

:14:22. > :14:26.allow the best to be the enemy of the good in his acceptance of the

:14:27. > :14:29.government amendment. And the story of his Paris meeting that my right

:14:30. > :14:35.honourable friend, the anti-corruption czar made reminds me

:14:36. > :14:40.of how complex the attack on corruption is. Of which we must all

:14:41. > :14:47.be a part. I remember being told by an eminent New York lawyer, and

:14:48. > :14:52.anti-corruption lawyer, who had been engaged in a variety of

:14:53. > :14:56.anti-corruption mechanisms. He was once invited to Afghanistan to give

:14:57. > :15:01.a lecture on how to tackle corruption. A vast number in this

:15:02. > :15:03.auditorium of Afghan officials turned up and to his horror, he

:15:04. > :15:09.suddenly realised halfway through this lecture, as he observed the

:15:10. > :15:13.Rolex watches that they had not turned up to learn how to tackle

:15:14. > :15:19.corruption but had turned up in order to learn how to evade the

:15:20. > :15:25.tackling of corruption. Corruption is a cancer. It is insidious. In a

:15:26. > :15:29.whole variety of ways. One of the good things about this bill is that

:15:30. > :15:38.it is seeking in this complex area to make a number of very clear

:15:39. > :15:41.aspects of progress. In an area where I feel the former by Minister

:15:42. > :15:44.and former Chancellor of the Exchequer and others in the

:15:45. > :15:50.government on these benches have made a very big contribution in that

:15:51. > :15:56.fight to tackle corruption. I want to make two brief final points. The

:15:57. > :16:02.first is, I think the Minister has recognised this, that there has been

:16:03. > :16:08.in the Magnitsky case, and I speak as someone who knows Bill Browder

:16:09. > :16:14.and has been horrified to hear the tale of the experience he has

:16:15. > :16:22.undergone. I think it is clear that the British law enforcement agencies

:16:23. > :16:27.have shown a degree of confusion, delay and obfuscation in their

:16:28. > :16:31.handling of these matters. I think there are issues of the Minister to

:16:32. > :16:35.ordination and effectiveness and I hope very much the Minister will

:16:36. > :16:42.ensure this remains clearly on his agenda, tackling this. And the

:16:43. > :16:46.second and final point Madam Deputy Speaker is that we need in Britain

:16:47. > :16:51.to send a clear signal about the approach we take to human rights

:16:52. > :16:55.abuses. And to money-laundering. And the failure to send a clear signal

:16:56. > :16:59.on which hopefully will be ended by the decision the House takes this

:17:00. > :17:05.afternoon, damages our international relations. Britain's relations and

:17:06. > :17:09.dealings with Russia are very complex. We need to work with Russia

:17:10. > :17:14.on a number of matters where we have a common interest. But we need to be

:17:15. > :17:18.absolutely clear as well where we stand on the issues, which my

:17:19. > :17:24.honourable friend for Huntingdon so eloquently set out in his speech, so

:17:25. > :17:27.that there is no misunderstanding where the British government stands

:17:28. > :17:32.on many of the horrific aspects of Russian governance and Russian

:17:33. > :17:37.conduct. Which my honourable friend set out. I have been a strong critic

:17:38. > :17:43.in this House of Russian abuses of human rights and commitment of war

:17:44. > :17:47.crimes in Syria. And I do think given that we have this other than

:17:48. > :17:51.mention of areas where we must be able to work constructively with

:17:52. > :17:55.Russia, that being clear on where we stand on these human rights issues

:17:56. > :18:06.in this House, with our government is truly important. Thank you Madam

:18:07. > :18:11.Deputy Speaker. I think we have had an important and well-informed

:18:12. > :18:13.debate. I am grateful for the contributions of honourable

:18:14. > :18:18.colleagues and honourable friends. And the honourable friend for Esher

:18:19. > :18:21.and Walton for his remarks. I have done my best as the Minister to

:18:22. > :18:28.speak to as many colleagues as possible during this. To listen to

:18:29. > :18:32.their concerns and to go back to the law enforcement agencies and ask us

:18:33. > :18:37.questions. I cannot say if my predecessors did or did not. Our job

:18:38. > :18:42.as ministers is to go beyond just the briefing papers that we have all

:18:43. > :18:47.received in our boxes in the past. To test the resolve. And to send a

:18:48. > :18:51.clear message to the agencies that when hopefully this bill is passed

:18:52. > :18:57.by Parliament and becomes an act, that we want to see prosecutions. We

:18:58. > :19:00.want to see the power was used. I will not interfere with how they

:19:01. > :19:05.choose to apply those powers. I will not choose which ones they choose to

:19:06. > :19:11.use to achieve the right effect. I think the main aim is to make sure

:19:12. > :19:15.we say loud and clear that we don't want money-laundering is in this

:19:16. > :19:19.country. We don't want organised criminals, people who abuse people

:19:20. > :19:23.with torture and inhumane treatment coming here. You are not welcome in

:19:24. > :19:27.this country and nor is your dirty money. If you come to this country,

:19:28. > :19:31.we will try and have you and we will certainly try and have your money.

:19:32. > :19:35.If we can return that money to regimes it has been stolen from, we

:19:36. > :19:40.will aim to do that. We have started doing that, returning ?27 million to

:19:41. > :19:47.Macau recently and a memorandum of understanding with Nigeria. If we

:19:48. > :19:50.can, we shall do that. I think this amendment and the new clause one,

:19:51. > :19:54.and there are many things I agree agree with in the spirit of that

:19:55. > :19:59.clause and says it loud and clear. Those who want to exploit laws

:20:00. > :20:04.around the world and immunity or state sponsorship or state umbrella

:20:05. > :20:12.or tacit support, it won't be good enough. I think our new clause helps

:20:13. > :20:15.achieve that. I have also highlighted to the honourable member

:20:16. > :20:20.that we will have a reporting on the use of this revision. The government

:20:21. > :20:26.has agreed in conjunction with the public amounts committee -- Public

:20:27. > :20:32.Accounts Committee, to make them public. As I made clear in committee

:20:33. > :20:42.stages that we will commit to include the use of this provision.

:20:43. > :20:49.Will also include the names and titles of people from him the assets

:20:50. > :20:55.have been taken? I will have to check back with my honourable

:20:56. > :21:02.friend. Certainly the matter of a court action will be a matter of

:21:03. > :21:07.court record. So that would become a matter of public record. And

:21:08. > :21:13.therefore available to all. I think that is important. Just to

:21:14. > :21:18.reiterate, the government is at present on the sanctions issue

:21:19. > :21:22.taking an assessment of existing sanctions policy post Brexit to

:21:23. > :21:25.ensure we can continue our proactive approach. Any changes to our Sam

:21:26. > :21:29.Jones will be considered in that context rather than making any

:21:30. > :21:31.changes at this point. We will continue a dialogue with

:21:32. > :21:35.parliamentary colleagues on this work. And to say to my right

:21:36. > :21:39.honourable friend the member for Esher and Walton, I will ensure the

:21:40. > :21:43.spirit of his new clause one amendment is carried forward into

:21:44. > :21:47.those discussions. But I think the time to do that is not now with this

:21:48. > :21:53.piece of legislation, the time is obviously when that assessment is

:21:54. > :21:56.being made and we come to a place post Brexit where we will have to

:21:57. > :22:03.look at sanctions in the wider picture. Just on the issue about the

:22:04. > :22:07.duty of law-enforcement agencies to use these powers. Part of the rule

:22:08. > :22:11.of law, the strength of our system as opposed to perhaps some other

:22:12. > :22:17.regimes that have been talked about today. Is that our law enforcement

:22:18. > :22:22.agencies are operationally independent. That I don't sit as a

:22:23. > :22:24.minister behind a desk and use these agencies to pick on people I don't

:22:25. > :22:32.like or political rivals I don't like. We leave as much as possible

:22:33. > :22:35.be operational independence to these agencies because that is part of the

:22:36. > :22:45.balance and safeguards in our society. But if the prosecuting

:22:46. > :22:50.authorities, for a wrong reason, a corrupt reason, to choose not to

:22:51. > :23:02.prosecute, there are powers through the court to make sure that they

:23:03. > :23:05.have done so. I'm afraid our give our law enforcement agencies are

:23:06. > :23:10.much better view of their integrity than to say or do even allude that

:23:11. > :23:14.there is some corrupt reason they may not use their powers. We all

:23:15. > :23:18.have constituents who write to us and say they made a complaint to

:23:19. > :23:22.police and they did not take any action. Sometimes that is valid and

:23:23. > :23:26.sometimes we follow a path to try and get a better result for them.

:23:27. > :23:31.Honourable members here today who have met Bill Browder have brought

:23:32. > :23:36.to this House and colleagues their evidence and made presentations to

:23:37. > :23:38.the National crime agency and cross-examined the National crime

:23:39. > :23:49.agency witnessed during the committee stage.

:23:50. > :23:54.Sometimes they have to live with the disappointment and it is our job as

:23:55. > :23:59.members of Parliament to tell them it doesn't constitute a crime or

:24:00. > :24:03.indeed the police have to make that case. Sometimes they seek to solve

:24:04. > :24:08.that by changing the law to create a crime that may be appropriate or

:24:09. > :24:13.up-to-date. It is important to respect that operational independent

:24:14. > :24:20.stomach independence, tempting as it may be to wish to prioritise their

:24:21. > :24:27.priorities for Stott have to press on. Honourable member is have made

:24:28. > :24:32.valid queries and I have made a small but short book to go through

:24:33. > :24:34.handed to me from the box. To the honourable member for Dumfries and

:24:35. > :24:46.Galloway, he raises a number of issues on the retrospective nature

:24:47. > :24:49.of some of the issues. On that basis these provisions are retrospective

:24:50. > :24:54.in so far they would lead to torture, even when it occurred prior

:24:55. > :24:59.to the enactment of this Bill. The government amendment would only

:25:00. > :25:03.cover conduct constituting cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment

:25:04. > :25:08.where it comes in after coming into force, this act. What we have done

:25:09. > :25:13.already is significant legal step to suspend the requirement for dual

:25:14. > :25:17.criminality, providing for civil recovery to be pursued against

:25:18. > :25:23.property that was not necessarily unlawfully obtained in this country

:25:24. > :25:28.in which the conduct took place, means that we think we are at a

:25:29. > :25:31.place where taking a suitably proportionate approach. We have

:25:32. > :25:35.already gone further than we do in some other areas because we couldn't

:25:36. > :25:41.take action where the unlawful event took place if it wasn't in this

:25:42. > :25:44.country. So it have to balance that. Recovery of proceeds of crime

:25:45. > :25:51.generally is subject to a 20 year limitation period under the

:25:52. > :25:56.Limitation act 1980. On the question the honourable member for Rhondda

:25:57. > :26:02.made and the member for Dumfries and Galloway about when we can generally

:26:03. > :26:06.claim the proceeds, the timescale where it starts. Is starts when the

:26:07. > :26:11.property was obtained through unlawful conduct, whereas under new

:26:12. > :26:17.clothes one it seems to run from the date of the conduct itself -- Clause

:26:18. > :26:26.1. It could be a shorter timescale than the Government's new clause.

:26:27. > :26:30.Can I reassure the member for Dumfries and Galloway that it does

:26:31. > :26:34.cover conduct linked to torture such as assisting it, directing it,

:26:35. > :26:39.facilitating it, or profiting from it. Even where the linked conduct is

:26:40. > :26:44.not conducted by a public official. So I think it does go wider than

:26:45. > :26:48.perhaps some people may fear. I think the other point is what

:26:49. > :26:52.evidence is needed to allow for the assets to be recovered. Any civil

:26:53. > :26:57.recovery would be subject to all existing processes and legal

:26:58. > :27:01.safeguards of the Proceeds of Crime Act. The court would need to be

:27:02. > :27:05.satisfied of the balance of probabilities that the profits were

:27:06. > :27:07.the proceeds of crime or likely to fund further criminal activity and

:27:08. > :27:12.law enforcement agencies would need to consider which of their powers to

:27:13. > :27:17.utilise on a case-by-case basis. It would also apply to inherited

:27:18. > :27:23.wealth. That would not be excluded, inherited wealth would be covered by

:27:24. > :27:25.that ability to recover assets, and so I can hopefully reassure the

:27:26. > :27:31.honourable member for Rhondda on that point. To my honourable friend,

:27:32. > :27:38.then the member for Esher and Walton, I would reiterate the spirit

:27:39. > :27:43.he is trying to achieve is something the government agrees with. We want

:27:44. > :27:47.to say loud and clear that you are not welcome, organised criminals,

:27:48. > :27:51.crooks, corrupted individuals, are not welcome in this country and nor

:27:52. > :27:55.their money. That's why I was very pleased to be part of the process of

:27:56. > :28:00.the implementation of the bribery act brought in by the last Labour

:28:01. > :28:04.government, the implementation and statutory guidance that went along

:28:05. > :28:07.with it by this government, or the government before, the Conservative

:28:08. > :28:14.government, and that is part of the whole package along with the

:28:15. > :28:17.criminal Finance Bill, goes the Bribery Act and some other issues. I

:28:18. > :28:21.do not want the United Kingdom to be fuelled by dirty money and don't

:28:22. > :28:24.want people to be profiting from it and what people need to understand

:28:25. > :28:28.is the reason people should want to come to London and the way you make

:28:29. > :28:32.London open for business, and the United Kingdom, is the rule of law,

:28:33. > :28:38.one of the best ways to make it open for business, and I would say a

:28:39. > :28:40.competitive tax base. Those two things are white people should want

:28:41. > :28:45.to come to the United Kingdom, not because they can hide their money,

:28:46. > :28:50.or launder it. It doesn't make us a better place for hosting these

:28:51. > :28:53.individuals and I hope the new powers, not just in this part of the

:28:54. > :28:59.Bill but in the whole Bill will help us tackle it and I'm very keen to

:29:00. > :29:02.make sure that as soon as this Bill becomes an act, hopefully, we start

:29:03. > :29:06.making sure we deal with some of these individuals and getting the

:29:07. > :29:11.money back to where it belongs. To my Right Honourable friend, the

:29:12. > :29:16.member for Huntington, it was a well articulated speech, he's right about

:29:17. > :29:22.sending that message. There are regimes around the world who

:29:23. > :29:28.deliberately take advantage of Britain's openness and quality of

:29:29. > :29:36.places to live, and indeed what we have to offer and those regimes need

:29:37. > :29:40.to be sent a message that we are serious here, and go elsewhere, we

:29:41. > :29:46.would like to catch you first and put you in prison, to be brutally

:29:47. > :29:50.honest. To the honourable member for Rhondda, I think I have clarify the

:29:51. > :29:55.point for him of inherited wealth. The worries about the London

:29:56. > :29:59.property market, it's not just nice town houses in Knightsbridge being

:30:00. > :30:02.bought up, huge portfolios up-and-down the country. It doesn't

:30:03. > :30:07.just apply to overseas citizens, the rest of the Bill hopefully also

:30:08. > :30:10.deals with drug dealers in my part of the world in the north-west,

:30:11. > :30:15.north-east, or Northern Ireland who may be funnelling money into

:30:16. > :30:18.property. As part of our work the Government's doing on the

:30:19. > :30:20.fermentation of the fourth anti-money-laundering directive the

:30:21. > :30:24.government consulted on whether estate agents should carry out

:30:25. > :30:29.checks on the bias of property as well as the sellers. I was surprised

:30:30. > :30:36.to find out that they only do it on the seller. They intend to publish

:30:37. > :30:42.the response imminently is what my note says so we will look carefully

:30:43. > :30:45.at what the response is. On the member for Rhondda's other question

:30:46. > :30:53.about freezing of orders and why people would move the money pretty

:30:54. > :30:57.quickly, part five of Poca does allow for interim freezing orders

:30:58. > :31:02.allowing for the freezing of property while the court considers

:31:03. > :31:08.the case, so hopefully to do that. I also recognise that both the Home

:31:09. > :31:11.Affairs Committee report on proceeds of crime or recovery of assets, did

:31:12. > :31:16.point out some very valid problems in the system and I have asked in

:31:17. > :31:21.the department that we set about making sure that we are timely when

:31:22. > :31:27.we make cases for confiscation of funds and assets to make sure that

:31:28. > :31:33.the gaps don't allow criminals and bad people to take the money before

:31:34. > :31:37.we actually do that. The honourable member for Rhondda, and my Right

:31:38. > :31:44.Honourable friend the anti-corruption czar will recognise

:31:45. > :31:47.it within government. We always have to satisfy the competing issues

:31:48. > :31:51.within departments and he will know himself as a Foreign Office minister

:31:52. > :31:56.and former Secretary of State for DCLG that we have competing

:31:57. > :32:00.interests in government when it comes to making some pieces of this

:32:01. > :32:04.legislation and inevitably amendments like this had to walk a

:32:05. > :32:09.fine line between the number of challenging diplomatic and political

:32:10. > :32:12.issues but I trust the House agrees the Government is taking a

:32:13. > :32:14.constructive approach. I have been determined to listen to my

:32:15. > :32:20.colleagues and produce something that hopefully is a strong message,

:32:21. > :32:25.but also an actual power to allow us to act on people who have abused

:32:26. > :32:29.human rights. I want to finish by congratulating the sponsorship of

:32:30. > :32:33.new country-macro and it's important we have had the opportunity to make

:32:34. > :32:36.this debate, my honourable friend for Esher and Walton is a formidable

:32:37. > :32:45.campaigner, if I have to say, and I think he has successfully

:32:46. > :32:49.articulated the case -- Clause 1. Imbued the spirit of his amendment

:32:50. > :32:57.into our Bill, and I hope the House will support government knew Clause

:32:58. > :33:00.seven which I beg to move. The question is that government new

:33:01. > :33:03.clause seven beach read a second time. As many as are of the opinion,

:33:04. > :33:09.say "aye". To the contrary, "no". I think the ayes have it, the ayes

:33:10. > :33:12.have it. The government is that the government knew Clause seven be

:33:13. > :33:15.added to the Bill. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the

:33:16. > :33:20.contrary, "no". I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We come

:33:21. > :33:23.to government knew Clause eight which it would be convenient to

:33:24. > :33:26.consider the motion to transfer an amendment grouped together on is

:33:27. > :33:32.that this election paper. Minister to move new Clause eight. We come to

:33:33. > :33:36.a group of amendments relating to law enforcement, investigative and

:33:37. > :33:39.recovery powers, primarily composed of government amendment which I hope

:33:40. > :33:43.the House will agree of the most part are technical and

:33:44. > :33:46.uncontroversial. I do not intend to linger on each of them and will

:33:47. > :33:50.quickly summarise the key amendments for the benefit of honourable member

:33:51. > :33:54.is. Clause eight and other consequential amendments remove the

:33:55. > :34:00.restriction on HMRC's criminal powers being used for former revenue

:34:01. > :34:05.functions, this follows a merger of HM Customs and Excise in 2005 and in

:34:06. > :34:10.the intervening period legislative changes have brought most major

:34:11. > :34:14.taxes within the scope of HMRC's criminal justice powers. However,

:34:15. > :34:19.there remains some anomalies. For example, investigators cannot use

:34:20. > :34:23.certain powers to investigate tax fraud and stamp duty, regardless of

:34:24. > :34:26.which part of HMRC it is committed against and these will make sure

:34:27. > :34:31.necessary powers are available in all cases. They do not provide HMRC

:34:32. > :34:36.with any new criminal justice powers. Amendments to- 15, 70 and 71

:34:37. > :34:41.relate to the power at clause nine of the Bill allowing an extension of

:34:42. > :34:45.the moratorium period in which law enforcement agencies can investigate

:34:46. > :34:48.a suspicious activity report before the transaction is allowed to

:34:49. > :34:52.proceed. These amendments deliver a number of mine and technical

:34:53. > :34:57.improvements to this provision. They allow for an automatic extension for

:34:58. > :35:01.moratorium period while a court is hearing awaiting a decision on an

:35:02. > :35:04.application. They help to ensure that a company does not provide any

:35:05. > :35:10.information to the customer whose transaction is subject other than

:35:11. > :35:13.the fact suspicious activity report has been made. They allow

:35:14. > :35:17.immigration officers to apply for an extension and allow for an explicit

:35:18. > :35:23.right of appeal in Northern Ireland. The majority of the remaining

:35:24. > :35:32.amendments in this group, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, 38, 46, 47, 49, 57, 69, 72

:35:33. > :35:36.clarify the operation of the seizure and forfeiture power that the Bill

:35:37. > :35:41.adds to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the anti-terrorism crime

:35:42. > :35:45.and Security act 2001. Many of these changes are extremely technical in

:35:46. > :35:48.nature but I will highlight a few of the most significant. They allow the

:35:49. > :35:52.director-general of the National Crime Agency to designate the level

:35:53. > :35:56.of senior officer that can authorise the use of certain powers, unlike in

:35:57. > :36:02.the police where no such designation currently exists in law. They ensure

:36:03. > :36:05.an interest on forfeited funds while in the agency's account is returned

:36:06. > :36:09.to the owner of the funds if the person successfully appeals against

:36:10. > :36:13.the forfeiture. They provide that where the National Crime Agency has

:36:14. > :36:15.used the powers and the court determines compensation should be

:36:16. > :36:22.paid, that the National Crime Agency will be responsible for paying the

:36:23. > :36:25.compensation. They produce a duty on the police and others to consult

:36:26. > :36:28.with the Treasury to ensure the full range of terrorist asset freezing

:36:29. > :36:31.powers are considered before exercising the related power

:36:32. > :36:37.provided by the Bill and they require consultation of the devolved

:36:38. > :36:42.administration before the provisions in clause 12 relating to the seizure

:36:43. > :36:45.of gaming vouchers and betting slips are commenced. This will ensure the

:36:46. > :36:48.provisions are implement it effectively in Scotland and Northern

:36:49. > :36:52.Ireland. On the issue of devolved administrations, we hope the

:36:53. > :36:54.Scottish Parliament will approve the legislation on the Bill shortly

:36:55. > :36:59.although the government asserts and none of the provisions are devolved

:37:00. > :37:03.with respect to Wales, I know the assembly has provided a legislative

:37:04. > :37:06.Consent Motion. The government has extensive discussion with the

:37:07. > :37:10.Northern Ireland Executive about the Bill and plans were in place for a

:37:11. > :37:13.legislative Consent Motion to be considered in the assembly. Law

:37:14. > :37:17.enforcement authorities of Northern Ireland are keen to ensure they have

:37:18. > :37:21.access to the powers in the legislation. However, the suspension

:37:22. > :37:23.of the assembly prior to the election has prevented the

:37:24. > :37:27.legislative Consent Motion from being pursued at this time. These

:37:28. > :37:29.are clearly extremely unusual circumstances but the government

:37:30. > :37:34.remains committed to the central principles of the convention and we

:37:35. > :37:38.will therefore commit not to commence provisions on that is

:37:39. > :37:42.related to Northern Ireland without the appropriate consent being

:37:43. > :37:45.obtained. It is our intention to pick this up with the executive

:37:46. > :37:50.following the elections but it may not be possible to be resolve this

:37:51. > :37:53.prior to the Bill and receiving Royal assent. We will make further

:37:54. > :37:56.amendments to the Bill in the House of Lords to put beyond doubt all of

:37:57. > :37:59.the relevant provisions that can be commenced at separate times for

:38:00. > :38:04.different areas in the United Kingdom. Very grateful Thank you,

:38:05. > :38:35.Madam Deputy Speaker.. To my honourable colleague, I would

:38:36. > :38:38.say that we are in discussions with the Northern Ireland assembly and

:38:39. > :38:42.they are ongoing. We would hope that those assembly elections are

:38:43. > :38:46.completed and Stormont takes up the reins again and devolution returns

:38:47. > :38:53.to Northern Ireland. That is what we all wish. There was a good

:38:54. > :38:58.cross-party consensus for these provisions in Northern Ireland

:38:59. > :39:02.before the assembly. I can't member the date of the actual election, he

:39:03. > :39:07.may have to remind me. But I think the start point is that let us plan

:39:08. > :39:13.for normality in Northern Ireland and make sure we are in a good

:39:14. > :39:20.position. 2nd of March, Madame deputies bigger. I agree with his

:39:21. > :39:23.aspiration that we see a return to as soon as soon as possible but

:39:24. > :39:27.would the Minister believe there would be merit in corresponding with

:39:28. > :39:36.the ladies of each individual political party -- with the leaders

:39:37. > :39:41.of each political party. I am grateful, I will certainly put that

:39:42. > :39:45.suggestion to officials. I think my view would be that before suspension

:39:46. > :39:52.of the assembly that the place we were at, I am not sure why there has

:39:53. > :39:56.been a change of leader or that we have had any signal that that has

:39:57. > :40:00.gone backwards. The 2nd of March gives me some good Hope. I've never

:40:01. > :40:09.known the other place to move at the speed of light so hopefully we have

:40:10. > :40:15.time to make sure this gets through. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, this

:40:16. > :40:21.group concerns new clause five in the number of officers for the all

:40:22. > :40:28.Parliamentary group on anti-corruption, I will allow

:40:29. > :40:34.honourable members to speak to those amendments and talk about them in my

:40:35. > :40:36.closing remarks. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs removal of

:40:37. > :40:45.restrictions, the question is that new clause eight be read a second

:40:46. > :40:49.time. We on this side of the House support the spirit of this bill and

:40:50. > :40:52.we broadly support this group of amendments. We welcome new

:40:53. > :40:57.provisions to prosecute those professionals that fail to prevent

:40:58. > :41:04.tax evasion as well as unexplained wealth orders that where assets can

:41:05. > :41:09.be seized. We will support the government effort to tighten up

:41:10. > :41:13.state powers against white-collar crime. But we have concerns that

:41:14. > :41:17.they have squandered an opportunity that the bill provides to stamp out

:41:18. > :41:25.everyday corruption of the super rich getting a free ride on the

:41:26. > :41:29.expense of wider society. A problem that amid the government cuts to

:41:30. > :41:35.public services, this bill could be very difficult to enforce. While I

:41:36. > :41:38.understand the giving of new powers to HMRC, is good government not

:41:39. > :41:43.concerned about how they will carry out their new Judy is given to the

:41:44. > :41:52.coalition government decimated H MRC Bosman budget by ?100 million. And

:41:53. > :41:56.they lost 137 officers by 2027. There seems little point creating

:41:57. > :41:59.laws that potentially cannot be enforced. Unless of course it is to

:42:00. > :42:04.give the impression that the government is doing something. A

:42:05. > :42:08.theme I fear that has sadly run through proceedings on the bill so

:42:09. > :42:13.far. We on this side of the House put forward the argument that for

:42:14. > :42:16.the agency involved in civil recovery powers, it is crucial they

:42:17. > :42:22.have sufficient resources to do their job properly. We therefore

:42:23. > :42:27.request a distinct and clear annual report which details the resources

:42:28. > :42:32.allocated to agencies concerned solely with the task of carrying out

:42:33. > :42:38.these recovery powers. In previous stages of the Bill, the government

:42:39. > :42:42.objected on the grounds that the asset recovery and centralisation

:42:43. > :42:46.scheme would allow front line agencies to keep 100% of what they

:42:47. > :42:52.recover. But this argument is seriously flawed. In theory, yes,

:42:53. > :42:55.the agencies could retain the total value recovered. But as the

:42:56. > :43:07.committee of Public accounts made Leah in its progress through view --

:43:08. > :43:14.review. These agencies have been typically poor in terms of their

:43:15. > :43:19.recovery rate. Consequently, it remains to be seen as to how these

:43:20. > :43:22.agencies will improve their rate of recovery to benefit from the new

:43:23. > :43:30.incentive other nations gain. Another reason that if one wanted to

:43:31. > :43:34.find out this information, you could obtain it by going through a number

:43:35. > :43:39.of different sources. Yet again this is flawed. We previously argued for

:43:40. > :43:44.detailed reporting of resources specifically for these agencies in

:43:45. > :43:49.the exercise of the powers laid down in the criminal finance bill and the

:43:50. > :43:53.proceeds of crime bill. The government has already blocked a

:43:54. > :43:59.number of measures that Labour have proposed to make this a meaningful

:44:00. > :44:04.and effective Bill. We proposed a corporate probation order. If a

:44:05. > :44:08.company was found to have committed a failure to prevent an offence, it

:44:09. > :44:13.would be subject to an independent review of compliance procedures. It

:44:14. > :44:17.would also pay the full cost of such a review. This was coupled with

:44:18. > :44:23.allowing the removal of directors from companies who failed to ensure

:44:24. > :44:29.that proper procedures were in place to prevent UK and foreign tax

:44:30. > :44:32.evasion offences taking place. But the government believed this was

:44:33. > :44:38.unnecessary because UK law could already deal with such cases of

:44:39. > :44:43.negligence. And whilst there may be a case that some UK law could be

:44:44. > :44:49.used to a similar effect, it would not be an identical effect. Once

:44:50. > :44:54.there is an implied threat to the EU that the government could change the

:44:55. > :44:59.economic model that a strong case for legislation to protect both UK

:45:00. > :45:06.and global citizens from around the world. With the potential for a race

:45:07. > :45:10.to the bottom and the destruction of workers' rights and slashing of

:45:11. > :45:15.corporation tax, it could be argued that a Brexit government would

:45:16. > :45:20.foster an environment where tax evasion was implicitly encouraged.

:45:21. > :45:26.As colleagues have said and will no doubt say again, this bill must do

:45:27. > :45:30.more to tackle the deeply entrenched and extraordinarily costly

:45:31. > :45:37.phenomenon of tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is in effect living to the

:45:38. > :45:41.letter of the law but not in the spirit of the law. And repeated

:45:42. > :45:45.investigations of companies that sail close to the wind, but they

:45:46. > :45:51.know they have bought the lawyers and accountants to make their tax

:45:52. > :45:57.abuse legal is both very frustrating and extremely costly. As the UK

:45:58. > :46:02.general anti-abuse rules show that there are ways to minimise the risk

:46:03. > :46:06.of corporate abuse of the tax system and these should be absorbed into

:46:07. > :46:12.this bill. Spain, Canada and Australia each have one single

:46:13. > :46:23.agency responsible for supervising and enforcing anti-money-laundering

:46:24. > :46:29.regulations. Britain has 22. Worse still, according to transparency

:46:30. > :46:33.International UK, 15 of these 22 supervisors also lobby on behalf of

:46:34. > :46:40.the interests of their sector, creating clear conflicts of interest

:46:41. > :46:43.and a system inefficient to its core. The government raised this

:46:44. > :46:47.problem in its action plan that preceded the bill but were not

:46:48. > :46:51.concerned enough to cover this in the proposed legislation. The system

:46:52. > :46:58.needs reform and the criminal finance bill needs to reflect this.

:46:59. > :47:02.Unless the government takes all of these concerns and all of the

:47:03. > :47:08.changes raised in opposition amendments into the bill, there is

:47:09. > :47:14.likely that this will fail on the intent to clean up on

:47:15. > :47:19.money-laundering and tax evasion. It is a pleasure to speak on this bill

:47:20. > :47:25.and the new clause five which is the minister said, stands in my name and

:47:26. > :47:28.honourable colleagues from the all parliamentary committee on

:47:29. > :47:32.anti-corruption. I want to probe the government on this issue so that we

:47:33. > :47:39.get the full use of the unexplained wealth orders and the interim orders

:47:40. > :47:42.we envisage in passing this bill. I know there is concern that if we are

:47:43. > :47:46.not careful, what might happen is the various authorities that can use

:47:47. > :47:51.them might be concerned that the people they can use them against

:47:52. > :47:54.will in some cases the very rich and powerful people who I suspect

:47:55. > :48:00.probably won't go lightly in having their wealth frozen or restricted.

:48:01. > :48:03.They would seek to frustrate those orders and oppose them with every

:48:04. > :48:08.means they have including significant costs, perhaps well

:48:09. > :48:11.above what could be considered reasonable in that situation and

:48:12. > :48:16.force those onto the taxpayer at a later date if they can successfully

:48:17. > :48:21.resist though does attempts on those orders. It is absolutely right that

:48:22. > :48:27.if the state tries to impose one of these orders and those orders fail

:48:28. > :48:32.that they cover reasonable cost. What would be unreasonable is if

:48:33. > :48:36.those individuals could engage numerous high paid barristers and

:48:37. > :48:39.end up with costs of a wholly disproportionate in that situation

:48:40. > :48:43.and the taxpayer having to pay them. The real risk here, that would be a

:48:44. > :48:51.deterrent effect on body is trying to use these powers where they fear

:48:52. > :48:55.that an individual may impose and take large chunks of the budget for

:48:56. > :49:02.a long period. The whole point of this clause was to explore whether

:49:03. > :49:10.the existing powers that are there for the courts to restrict or

:49:11. > :49:13.recover can be set to apply a reference to obtain orders set out

:49:14. > :49:19.in this bill so it will all be clear. That's where the various

:49:20. > :49:22.state authorities, acting competently and reasonably clearly

:49:23. > :49:28.in trying to get these orders, cannot be unreasonably opposed and

:49:29. > :49:34.end up with a significant amount of costs. It would be helpful how he

:49:35. > :49:36.thinks these orders would work and the interaction with the existing

:49:37. > :49:42.rules the courts can have while capping costs. It is not an entirely

:49:43. > :49:46.theoretical issue. We have seen examples where the Serious Fraud

:49:47. > :49:50.Office have had significant cost orders against them. I would not

:49:51. > :49:56.like to pretend there's a similar situations to what are talking about

:49:57. > :50:00.here, there were incidents concerned that were not the finest hour for

:50:01. > :50:06.the Serious Fraud Office. There is cruelly some evidence that the

:50:07. > :50:12.potential for people here will try to obtain significant costs as a

:50:13. > :50:14.deterrent effect against the order. It would be good if the Minister

:50:15. > :50:19.could set out whether he thinks the clause can use cost capping measures

:50:20. > :50:26.to make sure we are not unreasonable exposed to high level of costs. I

:50:27. > :50:31.will rise briefly to talk about if what I may admit is my favourite

:50:32. > :50:35.section of the bill and that is unexplained wealth orders. It is an

:50:36. > :50:39.excellent provision and should drive a Trojan horse through the assets of

:50:40. > :50:43.criminals who choose to lodge and deposit them in the UK and I think

:50:44. > :50:49.it is very welcome. The member for Amber Valley mentioned new clause

:50:50. > :50:54.five and they are valid points. The indemnity costs as described in new

:50:55. > :50:59.clause five can be done slated to mean a full costs. In other words,

:51:00. > :51:03.every single hour and Penny and expense on that file will be charged

:51:04. > :51:07.to the losing party. There is no assessment whether these costs are

:51:08. > :51:10.reasonable. Given that we are talking about politically exposed

:51:11. > :51:14.people in other jurisdictions, you can imagine the flights going back

:51:15. > :51:18.and forth and the amount of officials going back and forth which

:51:19. > :51:22.will find their way to an two a cost sheet and will be covered by

:51:23. > :51:25.indemnity costs. We could have a situation where we have an

:51:26. > :51:28.inequality of arms, not in favour of the government but in the

:51:29. > :51:34.respondents in these situations and I think that is very dangerous. The

:51:35. > :51:37.threat of indemnity costs acts as a major litigation risk for the

:51:38. > :51:42.claimant or pursuer or the applicant in this place. -- in this case. If

:51:43. > :51:47.they know it is a bigger bill, they will think twice about making that

:51:48. > :51:51.application. I believe they should be able to pursue these applications

:51:52. > :51:58.with determination without fear or without favour and without risk of

:51:59. > :52:01.incurring indemnity costs. It seems to me it would be deeply

:52:02. > :52:06.disproportionate from what we are trying to do. And would be a bizarre

:52:07. > :52:10.and counter-productive situation. I thank the member for making this

:52:11. > :52:15.amendment and I would be pleased to hear what the government has to say.

:52:16. > :52:20.It is worth mentioning that indemnity costs are very rare and

:52:21. > :52:23.would only rise in proportionate circumstances anyway. However, given

:52:24. > :52:27.that we are talking about politically exposed people with

:52:28. > :52:32.potentially limitless funds, the better you can make your case in

:52:33. > :52:35.court, the more likely it is you could be awarded indemnity costs and

:52:36. > :52:40.I think we should take that risk out of the equation. As I've said, and

:52:41. > :52:44.expect wealth orders are an excellent provision in this bill and

:52:45. > :52:48.it is worth expending how they would work at this juncture. It will

:52:49. > :52:52.enable a court can Scotland, the Court of Session, upon application

:52:53. > :52:56.by Scottish ministers to make an unexpected wealth order. The order

:52:57. > :53:00.would require an individual or organisation to explain the origin

:53:01. > :53:04.of their assets beyond reasonable grounds that they may have been

:53:05. > :53:07.suspected in criminality or they intend to use that wealth for

:53:08. > :53:12.criminality. Or if the value of the assets exceeds ?100,000. The

:53:13. > :53:17.Minister and I had discussions in previous stages about the bill about

:53:18. > :53:19.the ?100,000 threshold. I would pleased if he could update me as to

:53:20. > :53:29.his thoughts on that. Just to give an update on that

:53:30. > :53:32.point, in response to the issue and sensible suggestions he has made we

:53:33. > :53:36.are looking at options to bring forward at the other place,

:53:37. > :53:42.potentially another threshold, we will inform him when there has been

:53:43. > :53:45.agreed. That is very congenial and co-operative of the Minister and I

:53:46. > :53:48.very much appreciate that. Perhaps I don't have the confidence in the

:53:49. > :53:54.other place that he has but we will wait with bated breath. Unexplained

:53:55. > :54:00.wealth orders will be available to the court where they are

:54:01. > :54:04.disproportionate to known legitimate income. It was reported a taxi

:54:05. > :54:10.driver owns a ?1 million fish tank, not to say it is a potentially

:54:11. > :54:13.lucrative trade but certainly that would be disproportionate. Failure

:54:14. > :54:17.to provide a response to the order and explain the legitimate source of

:54:18. > :54:20.funds would give rise to a presumption that the property was

:54:21. > :54:24.recoverable. That would make any subsequent civil recovery action

:54:25. > :54:28.much easier. Madam Deputy Speaker, as a lawyer the notion of reversing

:54:29. > :54:33.the burden of proof is not one that sits very comfortably with me but as

:54:34. > :54:39.in other areas I consider it proportional to the issue at stake.

:54:40. > :54:43.Certain legal principles such as the presumption of innocence and burden

:54:44. > :54:45.of proof being on the Crown should not inadvertently protect criminals

:54:46. > :54:50.which I suspect may have been the case thus far. The key to the

:54:51. > :54:54.provision is a criminal conviction will no longer be necessary before

:54:55. > :54:57.the law enforcement can pierce the criminal's veil that camouflages

:54:58. > :55:02.their wealth. Getting away with the crime itself no longer will protect

:55:03. > :55:07.a criminal's Wealth. This Bill will allow for this power to be applied

:55:08. > :55:11.to foreign politicians and officials and those associated with them known

:55:12. > :55:15.as exposed people, helping to tackle the issue substantive Tivoli and

:55:16. > :55:20.determine Ed Leigh for the first time. -- substantively. I want to

:55:21. > :55:24.stress I agree with some of the comments from the Labour front bench

:55:25. > :55:26.regarding resources. Out of the reason we are bringing forward

:55:27. > :55:30.provisions for unexplained wealth orders is that many law enforcement

:55:31. > :55:33.agencies think there is a Raft of these applications ready to be made

:55:34. > :55:42.right now. There are properties and asset groups in this country that we

:55:43. > :55:46.don't know where they come from so assuming this power will land on the

:55:47. > :55:49.desk of enforcement agencies that potentially have applications piled

:55:50. > :55:53.up. I think resources in those circumstances is a very viable

:55:54. > :55:56.concern so I would stress if the Minister could please give us some

:55:57. > :55:59.reassurance which unfortunately he has not been able to give thus far

:56:00. > :56:04.during the process of the Bill that there will be allegations enough to

:56:05. > :56:07.make unexplained wealth orders work because it's probably the best part

:56:08. > :56:10.of the Bill and it needs to work and if it works we will make huge

:56:11. > :56:12.strides in making sure this country cannot be used as a safe haven for

:56:13. > :56:28.dirty money. Ben Wallace. This has been a short

:56:29. > :56:32.but welcome part of the proceedings and I think members on both sides

:56:33. > :56:35.agreed in principle to the unexplained wealth order and I think

:56:36. > :56:40.it will be a useful tool, and indeed if we think about the first group of

:56:41. > :56:44.amendments we had, another tool you could use to ask people to explain

:56:45. > :56:47.where their wealth came from even if you perhaps didn't have the evidence

:56:48. > :56:55.or the intelligence linking them to the new offence that we are seeking

:56:56. > :56:59.to bring in. It is very clear, I think, using an unexplained wealth

:57:00. > :57:01.order, putting the onus on those individuals to tell us where they

:57:02. > :57:08.have got their wealth from, is going to be a strong and good step in

:57:09. > :57:12.clearing up the United Kingdom from those people that seek to harbour

:57:13. > :57:17.their ill gotten gains in the UK, but also we should not forget that

:57:18. > :57:24.it's about criminals within the UK also depositing, or washing their

:57:25. > :57:27.wealth and putting it elsewhere, or within the community where they hide

:57:28. > :57:32.in plain sight sometimes, and I think that is something that I am

:57:33. > :57:36.very keen and, what I'm going to say now is no different to what I said

:57:37. > :57:39.to the National Crime Agency. I would like to see this used sooner

:57:40. > :57:45.rather than later. The lesson I have learned in my 12 years in Parliament

:57:46. > :57:50.is that if offences, we always get lobbied for new offences, they come

:57:51. > :57:54.along and lots of people come and lobby us. There is always either a

:57:55. > :57:59.Home Office Bill or add administrative Justice Bill going

:58:00. > :58:03.through this House. If they are not used sooner rather than later my

:58:04. > :58:07.experience is lots of these offences sit on the shelves and I think it is

:58:08. > :58:12.really important that the law enforcement agencies here Parliament

:58:13. > :58:19.today say we are going to hopefully give you these powers, we want them

:58:20. > :58:22.to be used. Thank you for taking an intervention. It is difficult to pin

:58:23. > :58:25.down but given we want to start using these orders the resources is

:58:26. > :58:30.the key issue here. It is difficult to put a price on it, Madam Deputy

:58:31. > :58:34.Speaker, but has any assessment be made within government what this

:58:35. > :58:36.will cost in the next two to three months after the royal assembly

:58:37. > :58:41.because lots of applications are ready to be made and we need

:58:42. > :58:45.resources to make them. What I can reassure the honourable member and

:58:46. > :58:51.Honourable Lady for Swansea East that one part of the Government that

:58:52. > :58:55.has seen either a not significant reduction in its budgets, has been

:58:56. > :58:59.in the areas of things like the regional organised crime unit, the

:59:00. > :59:03.National Crime Agency, security and intelligence agencies who will

:59:04. > :59:07.assist us in areas of organised crime and money-laundering. If I

:59:08. > :59:12.were to save the National Crime Agency has a capital budget of 50

:59:13. > :59:16.million this year with 427 million, they are supported in England by the

:59:17. > :59:23.regional England and Wales organised crime units who have also got 519

:59:24. > :59:29.million of funding, the SFO is 45 million with ?5 million capital this

:59:30. > :59:36.year. And the HMRC is 3.8 billion in resource and ?242 million in

:59:37. > :59:43.capital. Of course, crime-fighting is as much how long is a piece of

:59:44. > :59:46.string? I'm grateful for the Minister for giving way. I'm

:59:47. > :59:51.listening intently to what he is saying and am reminded by an Evening

:59:52. > :59:56.Standard report from earlier this year, 2017. I wonder if he saw this,

:59:57. > :59:59.the Home Office reveals new Criminal Finances Bill will target just 20

:00:00. > :00:05.tycoons a year based on the Home Office's on impact assessment

:00:06. > :00:09.predicting powers will remain on the used in the first year as part of a

:00:10. > :00:13.learning curve, and thereafter will only be used in 20 cases a year

:00:14. > :00:16.because of the resource imprecations, precisely what the

:00:17. > :00:21.member for Dumfries and Galloway raced. I wondered if he had any

:00:22. > :00:24.comment on that. I think the impact assessment is not linked to access

:00:25. > :00:30.to funds. I think the impact assessment is a judgment about how

:00:31. > :00:34.they would see these being used. Like her I would like to see them

:00:35. > :00:37.used a lot more but that is an impact assessment, it doesn't

:00:38. > :00:41.necessarily mean... The NCA doesn't follow the impact assessment. If the

:00:42. > :00:46.evidence is presented or the cases are put before them that allows them

:00:47. > :00:50.to do 100 then they will do 100. It's not that they are restricted by

:00:51. > :00:56.the impact assessment. I wouldn't be too distracted by the London Evening

:00:57. > :01:02.Standard and the impact assessment. I think what I would be focusing on

:01:03. > :01:06.is the fact that we have well resourced law enforcement agencies

:01:07. > :01:10.to tackle this. This Bill will give them the powerful sub they have the

:01:11. > :01:15.political support of both sides of the House to exercise that power and

:01:16. > :01:20.I think let's see how far we go. I would be delighted to join with her

:01:21. > :01:25.in asking in 12 months' time, or whenever the Bill goes through, why

:01:26. > :01:30.we haven't used them more. I will be asking the National Crime Agency and

:01:31. > :01:33.all the other organisations to try and make sure that they have that.

:01:34. > :01:41.The honourable member for Swansea East made the point about the

:01:42. > :01:44.recovery of assets funding not really being worth the paper it is

:01:45. > :01:49.printed on, is what you are trying to say, forgive me for putting words

:01:50. > :01:54.in your mouth. Since 2006, as we have seen, under their last

:01:55. > :01:59.government that arrangement, ?764 million has gone into funding those

:02:00. > :02:05.law enforcement agencies and in the last three years 257 million, so

:02:06. > :02:10.hopefully with the new arrangement as I have said, above the baseline,

:02:11. > :02:17.I think of 146 million, I will correct it in writing if it is not

:02:18. > :02:21.146, 100% could be kept, and we are also following on from those

:02:22. > :02:27.excellent reports, the Home Affairs Committee report into why we haven't

:02:28. > :02:30.achieved as much on confiscation orders and recovery of assets, I

:02:31. > :02:35.have told officials that I am concerned that in one of the reports

:02:36. > :02:37.that concern seemed to be on small assets, the collection rate was

:02:38. > :02:42.higher amongst lower amounts of money but the millionaires the

:02:43. > :02:47.collection rate was low and I specifically directed officials that

:02:48. > :02:51.we look at turning the tables. I want all aspects subject to

:02:52. > :02:54.confiscation but those subjects are a good guideline and we didn't

:02:55. > :02:58.ignore the report and we will make sure we build on it and improve on

:02:59. > :03:05.it because there is money in it for us all should we do it and I am very

:03:06. > :03:09.keen to do that. As to the new clauses, clause five, my honourable

:03:10. > :03:12.friend, in it he says six to prevent the courts from awarding uncapped

:03:13. > :03:15.costs against informers from agencies where they have brought

:03:16. > :03:19.unsuccessful applications for Unexplained Wealth Orders or

:03:20. > :03:21.freezing orders. I appreciate this is to ensure the law enforcement

:03:22. > :03:27.agencies do not feel constrained in their ability to apply for an

:03:28. > :03:30.Unexplained Wealth Order for fear of incurring financial liability. But

:03:31. > :03:34.as law enforcement representatives told the Public Bill Committee in

:03:35. > :03:37.November this is a natural part of the state wielding its investigative

:03:38. > :03:41.powers and they are certainly not pressing for the provision of this

:03:42. > :03:44.type. It is well-established principle that the losing party pays

:03:45. > :03:49.the winning party's legal costs. This is an important check and

:03:50. > :03:54.balance against bringing spurious claims or the state using its powers

:03:55. > :03:59.erroneously. At the same time the civil procedure rules do already

:04:00. > :04:03.allow for capping in exceptional circumstances, so law enforcement

:04:04. > :04:07.agencies would be able, as things stand, to apply for a cost capping

:04:08. > :04:11.order in appropriate cases. I undertake to ensure this point is

:04:12. > :04:15.included in the code of practice that will support the use of these

:04:16. > :04:19.orders. I trust the honourable member is would agree this is a far

:04:20. > :04:27.more sensible way forward than a blanket rule for all Unexplained

:04:28. > :04:32.Wealth Order cases. It's crucial that the initial cases are

:04:33. > :04:34.thoroughly developed and the orders have the greatest possible impact.

:04:35. > :04:39.We are already actively engaging with law enforcement officers and

:04:40. > :04:43.prosecutors to encourage the use of the new powers being introduced by

:04:44. > :04:49.the Bill, and ultimately will be a matter for those authorities to

:04:50. > :04:52.decide when. We will no doubt, so will her royal majesty's opposition,

:04:53. > :04:56.monitor and review the use of these orders once they have been

:04:57. > :05:01.introduced. This will inform future support and changes that may be

:05:02. > :05:04.needed to ensure they are being used to maximum effect. The honourable

:05:05. > :05:08.member for Swansea East on the front bench explained the objective behind

:05:09. > :05:12.her amendment one, however I explained when the issue arose in

:05:13. > :05:15.committee, politically exposed persons of the United Kingdom and

:05:16. > :05:21.European Economic Area can already be made subject to a explained

:05:22. > :05:23.wealth order in relation to the opposition's Amendment one. These

:05:24. > :05:26.orders can be made into macro situation is, first when an

:05:27. > :05:30.individual is suspected of involvement in serious crime and

:05:31. > :05:33.second in relation to non-EEA politically exposed persons.

:05:34. > :05:37.Unexplained Wealth Order can be made in relation to the politicians and

:05:38. > :05:41.senior officials in Europe when they are suspected of being involved in

:05:42. > :05:45.serious criminality. In such an investigation, if evidence exists of

:05:46. > :05:52.links to serious organised crime, it should be available, obtainable and

:05:53. > :05:54.readily provided and it would be unreasonable and disproportionate,

:05:55. > :05:59.for example, for members of this House to be made subject to an order

:06:00. > :06:02.without any evidence of criminality. However, the investigation into

:06:03. > :06:05.grand corruption involving countries outside of Europe, including the

:06:06. > :06:09.developing world, that evidence is far less likely to be made

:06:10. > :06:13.available, we think it would be much harder in some of these countries

:06:14. > :06:18.where corruption is endemic to necessarily get the evidence to

:06:19. > :06:21.bring to the court at first about wealth hidden in London, and

:06:22. > :06:27.therefore that is why we have chosen to have a lower threshold for

:06:28. > :06:32.evidence when it's applied to those countries outside EA. We should not

:06:33. > :06:36.forget that Unexplained Wealth Orders are a process leading to

:06:37. > :06:42.eventually, should they not be able to satisfy the answers, another

:06:43. > :06:46.action at court to confiscate the assets. -- EEA. The explained wealth

:06:47. > :06:50.order is part of a process and not an end in itself. When I spoke to

:06:51. > :06:54.the Right Honourable lady from Hackney when we met about it, I do

:06:55. > :06:57.not want Unexplained Wealth Orders to also produce a whole load of

:06:58. > :07:01.derelict empty buildings sitting around London because that is no

:07:02. > :07:05.good for anyone caught up in legal dispute. I want these Unexplained

:07:06. > :07:10.Wealth Orders to be used, to be placed on people who have links to

:07:11. > :07:14.serious crime and should they not be able to fulfil or satisfy the court,

:07:15. > :07:18.that we then go to the next step of recovering the asset so that the

:07:19. > :07:22.housing market, the houses are freed up, money is returned to whoever it

:07:23. > :07:27.has been stolen from if it is a state or a country, or other people,

:07:28. > :07:32.and we can do it. So it is a step on the process, it is not an end in

:07:33. > :07:36.itself. I hope I have sufficiently reassured the House on these points

:07:37. > :07:42.and that maybe the opposition will feel inclined to withdraw their

:07:43. > :07:45.amendment. The question is that government new clause eight B read a

:07:46. > :07:51.second time. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

:07:52. > :07:54."no". I think the ayes have it. The question is that new clause eight be

:07:55. > :08:00.added to the Bill. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the

:08:01. > :08:04.contrary, "no". I think the ayes have it. We begin with new Clause 2

:08:05. > :08:08.with which it would be convenient to consider the new clauses grouped

:08:09. > :08:14.together on the selection paper. Sur Edward Garnier to move new clause

:08:15. > :08:19.two. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can be relatively brief

:08:20. > :08:26.in introducing this line of amendments and new clauses.

:08:27. > :08:31.In moving new clause two which stands in my name and of a number of

:08:32. > :08:42.honourable ladies and gentlemen on both sides of the House which mirror

:08:43. > :08:46.other new clauses, causes three, four, 14 and 15, I really want to

:08:47. > :08:49.reduce a debate about the future of corporate criminal liability in this

:08:50. > :09:06.jurisdiction. In the last few years I have and I

:09:07. > :09:09.immediately declare an interest, I have been instructed by the Serious

:09:10. > :09:16.Fraud Office and a number of cases which have involved the prosecution

:09:17. > :09:23.of large international companies. One of the problems that I think

:09:24. > :09:27.that prosecutors and investigators generally have found in this

:09:28. > :09:31.jurisdiction when dealing with the modern corporate landscape, to use

:09:32. > :09:39.that hideous jargon, is in trying to fix upon a company which is

:09:40. > :09:46.suspected of criminal activity, liability for that as a matter of

:09:47. > :09:51.criminal law. It's not difficult to fix criminal liability if the

:09:52. > :09:55.evidence is there on an individual. The person who either did or did not

:09:56. > :10:02.do it or either did or did not have the necessary criminal intent. In

:10:03. > :10:07.order under current English law to fix criminal liability of a

:10:08. > :10:14.Corporation, one has to make, one has to resort to the identification

:10:15. > :10:26.principle which means that you have to find this efficient seniority in

:10:27. > :10:33.the Corporation who act with the company and identify the person and

:10:34. > :10:37.move on to fix criminal liability on the Corporation itself. That was

:10:38. > :10:42.fine in the Victorian era when most companies had one or two directors,

:10:43. > :10:52.are used example of a small business in a market town in the 1860s. Two

:10:53. > :10:57.or three men who owned and directed the company, it was always men in

:10:58. > :11:03.those days. A fraud was committed by the company on behalf of the

:11:04. > :11:09.company, it was perfectly easy to find the directors of the company in

:11:10. > :11:16.that small group of directors. As the industrial revolution, corporate

:11:17. > :11:20.legal development proceeded during the late 19th century, early 20th

:11:21. > :11:23.century, it became clear that companies are getting bigger and

:11:24. > :11:31.international trade meant that companies based in this country have

:11:32. > :11:35.offices and directing minds in other parts of the world. The United

:11:36. > :11:47.States dealt with this in 1912 when they did away with the directing

:11:48. > :11:52.mind by case law, developed the principal and criminal law that a

:11:53. > :12:02.company could be vicariously liable for the criminal act of its

:12:03. > :12:05.employees on the basis that they were conducting criminal activities

:12:06. > :12:10.for benefit and not on the behalf of the company. We have reached the

:12:11. > :12:18.stage in this country and reached it a long time ago when we need to

:12:19. > :12:23.reform the way in which we look at corporate criminal liability. I

:12:24. > :12:28.think it is uncontroversial to say that the identification principle,

:12:29. > :12:32.and I assume, I don't know, the honourable gentleman from Scotland

:12:33. > :12:36.with his Scottish legal experience will no doubt inform us whether the

:12:37. > :12:40.situation is the same in Scotland as it is in England but the time has

:12:41. > :12:46.come when that Victorian principle is no longer at the deal with

:12:47. > :12:52.international corporations. I don't pick up on this company I'm about to

:12:53. > :12:57.mention just because I think it's committed a criminal offence, quite

:12:58. > :13:02.the contrary but I want to use it as the example of a large international

:13:03. > :13:05.company. British Telecom has a huge company, employing hundreds of

:13:06. > :13:10.thousands of people all round the globe doing various things in the

:13:11. > :13:15.telecom world. All of it entirely legitimate, beneficial both the

:13:16. > :13:19.company and its shareholders and to our national economy but it must

:13:20. > :13:26.surely as a matter of common sense be extremely difficult nowadays to

:13:27. > :13:30.fix upon an individual or a group of individuals as representatives of

:13:31. > :13:34.the directing mind of that company when an offence is suspected to have

:13:35. > :13:42.been committed many miles away, a long way away from the main board, a

:13:43. > :13:49.long way away from the headquarters of the company in London. Now, I

:13:50. > :13:54.used British Telecom simply as an example of a large and international

:13:55. > :13:58.company with operations right around the world. Of course it would be

:13:59. > :14:04.perfectly possible to fix upon an individual, human being, who has

:14:05. > :14:08.committed an offence and it may well be that that individual committed

:14:09. > :14:16.that offence for the benefit of this international cooperation. I that

:14:17. > :14:19.person is of sufficient seniority within the hierarchy of this great

:14:20. > :14:27.big international company, it's very difficult to fix criminal liability

:14:28. > :14:30.for that person and also upon the Corporation in the United States for

:14:31. > :14:35.over 100 years they have got round that by using the principle of

:14:36. > :14:39.vicarious liability which we are used to dealing with in this country

:14:40. > :14:46.in civil law but not in criminal law. It seems to me there are two

:14:47. > :14:51.ways we can approach this and this is the whole point of the set of

:14:52. > :14:58.amendments or set of new clauses that I and others have tabled. The

:14:59. > :15:01.first one can use the American system with vicarious liability and

:15:02. > :15:07.plenty of good arguments for that or secondly one can, as we have

:15:08. > :15:14.described in our new clause, approach the problem by using the

:15:15. > :15:20.failure to prevent a regime where the company failed to prevent

:15:21. > :15:27.someone or another body associated with it from committing a specified

:15:28. > :15:34.offence will then be the company that's liable for criminal offence

:15:35. > :15:38.itself. We already have that on the statute book through section seven

:15:39. > :15:45.of the bribery act 2010 and we are about to have it added into the

:15:46. > :15:47.statute book by the existing provisions of the criminal finance

:15:48. > :15:55.is built in relation to tax offences. That followed through

:15:56. > :16:00.David Cameron's speech at the corruption summit last summer at

:16:01. > :16:05.Lancaster house. What I want to do by pushing forward these new

:16:06. > :16:09.clauses, is to invite Parliament, both this house on the other place

:16:10. > :16:12.and invite the government and by that I mean not only the political

:16:13. > :16:18.government but the nonpolitical government, the officials who run

:16:19. > :16:25.the government day by day and advise on matters of policy, to consider

:16:26. > :16:31.whether extending the failure to prevent regime is not perhaps an

:16:32. > :16:35.easier and better way than turning the whole thing on its head and by

:16:36. > :16:44.going wholesale across to the vicarious liability principle. There

:16:45. > :16:48.are plenty of arguments both for and against the extension of the section

:16:49. > :16:54.seven failure to prevent bribery model. I have attended a number of

:16:55. > :17:00.meetings with far more experienced criminal lawyers than I am, and I

:17:01. > :17:08.see one sitting just two ventures ahead of me, behind the Minister.

:17:09. > :17:14.She will know that I've come to learn in the last two years since

:17:15. > :17:18.I've taken an interest in corporate criminal crime that there are a

:17:19. > :17:25.number of difficulties which are created by the failure to prevent

:17:26. > :17:31.model. Some of those, and I want rehearsed now, but some of those are

:17:32. > :17:34.set out in the Ministry of Justice's call for evidence paper which was

:17:35. > :17:40.published on Friday 13th February, which they set out five options to

:17:41. > :17:50.look at this failure to prevent regime. I personally favour the

:17:51. > :17:58.failure to prevent model as compared to the vicarious liability model

:17:59. > :18:04.because it's already set within our system, albeit that buying these new

:18:05. > :18:08.clauses we are not extending the principle but we really extending

:18:09. > :18:12.the gambit of the offences, the criminal offences which could come

:18:13. > :18:20.within the failure to prevent system. As I said, these provisions

:18:21. > :18:24.are not going to be brought into this bill because I think it's

:18:25. > :18:29.highly unlikely that the government would accept any of them, albeit

:18:30. > :18:36.they might not politely at them when the Ministry of Justice's call for

:18:37. > :18:43.evidence process is still open. I do hope that the government will look

:18:44. > :18:47.carefully at the shape and the design of our new clauses with a

:18:48. > :18:56.view to considering and considering very vigorously whether what we have

:18:57. > :19:05.proposed as a matter of principle is worthy of greater thought. In new

:19:06. > :19:09.clause two I and my honourable friend 's and other honourable

:19:10. > :19:18.members of this house intend that we should create a corporate offence

:19:19. > :19:28.failing to prevent economic crime. I'll do my best to be brief. That

:19:29. > :19:30.schedule of that act brought in the deferred prosecution agreement

:19:31. > :19:38.system of dealing with errant companies. I declared an interest

:19:39. > :19:47.with a capital eye and a small I in deferred prosecution agreements

:19:48. > :19:56.which have taken place but also when I was general, I brought this system

:19:57. > :20:09.into law, at least I began it before I got the sack. There is a cloud in

:20:10. > :20:12.every silver lining. Very few. I'm diverging myself because I

:20:13. > :20:17.deliberately said cloud in every silver lining, not a silver lining

:20:18. > :20:24.in every cloud. The short point is that there are a certain number of

:20:25. > :20:27.offences set out in the schedule to the 2013 act, about 50 or so

:20:28. > :20:34.economic or financial criminal offences which are available to be

:20:35. > :20:37.dealt with by deferred prosecution agreement is by either the Crown

:20:38. > :20:43.Prosecution Service or the Serious Fraud Office and corporations.

:20:44. > :20:50.That's to say respondents on defendants, not human beings. Those

:20:51. > :20:55.criminal offences, it seems to me, are perfectly capable of being moved

:20:56. > :21:04.across into the failure to prevent regime. Section seven of the bribery

:21:05. > :21:11.act. We are about to have failure to prevent attacks. Why not, I ask. On

:21:12. > :21:15.this occasion I ask rhetorically, why not extend the failure to

:21:16. > :21:27.prevent regime across to these other offences. It limits the offences

:21:28. > :21:36.with those set out in some clause two and one sees that new" Mack and

:21:37. > :21:43.then in new clause 14 and 15, provisions put forward by the

:21:44. > :21:49.honourable lady for Newcastle, which, broadly, speak to the same

:21:50. > :21:59.issue that I'm discussing in relation to the new clauses that my

:22:00. > :22:05.name leads. Privately, therefore, I'm not going to push these new

:22:06. > :22:08.clauses or the lead new clause to the division. These are probing

:22:09. > :22:12.amendments, amendments designed to create a public discussion and I

:22:13. > :22:18.hope they will inform the Ministry of Justice's discussion paper but I

:22:19. > :22:24.hope also that they will encourage the Home Office and the Minister on

:22:25. > :22:28.the bench with whom I've had some very useful discussions about this

:22:29. > :22:33.and other matters to do with this bill, to consider very carefully and

:22:34. > :22:38.positively the extension of the failure to prevent regime. I know

:22:39. > :22:43.that the wheels of Whitehall move extremely slowly. Everyone has to be

:22:44. > :22:46.consulted nowadays nobody can have an idea of their own without it

:22:47. > :22:51.being beaten up and pushed through the role every other department that

:22:52. > :22:57.thinks it's got an interest are half an interest on everything that

:22:58. > :23:02.somebody else wants to do. You should try producing a piece of

:23:03. > :23:09.legislation as a law officer, they're not supposed to have any

:23:10. > :23:16.policies, there are seven this supposed to open the cupboard doors

:23:17. > :23:18.to ask what they expect, and then close the cupboard doors when they

:23:19. > :23:28.give an opinion. I I hope the next law officer I walk

:23:29. > :23:33.encourage this Government take a positive view of these. Not just

:23:34. > :23:38.because I want to do it, but I think it's an efficient and effective way

:23:39. > :23:44.of assisting the Serious Fraud Office, one of the most malleable

:23:45. > :23:49.and effective prosecution agencies in the Western Hemisphere, to do its

:23:50. > :23:54.job in ensuring that not just bad people, but bad companies are

:23:55. > :24:00.brought to justice. I hope to hear positive things from my honourable

:24:01. > :24:08.friend, from who I've never heard anything other than positive things.

:24:09. > :24:11.Failure to prevent an economic criminal offence. The question is

:24:12. > :24:19.that clause to be read a second time. I would wish to start by

:24:20. > :24:24.thanking the Minister and thanking the Government to responding to a

:24:25. > :24:30.campaign which I have been involved in for about a year regarding

:24:31. > :24:34.Scottish Limited partnerships. I think we are all grateful that

:24:35. > :24:40.recently, the Government have announced that they are going to

:24:41. > :24:43.conduct a review of them, hence, what I have been laying down for the

:24:44. > :24:52.last G8 in different bills is no longer necessary. However, I find

:24:53. > :25:02.myself having to move a different new clause, and I will explain why

:25:03. > :25:08.it troubles it -- greatly that I have to do so. Those who are

:25:09. > :25:13.unfamiliar, why have I been so concerned about Scottish limited

:25:14. > :25:19.partnerships? They do remarkable reputational damage to Scotland, and

:25:20. > :25:25.I would argue to the UK's financial sector. They are a front for some of

:25:26. > :25:32.the worst international crime, money-laundering, hiding of criminal

:25:33. > :25:37.assets could be found. Without going into detail, it may interest the

:25:38. > :25:44.House to know one or two of the types of crimes they have been used

:25:45. > :25:50.for. S LPs have been at the centre of Ukrainian arms deals and

:25:51. > :25:58.kickbacks, Moldovan Hank fraud, they've been at the heart of a major

:25:59. > :26:06.corruption scandal in Latvia, involving the nephew of is Becky

:26:07. > :26:12.stun's president. They've been running international mail fraud,

:26:13. > :26:18.including a psychic who's been targeting vulnerable, elderly people

:26:19. > :26:24.who have been offering spiritual insights to vulnerable, elderly

:26:25. > :26:31.people. They have been involved in a copyright infringement case for $1

:26:32. > :26:35.billion currently taking place in the United States. They've been

:26:36. > :26:40.involved in some of the criminal activity setting up paedophile sites

:26:41. > :26:46.and running through such horrible activities, and so on. Billions of

:26:47. > :26:57.pounds of criminal money has been able to use the lies -- utilise

:26:58. > :27:09.these partnerships as a way of hiding their activity. Using the

:27:10. > :27:14.legitimation of an apparent UK Limited partnership or a Scottish

:27:15. > :27:18.limited partnership is a means of hiding who are the beneficiaries of

:27:19. > :27:22.such criminal activities. So, for those reasons, I was particularly

:27:23. > :27:30.grateful that the security Minister has been willing to speak seriously

:27:31. > :27:34.about this. He has been the Minister that has done more than any in the

:27:35. > :27:39.Government to move the Government to respond to some of our concerns. So

:27:40. > :27:49.why am I moving a new clause? I'm moving this because S L P 's are

:27:50. > :27:55.based on the 1907 act that few people are aware of which was

:27:56. > :28:03.amended in 1890, the companies act, which even fewer people are aware

:28:04. > :28:08.of. I find a few weeks ago that by some chance I sit on the regulatory

:28:09. > :28:13.reform select committee of this House. It is such a popular

:28:14. > :28:21.committee, that I joined in January of last year and it had its second

:28:22. > :28:24.meeting in December. And why did this happen in December? Because we

:28:25. > :28:33.were told the Treasury were bringing forward a ledger less they've reform

:28:34. > :28:40.order. And what was this for? At the same time as the Government have

:28:41. > :28:44.announced a much welcomed review of limited art and airships, the

:28:45. > :28:52.Treasury are seeking to create a new form of limited partnership called

:28:53. > :28:57.Private Funds Limited Partnership. Not by bringing it to the floor of

:28:58. > :29:02.this House but by using a device which is supposed to be used only

:29:03. > :29:11.for none and reversal matters of legislation. I can't think of

:29:12. > :29:15.anything more controversial than a mechanism that has been used for

:29:16. > :29:19.money-laundering and criminal assets. There are even greater

:29:20. > :29:24.concern is however. When you look at the details of what the Treasury are

:29:25. > :29:30.bringing forward and I'm having to leave this debate in about an hour

:29:31. > :29:39.to attend the committee I spoke to in January, the cries of the

:29:40. > :29:48.sedentary position of jealous... I am sure you are not! Even S LPs have

:29:49. > :30:04.TB complied with. The jurisdiction in which the

:30:05. > :30:08.general partners are registered no longer need to beat divulge to. The

:30:09. > :30:15.registration numbers of the general partners know longer have TB

:30:16. > :30:23.divulge. The juristic and in which the limited partners or register no

:30:24. > :30:28.longer have to be divulge to, and if they are corporations they do not

:30:29. > :30:35.have to divulge that information either. It is with considerably less

:30:36. > :30:45.regulation than these existing ones which have been a front for

:30:46. > :30:51.International criminality. Since I have such great faith in the

:30:52. > :30:58.security Minister, what I ask is that our new clause asks that the

:30:59. > :31:03.Home Office should conduct a review before the Treasury brings forward

:31:04. > :31:06.any resolutions to create any new forms of limited partnership to

:31:07. > :31:14.ensure that they are not going to be subject to the type of criminal

:31:15. > :31:17.abuse and illegality that have been found within Scottish limited

:31:18. > :31:26.partnerships. I think there is a broader question here too which is,

:31:27. > :31:33.why is this Government using this device such as legislative reform to

:31:34. > :31:38.try and get through quickly the establishment of something in such a

:31:39. > :31:43.controversial area. Surely, this is something the floor of this House

:31:44. > :31:48.should be able to Philly and properly debate, and that is why on

:31:49. > :31:54.the committee I'm going to shortly, I will certainly not be agreeing to

:31:55. > :32:00.progress being made in that committee, doing my best to make

:32:01. > :32:08.sure this is brought back to the floor of this House to receive

:32:09. > :32:18.proper and urgent scrutiny. In light of these arguments, I move the

:32:19. > :32:24.clause. To the new clauses that my honourable friend speaks of,

:32:25. > :32:37.although it hasn't formally been moved yet. I am speaking of the

:32:38. > :32:42.festive clauses, tabled by both honourable friends. I think the

:32:43. > :32:48.arguments were well made by the previous big who knows more about

:32:49. > :32:52.these things. Reinforcing the point, there is a strong feeling out there

:32:53. > :32:59.from the public, the way we seem very large companies be part of some

:33:00. > :33:03.very, very serious liminal activity, and people are confused as to why

:33:04. > :33:09.these people and a senior amongst them haven't been prosecuted. When I

:33:10. > :33:18.looked across at the Atlantic that they managed to Ross acute senior

:33:19. > :33:23.bankers and so forth. We see all our banks being fined in America for

:33:24. > :33:30.rigging the markets, and yet why is no senior director being prosecuted

:33:31. > :33:36.here? I think it exposes the fact that this law has become out of

:33:37. > :33:41.date. It does seem horribly unfair that the Serious Fraud Office find

:33:42. > :33:45.it easier to prosecute directors in companies where they are very small.

:33:46. > :33:50.It's clear where the controlling minds are, but when you see far more

:33:51. > :33:56.serious crimes being committed on the behalf of bigger companies, and

:33:57. > :34:03.we can't find the evidence to prosecute them, because we can't

:34:04. > :34:12.quite... Would you accept in the US context is often a political

:34:13. > :34:21.element, despite the division of power there. Often, it has to be a

:34:22. > :34:25.big, non-US anger which is of a particular concern, not just in the

:34:26. > :34:33.banking world but beyond that. Prosecutions seem to be fair game

:34:34. > :34:39.for overseas companies. It may not point to a desire and a need for a

:34:40. > :34:54.change in the UK law. It's of interest, I agree with his point.

:34:55. > :34:59.They do seem to favour internationally larger banks, I

:35:00. > :35:05.think he is right that we shouldn't read too much across, but I'm try to

:35:06. > :35:09.make the point that the people out there are confused as to why people

:35:10. > :35:14.can be prosecuted over there but not here. I will come back to the point

:35:15. > :35:20.I was trying to make, it does seem unfair that we cannot prosecute

:35:21. > :35:25.bigger businesses when we see criminal activity. That's why I

:35:26. > :35:32.would support extending the model of the failure to prevent that we have

:35:33. > :35:37.in place for bribery and tax evasion, those economic crimes we

:35:38. > :35:43.are talking about. It's hard to make a distinction as to why we would

:35:44. > :35:51.rank some of these offences being less important. That's why I do

:35:52. > :35:56.welcome the Government's consultation on these issues. It

:35:57. > :36:01.probably has to be right that now we are consulting, it's premature to

:36:02. > :36:06.legislate before we do. This might make a bit of a mockery of the idea

:36:07. > :36:25.of a consultation. It's a real pity that we had this bill that we could

:36:26. > :36:33.use as a vehicle for change... If the Minister could make some

:36:34. > :36:43.encouraging noises about how the Government are taking this and see

:36:44. > :36:53.some progress with this. To leap to clause six, I thought I was

:36:54. > :37:02.supporting Government policy for quite a long while by encouraging

:37:03. > :37:06.our overseas territories and Crown dependencies to adopt the same level

:37:07. > :37:10.of transparency of business ownership that we're putting in

:37:11. > :37:17.place here. I think the previous Prime Minister was absolutely right

:37:18. > :37:19.to try and get those independent territories and transparent

:37:20. > :37:23.registers. I welcome the fact that they have moved the fairway in

:37:24. > :37:29.agreeing to have the registers in the first place and the reliable

:37:30. > :37:33.information about the companies and owners in their territories. We look

:37:34. > :37:38.forward to those being in place recognise that will be a great step

:37:39. > :37:42.forward for various law enforcement agencies to get that information in

:37:43. > :37:47.a relatively speedy basis for prosecutions, but I think this

:37:48. > :37:53.doesn't go far enough when we are looking at having a transparent

:37:54. > :38:00.register here. In the first group we talked about today perhaps make the

:38:01. > :38:05.case quite strongly that he thought the attraction for coming to the UK

:38:06. > :38:11.for its knees was the rule of law and a favourable tax-free shame,

:38:12. > :38:16.these could also be applied to our territories. People go there,

:38:17. > :38:19.establish these territories and recognise they have strong rule of

:38:20. > :38:25.law and they have the favourable tax treatment that they want. What we

:38:26. > :38:30.try to see with this amendment that both territories can be rightly

:38:31. > :38:36.marketed as a contagious places because they have the rule of law

:38:37. > :38:41.and tax treatment, but what we don't want them to market themselves as as

:38:42. > :38:47.ways of hiding dirty monies and finding their way round rules that

:38:48. > :38:51.we have in place here. We want them to have the same levels of

:38:52. > :38:56.transparency that we have. And when those territories come and lobby and

:38:57. > :39:01.say, yes, but we don't need to do that, and if we do that in advance

:39:02. > :39:06.of Delaware and Panama then we will move people elsewhere where we can

:39:07. > :39:11.make it viable, what they always seem to say is that we don't want

:39:12. > :39:12.dirty money in our territory. We don't want corrupt money, criminal

:39:13. > :39:25.money. I can never quite understand the

:39:26. > :39:28.reason why they don't have a transparent register. While so

:39:29. > :39:33.concerned about having a transparent register which shows they're not so

:39:34. > :39:35.we can all see that they're not. It just leaves that leaves that

:39:36. > :39:39.suspicion that they kind of might be getting a bit of money coming

:39:40. > :39:42.through there that ought not to be going there. I think it would be

:39:43. > :39:46.greatly to the advantage of the reputation of those territories and

:39:47. > :39:50.of the UK as a whole to have this transparency in place and that's why

:39:51. > :39:53.I think the effort efforts the Right Honourable member for Barking has

:39:54. > :39:57.gone to in drafting new clause six to try to get it into order. He

:39:58. > :40:03.clearly wouldn't be right for this house to legislate for all those

:40:04. > :40:06.territories, those days past few decades ago but is clearly right for

:40:07. > :40:13.us to send out a strong message to there are very good advantages

:40:14. > :40:18.needed. Those advantages, obligations and we want them to be

:40:19. > :40:22.the beacons for the right way of doing business for the right way of

:40:23. > :40:27.investing, for attracting the right kind of money and we're seeing that

:40:28. > :40:30.over this period of a couple more years we want you to have those

:40:31. > :40:33.transparent registers, we don't want to destroy your business model or

:40:34. > :40:38.your national income but we wanted to be clear that what you're taking

:40:39. > :40:43.this clean, legitimate money and no reason for people who are doing that

:40:44. > :40:48.to want to hide. If any of those territories were acting as a conduit

:40:49. > :40:52.to get money into the UK, we know who the business owner is. One of

:40:53. > :40:58.the main advantages they have is there is no argument against this.

:40:59. > :41:01.The reason why I feel strongly is actually, where there are stories

:41:02. > :41:05.about money being hidden in these territories, it affects us as well.

:41:06. > :41:10.I was in Tajikistan on a Parliamentary visit on the one thing

:41:11. > :41:14.there is that there has been a very effective toll road built between

:41:15. > :41:18.the two main cities, the only problem is that the revenue from the

:41:19. > :41:21.tolls of that road end up in a British Virgin Islands company but

:41:22. > :41:26.nobody owns who owns a company, let's say it on and in a way that

:41:27. > :41:31.the Tajikistan authorities will not be criticising it. They said the UK

:41:32. > :41:34.are allowing the money to be siphoned off into one of the strange

:41:35. > :41:38.territories, that may or may not be true. He's making a strong and

:41:39. > :41:43.powerful case but does he not recognise the distinction between

:41:44. > :41:50.privacy and secrecy. Number that must have an entirely secret element

:41:51. > :41:57.but most people who are indulged in banking or in overseas banking

:41:58. > :42:00.deserve secrecy. We expect law enforcement, the police, we expect

:42:01. > :42:05.the tax authorities to have access to these registers but the notion

:42:06. > :42:08.and he's been fair in making the point ultimately a lot of these

:42:09. > :42:10.issues should be constitutional issues for those territories

:42:11. > :42:20.themselves and should be imposed upon by the UK but the notion that

:42:21. > :42:25.beyond those authorities having access which would apply to this

:42:26. > :42:29.Tajikistan example that it should be just open for anyone necessarily to

:42:30. > :42:33.have access to that. Surely you can understand there is a reluctance and

:42:34. > :42:43.the globalised financial world we live in for that to happen. I accept

:42:44. > :42:47.the argument on privacy is made a lot and I'm sure the argument is

:42:48. > :42:50.made in the UK as well but we have taken a decision that we want to see

:42:51. > :42:57.transparent registers so we know the ultimate thank beneficial owner of

:42:58. > :43:00.these entities. Everything through the scenarios when people have the

:43:01. > :43:05.right to privacy I can see as there was a real issue with individual

:43:06. > :43:10.safety that there may be a good reason not to publish. I struggle to

:43:11. > :43:13.find many other situations where there is a good argument for people

:43:14. > :43:19.being able to establish entities or other bodies in these territories

:43:20. > :43:25.and not have that become clear who the ultimate on arrays. Because

:43:26. > :43:30.frankly if you own a company here, if you're a shareholder it has to be

:43:31. > :43:35.public who the shareholders are, if you have any kind of entity here.

:43:36. > :43:43.I'm not quite sure why if our dependencies are different arguments

:43:44. > :43:46.they ought to apply. Weighing up the balance of the right privacy with

:43:47. > :43:50.the right to ensure we're not letting dirty corrupt criminal money

:43:51. > :43:55.into the system, we have the air on that side of the equation. I'm

:43:56. > :43:58.grateful to my honourable friend, but just on reflection of the

:43:59. > :44:04.example that he's used about the toll road in Tajikistan. Because of

:44:05. > :44:11.where we are now with a commitment to central registers and automatic

:44:12. > :44:16.access of our law enforcement agencies to those registers in those

:44:17. > :44:23.countries such as the BVI, his example would be able to be now

:44:24. > :44:28.investigated, it would be able to be potentially tracked down and because

:44:29. > :44:31.of the offence in this bill that if you are encouraging tax evasion even

:44:32. > :44:37.in another country and I would guess the people who siphon off tall money

:44:38. > :44:42.are not paying taxes into GQ Stan, then we could take some action

:44:43. > :44:46.against that of the BVI bank had a British nexus here. We're long way

:44:47. > :44:50.know about tackling that type of crime because of that bill and

:44:51. > :44:56.because of where we got to since David Cameron's Summit. I'm grateful

:44:57. > :45:00.for those points I will be careful for using one example, there may be

:45:01. > :45:03.very good commercial reasons for that, they might be a rumour. We

:45:04. > :45:10.should be careful on one example but what it highlights is actually are

:45:11. > :45:15.there sufficient resources in the various law-enforcement bodies here

:45:16. > :45:19.or in other places to actually pursue enquiries through the whole

:45:20. > :45:23.labyrinth of corporate structures that are involved in the complex

:45:24. > :45:28.money laundering and corruption situations. The advantage of having

:45:29. > :45:31.transparency, one of the reasons why we've chosen to do it year, is it

:45:32. > :45:37.puts into the public domain the information for various NGOs and do

:45:38. > :45:41.some of the initial investigation and put together the corporate

:45:42. > :45:43.chains and buildings, break the corporate buyers and white cat

:45:44. > :45:48.actually where this money is coming from and where it has got to. And

:45:49. > :45:52.just a little sceptical we'll ever have the resources in law

:45:53. > :45:56.enforcement to start that process in the vast majority of those cases.

:45:57. > :45:59.Never again get the information in the public domain and treated all

:46:00. > :46:01.the way through, then that information can come forward and

:46:02. > :46:06.then be used by law-enforcement bodies and that's what they're to

:46:07. > :46:10.achieve, trying to enable that to make it much harder to hide this

:46:11. > :46:13.money through a complex structure going through multiple territories

:46:14. > :46:20.and whatever many trusts and entities. I suspect while it is

:46:21. > :46:23.entirely right and wealth on that law enforcement has the access in a

:46:24. > :46:27.timely basis, that won't be enough to do the full tackling of this

:46:28. > :46:34.scourge would like to see. That's why I do support the effort is gone

:46:35. > :46:37.to a new clause six to find a way of sending a strong signal in these

:46:38. > :46:41.territories that they want to see transparent registers. Is the right

:46:42. > :46:48.direction to travel for these resumes and we want to see our

:46:49. > :46:58.territories taking the lead and not waiting. Let's set an example, let's

:46:59. > :47:01.move first. It's a pleasure to follow the honourable member for

:47:02. > :47:06.Amber Valley. Wright-Phillips sitting down and not making my

:47:07. > :47:12.speech, but I will because he made such excellent points about why

:47:13. > :47:16.public registers are in beneficial ownership this all-important and I

:47:17. > :47:23.look forward to working with him on this and reporting and along with

:47:24. > :47:26.the many other colleagues across the House from eight political parties

:47:27. > :47:31.who are supporting new clause six on the number of Conservative MPs who

:47:32. > :47:34.despite government pressure are supporting those close today, in

:47:35. > :47:39.particular the former International Development Secretary, the right

:47:40. > :47:43.honourable member for Sutton Coldfield though I understand he

:47:44. > :47:46.hopes catch your eye deputy Speaker. I've would like to be true to the

:47:47. > :47:49.hard work of my friend, the Right Honourable member for barking who's

:47:50. > :47:53.done such important work on this amendment and I'm sorry and she's

:47:54. > :48:02.sorry that she couldn't be here today to speak in this debate. I

:48:03. > :48:05.hope you will not mind me naming clause six as the Hodge Amendment. I

:48:06. > :48:10.welcomed the government criminal Finance Bill, its aims of tackling

:48:11. > :48:16.corruption and terrorist financing is really important and should be

:48:17. > :48:20.commended. The absence of any mention of the overseas territories,

:48:21. > :48:25.I do find it remarkable. As Christian Aid has said, the number

:48:26. > :48:29.one thing the government could do to tackle corruption, money laundering

:48:30. > :48:34.and tax evasion would be to ensure transparency in its overseas

:48:35. > :48:39.territory. The secrecy that they trade in facilitates the very

:48:40. > :48:43.corruption and aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion were all

:48:44. > :48:46.trying to stamp out. The amendment is supported by the all-party

:48:47. > :48:51.Parliamentary group, the all-party Parliamentary group on

:48:52. > :48:57.anti-corruption. Christian Aid, transparency International. Publish

:48:58. > :49:02.what you pay UK. Save the children, Oxfam and many others and we all

:49:03. > :49:07.know from numerous polls that this is something that British public

:49:08. > :49:11.really cares about. Two thirds of them want government to insist on

:49:12. > :49:17.public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas

:49:18. > :49:21.Territories. As a Honourable member mentioned, this amendment has

:49:22. > :49:26.responded to concerns raised earlier at different points of debate on

:49:27. > :49:30.this bill. We are focusing purely on the overseas territories where the

:49:31. > :49:33.constitutional issues are more clear-cut and we recognise that the

:49:34. > :49:39.overseas territories are making steps towards private registers of

:49:40. > :49:43.beneficial ownership. We have allowed, I believe, a generous

:49:44. > :49:46.timeline for them to move from this to make these registers publicly

:49:47. > :49:51.accessible. The overseas territories need to have these private registers

:49:52. > :49:55.in place by June of this year. This amendment will give them another two

:49:56. > :50:00.and a half years after this to simply make these private registers

:50:01. > :50:05.public. That would be within the lifetime of this parliament and I

:50:06. > :50:09.think would be a major step forward. The amendment is important for us in

:50:10. > :50:13.the UK but the reason why so many of the NGOs I mentioned are supporting

:50:14. > :50:17.new clause six is because of how important it is for developing

:50:18. > :50:20.countries. According to the United Nations conference on trade and

:50:21. > :50:24.development, developing countries lose at least 100 billion American

:50:25. > :50:31.dollars every year as a result of tax havens. Around eight - 15% of

:50:32. > :50:35.the world's Wealth is being held offshore in low tax jurisdictions,

:50:36. > :50:41.many of which come under our jurisdiction. While Bank review of

:50:42. > :50:49.213 big corruption cases found that over 70% them relied on secret

:50:50. > :50:52.company ownership. Company service providers in UK territories were

:50:53. > :50:59.second on the list in providing these companies. Oxfam has said

:51:00. > :51:02.recently that around one third of rich African's wealth is currently

:51:03. > :51:10.sitting in offshore tax havens. If all that wealth was held in Africa

:51:11. > :51:15.and taxed properly with the able to pay for enough teachers to educate

:51:16. > :51:20.every child in Africa. It does damage, as the honourable member for

:51:21. > :51:24.Amber Valley said, I think our reputation that the British Virgin

:51:25. > :51:30.Islands was the most mentioned tax haven in the Panama papers. We know

:51:31. > :51:36.future leaks are coming. So why can't we get ahead of the game and

:51:37. > :51:39.ensure transparency now. In a recent debate on the Commonwealth

:51:40. > :51:46.development Corporation Bill, the honourable member for unrest on the

:51:47. > :51:51.border said the Commonwealth would never invest through Anguilla or the

:51:52. > :51:55.British Virgin Islands. If it minister and the Commonwealth

:51:56. > :52:00.development Corporation can say that, what does it say about our

:52:01. > :52:03.responsibility today to change the reputation that clearly British

:52:04. > :52:07.ministers are thinking of when they think of not investing though those

:52:08. > :52:18.overseas territories and do something today to help them become

:52:19. > :52:23.more transparent. I was pleased to add my name to new clause six. Which

:52:24. > :52:27.agree that this is exactly the point, about consistency of approach

:52:28. > :52:31.and when we're talking about trying to reduce the need for aid to

:52:32. > :52:34.certain countries, one of the Kiwis to do that is to ensure that

:52:35. > :52:39.countries are able to generate their own revenues from having tax paid

:52:40. > :52:42.properly in their own jurisdictions. I agree with my honourable friend I

:52:43. > :52:47.thank him for his support and putting his name to new clause six.

:52:48. > :52:51.Aid is very important but importantly, how do we create the

:52:52. > :52:54.self-sufficiency for more countries that are recipients of aid to stand

:52:55. > :53:00.on their own two feed. I understand that transparency in terms of

:53:01. > :53:04.overseas territories and in terms of our own system is important, as well

:53:05. > :53:06.as good governance in these countries as well because

:53:07. > :53:09.unfortunately in some of the countries we supply aid to, they

:53:10. > :53:13.could do a hell of a lot more to help their own citizens as well.

:53:14. > :53:20.This is an area we can have a direct impact and really start making

:53:21. > :53:26.significant changes right now. Sadly, in recent weeks we've seen a

:53:27. > :53:31.somewhat disappointing climb-down from ministers. The government's new

:53:32. > :53:34.line is that public registers emerge as the global standard, the

:53:35. > :53:38.expanding overseas territories to follow suit. Our own UK Government

:53:39. > :53:45.has made considerable progress on this agenda, which I applaud. If you

:53:46. > :53:50.look at the financial secrecy index, the UK is 15th but if you combine

:53:51. > :53:52.the UK with our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, we are top

:53:53. > :54:06.of the list for financial secrecy. It's probably for this reason that

:54:07. > :54:14.other countries use this excuse for not adapting -- adopting public

:54:15. > :54:20.registers. We are bound to this in a way that other countries can use as

:54:21. > :54:28.an excuse not to make steps forward on this important matter. Now, David

:54:29. > :54:34.Cameron, and I don't often see this, David Cameron does deserve praise

:54:35. > :54:38.for his leadership at the G8 summit, yet we cannot claim leadership in

:54:39. > :54:43.this area until we get our houses in order. Why is it so important the

:54:44. > :54:46.registers are publicly available? Because it's the only way that

:54:47. > :54:57.people in developing countries can access the information in a proper

:54:58. > :55:02.way, and secondly, it allows law agencies and civil societies to

:55:03. > :55:06.interrogate data like they have with the Panama papers. Transparency is

:55:07. > :55:17.far more efficient than endless systems of information exchange

:55:18. > :55:22.between governments. Does she believe a conflict here where

:55:23. > :55:27.different governments are supporting tax systems and tax authorities in

:55:28. > :55:33.many developing countries. Of course, if they can have the

:55:34. > :55:37.transparency of information of companies, even if they are getting

:55:38. > :55:40.support, they can't get to the bottom where their taxes are

:55:41. > :55:45.actually going? If you haven't got the tools to make the difference you

:55:46. > :55:53.won't see the change being made across this House without further

:55:54. > :56:00.access from transparent information. This is fundamental. This is why

:56:01. > :56:05.public access to the data and why David Cameron was exactly right to

:56:06. > :56:08.demand it. When the Minister responsible this amendment, I sped

:56:09. > :56:13.him to say that the overseas territories are making progress on

:56:14. > :56:18.this agenda. Let's be clear about the progress being made. Since the

:56:19. > :56:24.former Prime Minister first asked the overseas territories to consider

:56:25. > :56:33.public registers are beneficial ownership. Over three News on, only

:56:34. > :56:41.one territory, Munson wrapped, has committed to a public register. The

:56:42. > :56:46.rest have delayed at every step. Is the Minister satisfied with that

:56:47. > :57:00.outcome and how can he account for progress being so slow? He wrote to

:57:01. > :57:05.many of the leaders and there was little response. The Minister for

:57:06. > :57:19.Hertfordshire asked the territories to develop centres for these in

:57:20. > :57:26.December 2000 15. Was not hit. At the most recent meeting with

:57:27. > :57:30.overseas Territories leaders in 2016, public registers were not even

:57:31. > :57:36.mentioned in the final communication. Without the exposure

:57:37. > :57:40.following the release of the Panama papers, it has two big the question

:57:41. > :57:46.whether we have made as much progress, if we have at all, if that

:57:47. > :57:54.is Panama papers had not been released. I'm grateful to the

:57:55. > :58:02.honourable lady, she's not very charitable, so while the central

:58:03. > :58:10.registers are not public, but we will achieve this. Where they have

:58:11. > :58:15.needed help we have given help. In answer to her point that it wasn't

:58:16. > :58:25.even raised, the public register, I had a meeting with them to weeks ago

:58:26. > :58:29.and is I made it then. Whilst there was some mention around beneficial

:58:30. > :58:33.ownership, and private registers, there's nothing in that

:58:34. > :58:41.communication mentioning journeys from private to public registers and

:58:42. > :58:49.I do welcome the progress that is being made but I'm going to go on to

:58:50. > :58:53.suggest that unless we link to an end game from private to public

:58:54. > :58:57.registers then I feel we were still had the problems that have been

:58:58. > :59:04.happening for some years. I thank my honourable friend for way. Having

:59:05. > :59:11.just heard the Minister saying he raised the register and of making it

:59:12. > :59:20.ownership, would it not have been better for him in doing so, he was

:59:21. > :59:24.supported by this Parliament 3-D very amendment that we are now

:59:25. > :59:34.debating. I thank the honourable gentleman for that intervention. It

:59:35. > :59:40.is to strengthen the arm of the Government and the ministers, to

:59:41. > :59:44.say, look, we welcome the efforts in terms of central and private

:59:45. > :59:49.registers and automatic exchange of information, but we are on a journey

:59:50. > :59:53.here. This is not the endgame. This is part of the journey we want to

:59:54. > :59:58.get to, and it would be very helpful to hear from the Minister in his

:59:59. > :00:05.remarks, what was the reaction to that question at the meeting that

:00:06. > :00:09.was held. And I understand on the issue of central registers and this

:00:10. > :00:12.is important, because whilst there might be private registers,

:00:13. > :00:15.information might be held in different places, private central

:00:16. > :00:23.registers a very central to this because it helps to make it clearer,

:00:24. > :00:28.even in the private circumstances, if we don't have central registers

:00:29. > :00:32.it will make it harder if we do want to make that journey to public

:00:33. > :00:38.registers in the future, so I would ask the Minister how many of our

:00:39. > :00:39.overseas territories will provide central registers? Will the British

:00:40. > :01:00.Virgin Islandss register be central? That why we need to discuss how they

:01:01. > :01:05.are held, how easy they are to access the those who are going to

:01:06. > :01:14.access them, which is pertinent to a future which is... Ickes pectin to

:01:15. > :01:26.see how complicated this is constitutionally. Now, none of us...

:01:27. > :01:32.The amendment gives overseas Territories until the end of 2019 to

:01:33. > :01:36.act on their own. The fact is is that we can't remove the possibility

:01:37. > :01:42.of using orders in council if we want to see more progress on the

:01:43. > :01:45.transparency agenda, and on the overseas territories, the

:01:46. > :01:48.constitutional position is clear. A 2012 Government White Paper said

:01:49. > :01:54.that as a matter of constitutional law, the UK Parliament has unlimited

:01:55. > :01:59.power to legislate for the overseas territories. There are multiple

:02:00. > :02:19.examples of this, in 2009, the UK imposed direct rule after

:02:20. > :02:26.allegations corruption. In 1991, capital punishment was abolished in

:02:27. > :02:31.various islands. The exception was the Bermuda territory, January

:02:32. > :02:36.considered the most autonomous, that the Government threatened to impose

:02:37. > :02:40.change which had the desired effect of changing domestic legislation.

:02:41. > :02:48.The Minister was very clear at the committee stage of this bill that he

:02:49. > :03:06.was wanting to see this, so why has he scaled back on his work in recent

:03:07. > :03:09.weeks? So, as we look ahead to a global, post-Brexit Britain, let's

:03:10. > :03:17.seek to lead the world rather than just followed. Let's ensure

:03:18. > :03:25.transparency is in place. Let's ensure that tax cheats, organised

:03:26. > :03:32.criminals, have nowhere to hide. For the benefit of taxpayers, UK

:03:33. > :03:40.reputation, people all over the world, and for all these reasons I

:03:41. > :03:48.urge the House to support clause six. This is an important, probing

:03:49. > :03:54.amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says

:03:55. > :03:59.before I decide whether or not to vote for it, because I think one of

:04:00. > :04:06.the most important aspect of this bill, tackling corruption, standing

:04:07. > :04:10.at five in the sand transparency, the Government deserves enormous

:04:11. > :04:16.praise for the work it has done. Landmark work, not just here but at

:04:17. > :04:23.G20 trying to tackle corruption which is what this clause is about.

:04:24. > :04:32.May I say to the honourable lady who moved this clause is so eloquently,

:04:33. > :04:49.we join her and we see how much we grep that the honourable lady for

:04:50. > :04:53.Berkeley -- regrets. I'm happy to confirm to the House that no one has

:04:54. > :05:01.tried to lean on me regarding this bill. I would like to make it clear

:05:02. > :05:07.that the Minister will have to do a little better with his response to

:05:08. > :05:13.the question from my honourable friend from Amber Valley, because he

:05:14. > :05:18.is correct that it's not the administration of Uzbekistan who may

:05:19. > :05:23.be colluding with the owners of the bridge, but to enable Civic society

:05:24. > :05:32.to hold the powerful to account, and that is why we support transparency,

:05:33. > :05:36.that's why when I had the privilege of being Secretary of State for

:05:37. > :05:39.International Development, we put everything we could into the public

:05:40. > :05:47.domain as much as we could, it's why we should support saying free press,

:05:48. > :05:55.while it is unruly at times, it is still a bastion of our liberty.

:05:56. > :05:58.Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and regarding this amendment, leaks

:05:59. > :06:05.out anyway in the back pages of private side. Much better to put the

:06:06. > :06:20.whole thing on a formal setting. -- pages of private eye.

:06:21. > :06:30.Huge progress has been made. I would like to ask the Minister when he

:06:31. > :06:37.comes to respond if he could give the flavour of what the Government

:06:38. > :06:42.is planning. There is a difference here and I want to understand the

:06:43. > :06:47.Minister's thinking on the slightly differing treatment of both those

:06:48. > :06:54.categories. During the run-up to this amendment, I was visited by no

:06:55. > :06:58.less than five Independent territories officials, supported by

:06:59. > :07:06.the Falkland islands, although I think that was a matter of

:07:07. > :07:10.solidarity and direct interest. They makes an important point which I no

:07:11. > :07:20.doubt will hear from our honourable friend from Norfolk. First of all,

:07:21. > :07:25.yet they have an open, public register, they will suffer a

:07:26. > :07:29.competitive disadvantage, and it's true. And their answer to that is

:07:30. > :07:34.that if they are going to do it, and they don't have an objection in

:07:35. > :07:43.principle, that everyone should do it as well. The effect on their

:07:44. > :07:50.income could push them back into dependency, which again, is a fair

:07:51. > :07:54.point. The answer in my view from the Government should be to narrow

:07:55. > :08:00.the footprint at all times of those areas which are able to hide behind

:08:01. > :08:05.secrecy. Certainly, as a step forward, to have a register, albeit

:08:06. > :08:15.not a public one, but we need to hear from the Government that how

:08:16. > :08:17.long they will allow the register to remain private, and whether they

:08:18. > :08:27.expect these If the register remains private and

:08:28. > :08:31.not public, although it may be accessible to law enforcement

:08:32. > :08:35.agencies, and that's obviously right, they are nevertheless crime

:08:36. > :08:40.fighters are confronting crime and corruption with one hand behind

:08:41. > :08:45.their back. If they're able to see all the entries an argument that we

:08:46. > :08:50.completely accept in Britain and under British law, then it makes the

:08:51. > :08:55.fight against crime and against corruption that much easier and that

:08:56. > :09:01.is why in the UK we have a public register. So I hope the Minister

:09:02. > :09:06.will explain to the House how he thinks progress will be made towards

:09:07. > :09:10.a public register, whether he is saying that the Crown dependencies

:09:11. > :09:21.want more time, a point they made when they came to see me, or whether

:09:22. > :09:28.he takes a different view. Finally, the African progress panel looked

:09:29. > :09:34.recently at the democratic republic of Congo, the DRC to see the extent

:09:35. > :09:39.of the siphoning of off revenue from that country. It is a rich irony in

:09:40. > :09:44.the DRC some of the poorest people on the world live on top of the some

:09:45. > :09:48.of the richest real he is state. In the area they looked at they

:09:49. > :09:53.identified nearly one-and-a-half billion of lost revenue, more than

:09:54. > :09:59.the total health and education budgets of that country in the

:10:00. > :10:04.period in question. And there are credible studies by the World Bank

:10:05. > :10:11.which show that if you look at the extent per year from Africa of tax

:10:12. > :10:17.not paid or funding stolen, the effect of the money that has been

:10:18. > :10:22.concealed or stolen in that way dwarfs the totality of all the flows

:10:23. > :10:27.of international aid and development money. So the House today has the

:10:28. > :10:34.opportunity of going with the grain of this bill, of going with the

:10:35. > :10:37.grain of British leadership internationally on transparency and

:10:38. > :10:43.openness. In my view, unless the Minister has a very strong argument

:10:44. > :10:49.and he is the sort of Minister who may well have, then the effect of us

:10:50. > :10:52.saying that we will not impose the same standards on dependent

:10:53. > :10:56.territories with all the advantages they gain from that status, will be

:10:57. > :11:00.to damage our credibility on these matters, not only here in Britain,

:11:01. > :11:10.but also internationally. It's a pleasure to follow my right

:11:11. > :11:14.honourable friend who speaks with great authority and commitment on

:11:15. > :11:17.these matters. I am going to come to a point where I disagree with him on

:11:18. > :11:21.one practical matter, although not with the objective he seeks to

:11:22. > :11:25.achieve, I do want to endorse the thrust of this bill as he has just

:11:26. > :11:29.done and also the observation that is worth repeating and all the more

:11:30. > :11:33.important as we look to a world after we have left the European

:11:34. > :11:37.Union that Britain is a world leader in terms of transparency and a world

:11:38. > :11:41.leader in terms of effectiveness of dealing with financial crime as

:11:42. > :11:44.things are at the moment. My honourable and learned friend was

:11:45. > :11:49.right to stress in that connection the particular value of the work of

:11:50. > :11:52.the Serious Fraud Office which is extremely successful, highly

:11:53. > :11:58.regarded the world over and not least, this is very important,

:11:59. > :12:01.because it is operationally independent of any investigating

:12:02. > :12:06.authority and it will be wrong to do anything to change that arrangement.

:12:07. > :12:11.The SFO is currently constituted, works and works well and it has an

:12:12. > :12:13.international reputation as a leader precisely because of that

:12:14. > :12:20.independence which is very important. Can I then turn

:12:21. > :12:25.specifically to clause six and I have sympathy with the member for

:12:26. > :12:29.Don Valley but I have to take issue in this regard, I don't think the

:12:30. > :12:34.phrase is appropriate or proportionate to achieve the

:12:35. > :12:38.objective. Let me say why and in doing so declare an interest, I am

:12:39. > :12:42.the Secretary of the all parliamentary party group on

:12:43. > :12:47.Gibraltar, I am also a member of the all-parliamentary party group of the

:12:48. > :12:51.Channel Islands which is a Crown dependency, not in new clause six

:12:52. > :12:55.but other new clauses not yet moved. My concern is this, the way the

:12:56. > :12:58.argument is fought assumes that all the overseas territories should be

:12:59. > :13:03.lumped in together. I don't think that's fair. I particularly want to

:13:04. > :13:06.address the position of Gibraltar, because it is in a different

:13:07. > :13:12.position. Firstly by the nature of its constitution. Secondly, unlike

:13:13. > :13:18.other overseas territories Gibraltar is part of the European Union

:13:19. > :13:20.effectively and therefore has had and has complied with international

:13:21. > :13:26.standards and used and in the same way that the UK has. So it's

:13:27. > :13:29.important not to lump Gibraltar in with other jurisdictions where there

:13:30. > :13:32.has been a controversy. I say that specifically, it's important this

:13:33. > :13:37.House has it on record, because there are people I am afraid the

:13:38. > :13:43.other side of the land border in Gibraltar? Spain, some politicians

:13:44. > :13:47.regularly seek to slander Gibraltar and the arrangements of its

:13:48. > :13:51.constitutional and legal situation. Wholly unfairly to advance an

:13:52. > :13:54.unjustified claim against it. I wouldn't want anything that said in

:13:55. > :13:59.this House to be taken in a way which could give comfort to those

:14:00. > :14:02.people who are seeking to do down loyal and effective British

:14:03. > :14:06.territories. I think we need to draw distinction. The point to be made

:14:07. > :14:10.about Gibraltar two-fold is this, although I accept the observations

:14:11. > :14:14.of the White Paper in 2010 and what can be done, I would argue that it

:14:15. > :14:18.is certainly in Gibraltar's case undesirable to contemplate such a

:14:19. > :14:25.thing because to legislate, even by orders in council, would have the

:14:26. > :14:29.effect of abrigating the Gibraltar constitution which gives Gibraltar

:14:30. > :14:34.and the Gibraltar parliament entire home rule in matters relating to its

:14:35. > :14:38.economy and domestic legislation, safe only those matters reserved to

:14:39. > :14:47.be exercised by the governor on behalf of the British Crown. I give

:14:48. > :14:54.way. I thank the honourable gentleman. I am absolutely agree

:14:55. > :15:00.that it is very welcome that Gibraltar has been complying with

:15:01. > :15:07.not only the EU initiative but the OECD, as well. I just would ask why

:15:08. > :15:10.it is that Gibraltar is not in favour of following the UK route of

:15:11. > :15:15.public registers of beneficial ownership?

:15:16. > :15:20.I think it was sensibly set out by the member for Sutton cold field.

:15:21. > :15:23.There is a writ of a competitive disadvantage and you have to bear in

:15:24. > :15:26.mind the particular situation, I said before that Gibraltar finds

:15:27. > :15:31.itself in, where it would be inappropriate, I suggest, if they

:15:32. > :15:35.were at a position of competitive disadvantage compared with other

:15:36. > :15:38.Mediterranean jurisdictions, some of whom are not well disposed towards

:15:39. > :15:41.them. I think the continuing dialogue is a sensible way forward

:15:42. > :15:45.but I don't think it would be appropriate to ledge late,

:15:46. > :15:48.particularly as undermining Gibraltar's constitution, even if

:15:49. > :15:51.legally theer receipticly possible, I expect it would be challenged in

:15:52. > :15:54.the courts, would be undesirably politically because our commitment

:15:55. > :15:58.to Gibraltar ought to be particularly clear as we leave the

:15:59. > :16:06.European Union. It is worth saying to too that Gibraltar has taken very

:16:07. > :16:11.considerable practical steps. It's been recognised internationally as

:16:12. > :16:16.having done that. It is just worth saying in very simple terms that it

:16:17. > :16:20.has transposed all the necessary EU directives into their law, perfectly

:16:21. > :16:24.willingly and without any difficulty of their own volition. They've also

:16:25. > :16:30.complied with OECD initiatives in this regard and they've gone beyond

:16:31. > :16:36.that, they've committed - they have established a central register under

:16:37. > :16:38.the terms of the forth anti-money laundering directive, transposition

:16:39. > :16:45.deadline for June of this year. They've entered into exchanges of

:16:46. > :16:49.notes to accelerate access to all UK authorities for investigative

:16:50. > :16:52.purposes. They've agreed to the proposal for automatic exchange of

:16:53. > :16:56.beneficial ownership with participating countries and includes

:16:57. > :16:59.all EU countries, including Spain, so they have been extremely willing

:17:00. > :17:06.to co-operate even with those who don't always behave well to them.

:17:07. > :17:12.That needs to be recognised and the 5th July 2016 EU proposal to amend

:17:13. > :17:15.the anti-money laundering directive by introducing the - is being

:17:16. > :17:20.actively looked at by the Gibraltar Government. It ought to be their

:17:21. > :17:24.decision. The Government has worked closely with the Government in

:17:25. > :17:27.Gibraltar on this. There is a constructive dialogue going forward

:17:28. > :17:32.and that's the right way to deal with it. It's worth finally saying

:17:33. > :17:36.about Gibraltar, Gibraltar's record of effectiveness in the exchange of

:17:37. > :17:41.information was recognised by the OECD in their 2014 phase to review

:17:42. > :17:44.and it was ranked as largely compliant and you think that's good

:17:45. > :17:48.or bad, is actually a very high ranking because it puts Gibraltar

:17:49. > :17:52.being ranked as good in terms of compliance as the United Kingdom,

:17:53. > :17:57.the United States and Germany. So actually Gibraltar is doing the job

:17:58. > :18:02.and that really needs to be stressed so that other people don't misuse

:18:03. > :18:07.the linkage which is not I think borne out on the evidence in

:18:08. > :18:14.Gibraltar's case, they've some 135 tax information exchange mechanisms

:18:15. > :18:17.with 80 countries. They've already implemented the financial action

:18:18. > :18:21.taskforce recommendations with the United States and the United

:18:22. > :18:23.Kingdom. They're implementing common reporting standards, the global

:18:24. > :18:27.standard, along with the UK and other countries. I would just

:18:28. > :18:31.suggest that it would be heavy-handed and inappropriate to

:18:32. > :18:37.involve Gibraltar in this particular approach when they're already doing

:18:38. > :18:42.much. Can I touch upon the Crown dependency as the member for Sutton

:18:43. > :18:46.did. The constitutional position is more difficult, frankly, because

:18:47. > :18:51.they are not and never have been subject to the United Kingdom. Their

:18:52. > :18:54.al-Liege yens is to the krish Crown and not to the United Kingdom in

:18:55. > :18:57.theory. So the difficulty of attempting to ledge late for them

:18:58. > :19:01.would be real and profound in constitutional terms. That's why in

:19:02. > :19:05.relationship it falls under the Ministry of Justice in legislation

:19:06. > :19:09.is signed off by the Privy Council and I think the new clauses that

:19:10. > :19:12.seek them to bring them into position are not well conceived

:19:13. > :19:17.legally in that regard. That's the key issue there. It's worth

:19:18. > :19:20.observing since the justice Select Committee recently visited all three

:19:21. > :19:26.Crown dependencies as part of inquiries that they too are up to

:19:27. > :19:28.the high standards of transpar - of reporting and making sure that

:19:29. > :19:38.information is readily available to the authorities. It's worth saying

:19:39. > :19:47.in relation to Jersey but it applies to all of them, one report said -

:19:48. > :19:51.the register of the UBO with evaluation not elsewhere and

:19:52. > :19:57.regulation of trust company security providers, a standard found in few

:19:58. > :20:02.other juice is dictions has been widely recognised by international

:20:03. > :20:07.and individual jurisdictions as placing Jersey in a position of

:20:08. > :20:10.meeting standards. And light provisions in different legislate

:20:11. > :20:14.forms have been made to other Crown dependencies as well. It would be

:20:15. > :20:19.unfair and inappropriate and disproportionate to lump the Crown

:20:20. > :20:23.dependencies in to this issue. We all share the same objective, we

:20:24. > :20:26.want to make sure that there is maximum transparency and that there

:20:27. > :20:30.is honest money in our system but for the reasons I have set out I

:20:31. > :20:34.hope those supporting this amendment and the others not yet been moved

:20:35. > :20:42.will reflect and conclude this is not the appropriate vehicle to

:20:43. > :20:47.achieve that objective. I would like to also say a few very

:20:48. > :20:51.quick words about new clause six, to declare an interest first of all

:20:52. > :20:57.because I chair the B Fifty Two I-APG and former Minister of the

:20:58. > :21:01.overseas territories and I am aware of challenges there are in Africa,

:21:02. > :21:10.the right honourable member mentioned the Congo and he and I

:21:11. > :21:16.will remember the time when oil had - licences with the Government, it

:21:17. > :21:21.transferred the company was a registered - it had been useful if

:21:22. > :21:27.we could have confirmed that at the time. And I think that looking to

:21:28. > :21:30.the future and envisaging having public registers across the world

:21:31. > :21:35.makes a lot of sense. I entirely accept that. But what I am very

:21:36. > :21:43.worried about and it's the only point I am going to make, is that if

:21:44. > :21:46.the new clause is passed, and territories like this lose their

:21:47. > :21:51.business model, first of all there would be a mass of exodus in terms

:21:52. > :21:56.of legal services, accountancy firms, banks, etc, they would have

:21:57. > :22:00.to rely on tourism. It could be they would move back to dependency. The

:22:01. > :22:07.other problem is is this going to solve the problem? No, because those

:22:08. > :22:11.companies registered and for example in the Kay man Islands, will

:22:12. > :22:18.register elsewhere in countries that don't have public registers. They

:22:19. > :22:22.would go to Panama, Columbia and I saw recently that the United States,

:22:23. > :22:25.Hong Kong and Singapore have said they will not bring in public

:22:26. > :22:29.registers until the rest of the world moves on. My point is that

:22:30. > :22:33.this is well intentioned this new clause, but we should be very

:22:34. > :22:37.mindful of the unintended consequences and the unintended

:22:38. > :22:42.consequence above all else would be apart from them losing their

:22:43. > :22:46.business model would be the fact those excellent intelligence and

:22:47. > :22:51.exchange of information arrangements in place now, for example, for

:22:52. > :22:54.beneficial ownership security search system that availables our crime and

:22:55. > :22:57.fraud agencies to co-operate immediately on a confidential basis

:22:58. > :23:02.to get the information that's required, if these companies are

:23:03. > :23:05.registered elsewhere in the world we would lose that crime-busting

:23:06. > :23:10.capability. So for those reasons, although well intentioned, I think

:23:11. > :23:12.the Minister will reject this amendment but work with those

:23:13. > :23:17.colleagues and right honourable colleagues who are very concerned

:23:18. > :23:20.about this whole issue and make sure that we do in due course persuade

:23:21. > :23:24.more and more countries around the world to wok together so we can have

:23:25. > :23:28.a uniform approach in the future -- work.

:23:29. > :23:40.Thank you. I rise to support new clause six, which I added my name to

:23:41. > :23:46.in the full confidence that I was merely endorsing what I understood

:23:47. > :23:52.to be government policy in relation to ensuring the transparency in

:23:53. > :23:54.these matters in the overseas Territories. That policy had been

:23:55. > :23:59.announced by the previous Prime Minister. And I find myself

:24:00. > :24:05.genuinely being puzzled as to why it is that that apparently is no longer

:24:06. > :24:09.a government policy and there are therefore a few issues I wish to

:24:10. > :24:16.raise and questions I very much hope the Minister may be able to answer.

:24:17. > :24:20.So as to reassure me and other honourable members who have

:24:21. > :24:24.supported this new clause in good faith that there are good reasons

:24:25. > :24:31.why it should not go forward. First of all, I thought the argument about

:24:32. > :24:37.transparency had been established. So my right honourable friend, the

:24:38. > :24:43.Member for the city of Westminster, suggested that transparency would in

:24:44. > :24:52.itself be an undesirable thing for the overseas territories to have to

:24:53. > :24:57.do undertake. And that, it seems to me, is an argument that we may well

:24:58. > :25:02.have applied to the position in the UK. If we accepted that, we would

:25:03. > :25:08.not have taken the action in the UK to require that there should be

:25:09. > :25:13.transparency. I wish to defend myself. Are making the point that I

:25:14. > :25:21.am very much in favour of transparency. Transparency towards

:25:22. > :25:26.law enforcement. What I did not support is that there should be an

:25:27. > :25:32.absolutely full and open public register at this stage. And grateful

:25:33. > :25:37.to him for clarifying what he said, but I think my point still stands,

:25:38. > :25:41.which is that we have taken the action in the UK to require that

:25:42. > :25:46.publication. So my question remains, why is it right for us to do it in

:25:47. > :25:50.the UK but wrong in overseas territories? That is the point I was

:25:51. > :25:55.seeking to make. Perhaps the Minister could help to explain that.

:25:56. > :25:59.Secondly, I understand a series of constitutional objections had been

:26:00. > :26:05.raised to this amendment, which are that it would be wrong for us to

:26:06. > :26:09.insist that the overseas territories take some action. If that is the

:26:10. > :26:16.case, why did we propose this in the first place? So that honourable

:26:17. > :26:21.members such as myself find themselves to be on the wrong side

:26:22. > :26:26.of the government's opinion on this. I thought I was supporting a policy

:26:27. > :26:32.in our manifesto. If there is some constitutional objection to this,

:26:33. > :26:35.why should the previous Prime Minister announced this transparency

:26:36. > :26:45.for overseas Territories? Is it right in fact that the British

:26:46. > :26:54.Government never imposes policies on our overseas Territories? In 2000,

:26:55. > :26:56.the Council decriminalised homosexuality in overseas

:26:57. > :27:01.Territories. I doubt there are many members that would oppose that

:27:02. > :27:06.policy, I suspect it was opposed in many overseas Territories. To

:27:07. > :27:10.honourable members think it was wrong for the British Government to

:27:11. > :27:18.have done that? It might still be an offence that is punishable by

:27:19. > :27:22.capital punishment in relation to murder in some of the overseas

:27:23. > :27:27.territories, are for the fact that the government insisted on the

:27:28. > :27:31.abolition of such capital crimes in 1991, citing to principle is

:27:32. > :27:38.established that the government is constitutionally entitled and has in

:27:39. > :27:44.practice where there is an overriding public policy

:27:45. > :27:47.justification for doing so has legislated in relation to the

:27:48. > :27:51.overseas Territories. The third agreement that has been advanced

:27:52. > :27:56.against this measure is that the overseas Territories are doing it

:27:57. > :27:59.anyway. So were told it not necessary to back this new clause

:28:00. > :28:04.six because the overseas Territories are well under way towards doing the

:28:05. > :28:10.right thing, but that goes back to the question of what it is that they

:28:11. > :28:15.are doing. So if it is the case that the reducing registers, then that is

:28:16. > :28:20.welcome. Of my question still stands, why is it we thought

:28:21. > :28:23.transparency was a good thing and now no longer believe that

:28:24. > :28:27.transparency is a good thing? We have we set the bar. Were now saying

:28:28. > :28:33.the overseas territories are on their way to doing the right thing,

:28:34. > :28:36.but the right thing is that to find really as the register. It's no

:28:37. > :28:43.longer transparency. And I think the reason why this has happened has

:28:44. > :28:46.been revealed by some of my honourable friends for entirely

:28:47. > :28:50.honourable reasons, which is that some of these overseas territories

:28:51. > :28:55.and therefore some of my honourable friends fear that there will be a

:28:56. > :29:05.competitive disadvantage that arises for these overseas territories if

:29:06. > :29:14.they are required to produce our public register in the way that this

:29:15. > :29:21.amendment suggests. They will... I simply want to say that if we are to

:29:22. > :29:26.accept an argument of competitive disadvantage as being an obstacle to

:29:27. > :29:30.taking measures in relation to tax evasion or corruption, the size

:29:31. > :29:40.would do very little in relation to these issues because it can always

:29:41. > :29:48.be argued that this house may be putting our own banking arrangements

:29:49. > :29:54.to a disadvantage. To turn the argument around, every except the

:29:55. > :29:58.argument of competitive disadvantage, there should be no

:29:59. > :30:01.reason why this House should not reverse all the measures regarding

:30:02. > :30:06.banking transparency and establish some kind of regime that used to

:30:07. > :30:08.pertain in countries like Switzerland where there would be

:30:09. > :30:14.wholesale banking secrecy because that would be good for business. It

:30:15. > :30:17.we would place ourselves at a competitive advantage by comparison

:30:18. > :30:21.to other countries and that therefore that is something that

:30:22. > :30:26.would be entirely acceptable to do. Clearly it would not and we have

:30:27. > :30:34.taken an opposite view that there is a reason to demand transparency,

:30:35. > :30:37.that it is essential in order to tackle corruption, and were talking

:30:38. > :30:42.about measures necessary not just to protect UK taxpayers, but also the

:30:43. > :30:46.poorest countries in the world, disadvantaged and penalised because

:30:47. > :30:50.people can siphon off funds unlawfully, in morally and shelter

:30:51. > :30:53.them in regimes. And we are apparently saying that we are

:30:54. > :30:58.willing to accept that because we take some action against it, other

:30:59. > :31:04.regime will perform that immoral task. Well that seems to me to be a

:31:05. > :31:09.wrong position for this House of Commons to take. And if it was, we

:31:10. > :31:12.wouldn't have a bill like this or any transparency measures at all. I

:31:13. > :31:18.therefore hope that the government will reconsider its position on

:31:19. > :31:21.this. It seems to mean the amendment is entirely reasonable, it gives a

:31:22. > :31:25.period of time for the overseas territories to comply with the

:31:26. > :31:33.requirement of transparency, and I for one will take a great deal of

:31:34. > :31:37.convincing that something was held by the government to be desirable,

:31:38. > :31:43.that we hold to be desirable and right in our own country, is wrong

:31:44. > :31:58.for the overseas Territories. Thank you. I spent the last 16 years as a

:31:59. > :32:01.member for Westminster. Over the last two years, I have been the

:32:02. > :32:07.vice-chairman for International affairs for my party. I have had a

:32:08. > :32:13.lot of dealings and knowledge about these sorts of issues. I fervently

:32:14. > :32:21.agree with the Right honourable Lady for Don Valley that there has been a

:32:22. > :32:26.significant journey and a massive change about the whole issue of

:32:27. > :32:32.beneficial ownership and getting registers together and having a

:32:33. > :32:39.certain amount of openness about those registers. And the journey is

:32:40. > :32:44.ongoing. The issue in my view realistically, and I think there

:32:45. > :32:48.were powerful cases made, is that there is a real risk of competitive

:32:49. > :32:56.disadvantage applying to a number of overseas Territories. In relation to

:32:57. > :33:00.Crown dependencies, and I think it was recognised by the Right

:33:01. > :33:04.honourable Lady opposite, there was a different legal and constitutional

:33:05. > :33:10.position. They are territories that have their own legitimate and

:33:11. > :33:17.democratic government and it would be quite wrong in Council or through

:33:18. > :33:24.this bill for the government to run a railroad through that. My instinct

:33:25. > :33:28.is these are issues we will come to it again. I support the government

:33:29. > :33:33.and I don't think the time is right for having a course like this at

:33:34. > :33:37.this stage. It would be wrong, however, to assume that there isn't

:33:38. > :33:41.a huge amount of work that has been going on quietly behind-the-scenes.

:33:42. > :33:46.I know from my own experience and from many others that over recent

:33:47. > :33:49.years there has been a sea change in attitude from a number of the

:33:50. > :33:51.overseas territories, not all, but certainly from the Crown

:33:52. > :33:56.dependencies, many of which are ahead of the game as far as elements

:33:57. > :34:07.of the transparency agenda are concerned. There is a real risk that

:34:08. > :34:11.if we were to impose upon the overseas territories in this way in

:34:12. > :34:17.a very short order, there is a risk of a huge amount of business leaving

:34:18. > :34:20.those shots. Some argue with some legitimacy that we don't want to

:34:21. > :34:24.have this business year. Surely a better regime is that we work and

:34:25. > :34:31.continue the work that has happened in recent years and work towards

:34:32. > :34:34.global protocols on this, in such a way that there is not competitive

:34:35. > :34:41.disadvantage put into play. I think it's quite wrong to look upon other

:34:42. > :34:44.overseas territories as being terrible tax havens where illicit

:34:45. > :34:51.work goes on. There is an astonishing amount of technology

:34:52. > :34:55.which I have seen for BVI, Cayman Islands and others, to ensure they

:34:56. > :35:00.are able to cooperate on an instantaneous basis for any

:35:01. > :35:07.suspicious transactions taking place. I support the government and

:35:08. > :35:11.less and I hope that the proposals of new clause six will either

:35:12. > :35:16.withdraw or the government will win a vote on this issue. I hope the

:35:17. > :35:25.Minister will give us some idea of where he sees the future going on

:35:26. > :35:28.this. The ongoing conversations on this in order to have a global

:35:29. > :35:37.infrastructure we can support. Thank you. I have the utmost envy for his

:35:38. > :35:43.commute home on a Thursday evening. Perhaps even like my seven-hour

:35:44. > :35:51.journey that I do regularly! It is an interesting speech. It has been

:35:52. > :35:55.informed and enlightening. There are some new clause amendments I wish to

:35:56. > :36:03.touch upon briefly before I hand over to other front benches.

:36:04. > :36:07.Firstly, the new clause is about extending the principle of corporate

:36:08. > :36:18.economic crime, discussed at length across both sides of the House

:36:19. > :36:21.today. The bill was drafted it would appear sensible, given the current

:36:22. > :36:26.climate and mood that we extend this so that liability reaches the ports

:36:27. > :36:30.of organisations. I've mentioned this on the force of the House

:36:31. > :36:34.before, but as a lawyer with some in-house experience working for a

:36:35. > :36:39.large retail bank, I can tell you with the utmost certainty that

:36:40. > :36:43.sticking your head about the parapet and telling the bank that they are

:36:44. > :36:51.wrong is not the most conducive course of action for your career. I

:36:52. > :36:55.didn't fall foul of that, but I think I probably would have in the

:36:56. > :37:02.future. I think the public would demand corporate economic crime is

:37:03. > :37:05.extended beyond tax evasion. I think they would be surprised to learn

:37:06. > :37:12.that the bank would not be held liable for libel or reading, for

:37:13. > :37:18.instance. There was no criminal liability for the board of directors

:37:19. > :37:24.or the banks themselves. I don't think the public would thank us for

:37:25. > :37:31.having a corporate economic offence regarding tax evasion. The public

:37:32. > :37:35.would expect the company would be held criminally liable for something

:37:36. > :37:41.as obvious as tax evasion. I think it's a great shame we haven't

:37:42. > :37:43.grasped the metal in this Bill. And Leicester minister has something

:37:44. > :37:48.miraculous to say when he gets to his feet. But I suspect were not

:37:49. > :37:52.going to have an extension of corporate economic crime, which I

:37:53. > :37:57.think is a real shame. If it were to come to pass, I still have issues

:37:58. > :38:02.about some of the provisions within the failure to prevent model. In

:38:03. > :38:08.that if a bank can show it had reasonable process and protocols in

:38:09. > :38:14.that process, then it is a defence. If it is deemed the bank ought not

:38:15. > :38:23.to have any reasonable processes in place, and I can tell you from

:38:24. > :38:28.first-hand experience by suing banks that in the 11th hour, miraculously,

:38:29. > :38:31.they will pull together volumes and volumes of training manuals,

:38:32. > :38:37.protocols and processes that seem completely absent when the crime or

:38:38. > :38:40.alleged offence was being committed, that somehow miraculously appear in

:38:41. > :38:44.court rooms to convince the judge they have taken the processes

:38:45. > :38:48.necessary. Even if the failure to prevent was extended along the lines

:38:49. > :38:53.of the incorporated new clause is, call me a cynic, but I think there

:38:54. > :38:55.are still an opportunity for a bank to wriggle out of potential

:38:56. > :39:03.responsibility. New clause six, I don't have a great

:39:04. > :39:06.deal to add in relation to what's been said on both sides of the

:39:07. > :39:12.chamber. We will support new clause six. We are pleased that the Crown

:39:13. > :39:16.dependencies are not part of new clause six, given that I am clearly

:39:17. > :39:21.an SNP MP, it's part of my political definition that I don't want this

:39:22. > :39:23.place to ledge late on places or jurisdictions where it doesn't have

:39:24. > :39:27.authority so we are clearly reluctant to for that to happen. We

:39:28. > :39:31.understand there is more of a case for the British virgin Islands,

:39:32. > :39:35.sorry for the overseas territory and we will support the amendment on

:39:36. > :39:38.that basis but I think the chair of the justice Select Committee, the

:39:39. > :39:42.member for Bromley was absolutely right to make the distinction

:39:43. > :39:45.between, for example, Gibraltar and the overseas territory and

:39:46. > :39:48.throughout this process I have become puzzled as to why Gibraltar

:39:49. > :39:53.is considered an overseas territory and not a Crown dependency, I wonder

:39:54. > :39:58.if, it's probably not the Minister's remit but it's occurred to me over

:39:59. > :40:02.the last few months. But I think transparency is key if this

:40:03. > :40:07.Government's policy is transparency and we all agree it would facilitate

:40:08. > :40:10.a more fair banking and financial system, then there ought to be no

:40:11. > :40:15.good reasons why at the end of the day those jurisdictions have public

:40:16. > :40:17.registers the same as we have but I would corroborate other members'

:40:18. > :40:21.views but that's the clear direction of travel. The direction of travel

:40:22. > :40:24.is in that way and whether or not it's the right thing to do to

:40:25. > :40:27.legislate to compel jurisdiction that is we perhaps don't have

:40:28. > :40:32.authority over to do something is another question but on the basis of

:40:33. > :40:38.transparency and I think it reflects the public mood, we will support new

:40:39. > :40:44.clause six. In relation to other new clauses, new clause 11 again is one

:40:45. > :40:48.of those clauses that asks this Government to go through a

:40:49. > :40:51.consultation process to persuade the Crown dependencies to adopt

:40:52. > :40:56.legislation which, frankly, ought to be determined by their own

:40:57. > :41:03.parliament in their own jurisdictions. New clause six is

:41:04. > :41:06.easier to deal with in the fact it deals with transparency but clause

:41:07. > :41:10.11 seems to be a wish-wash of let's have a chat with them and see if we

:41:11. > :41:16.can persuade them to do anything when that ought to be up to them as

:41:17. > :41:19.it ought to be up to the Scottish parliament as to the Welsh

:41:20. > :41:24.parliament or whatever jurisdictions holds those powers. I would have

:41:25. > :41:28.problems with new clause 11 but again I accept that the basis behind

:41:29. > :41:32.it but I think you will find is that the overseas territories and Crown

:41:33. > :41:36.dependencies willing willing to have that conversation about the

:41:37. > :41:41.effectiveness of registers as time goes on. We have tabled three new

:41:42. > :41:46.clauses that have been considered in this group. The first is on Scottish

:41:47. > :41:51.limited Premierships and I have nothing to add to my honourable

:41:52. > :41:55.friend -- partnerships. He is no longer in his place he has to go to

:41:56. > :41:59.the aforementioned second meeting of this rather popular committee that

:42:00. > :42:04.he mentioned. He articulated the case very well. It would be our

:42:05. > :42:07.intention, if I could catch the Minister's - it would be our

:42:08. > :42:10.intention to push new clause ten to a vote this evening but that will

:42:11. > :42:15.turn on what the Minister that is to say when he comes to sum up. So, no

:42:16. > :42:19.pressure, we look forward to what the Minister has to say or we will

:42:20. > :42:27.without question push new clause ten to a vote. New clause 19, for me,

:42:28. > :42:32.gets to the real heart of the issue surrounding criminal finances and

:42:33. > :42:36.that is what I would describe as a responsibility shedding banking

:42:37. > :42:42.sales driven culture that we have in the UK. Because the banks are the

:42:43. > :42:46.facilitators of criminal finance and facilitate the wrongdoing in the

:42:47. > :42:51.financial system. The reason we had the crash in 2007-2008 is because

:42:52. > :42:55.the pendulum had swung from banks being professional organisations

:42:56. > :42:59.looking after clients' interests, to being completely sales driven profit

:43:00. > :43:02.seeking organisations. I think the pendulum has swung too far and I

:43:03. > :43:05.think it's that swing of that pendulum that created the mess

:43:06. > :43:10.almost ten years ago now and I think unless we deal with that culture

:43:11. > :43:15.then we won't be able to properly deal with the facilitating that big

:43:16. > :43:18.companies and banks can give to criminal finances and it's a shame

:43:19. > :43:27.again that opportunity hasn't been taken. Not long after I was elected

:43:28. > :43:31.- the FCA had withdrew the promise to look into banking culture. I

:43:32. > :43:36.mean, why? It's the most obvious thing that should be done to try to

:43:37. > :43:40.clean up the financial system, the public would demand manned it.

:43:41. > :43:43.Businesses would demand it and I can not understand why they wouldn't

:43:44. > :43:49.bring forward a very view into the very thing in my view which is

:43:50. > :43:56.facilitated the crash and could again facilitate another crash if we

:43:57. > :43:59.are not too careful. New clause 18 is about protection for whistle

:44:00. > :44:03.blowers and it's one that we have tabled. Given what I understand

:44:04. > :44:07.about the culture of banks and given that I know it's very difficult for

:44:08. > :44:12.employees and banks to put their head above the par apet, I think

:44:13. > :44:16.people who work in these organisations that have information

:44:17. > :44:20.that law enforcements agencies could use to pursue criminality should

:44:21. > :44:26.have protection. Quite simply, if you raise your head in a bank and

:44:27. > :44:31.you tell all that bank is about or has committed criminal acts or is

:44:32. > :44:34.facilitating criminal finance your career is over, not only in that

:44:35. > :44:37.bank but generally the finance services sector and I don't think

:44:38. > :44:42.the consequence for honesty and transparency should be for you to

:44:43. > :44:44.lose your job and livelihood and there should be some form of

:44:45. > :44:48.protection and that's why we have tabled that particular amendment.

:44:49. > :44:53.That concludes my submissions on the new clauses that we have tabled.

:44:54. > :44:57.Other-a-thon say again that we support the principles of this bill,

:44:58. > :45:00.we don't think it goes far enough in certain sections but we applaud the

:45:01. > :45:05.direction of travel that this bill takes the UK economy in. We hope we

:45:06. > :45:08.can go further and we hope that the provisions in this bill are not

:45:09. > :45:11.caught up in red tape and bureaucracy and they work so we can

:45:12. > :45:18.get at the bad guys' money so the rest of us who play by the rules can

:45:19. > :45:22.have a fair crack at the whip. Thank you. This group of amendments

:45:23. > :45:27.contains a fair few so I will be longer than I was last time. I want

:45:28. > :45:35.to speak in particular about new clause six, 16 and 17 which in

:45:36. > :45:40.particular I rise to move to a vote. Tax evasion was big news in 2016

:45:41. > :45:43.following the publication of the Panama papers which threw light on

:45:44. > :45:46.those opaque offshore companies. Following their leaking there was

:45:47. > :45:49.something of an overwhelming sentiment that something should be

:45:50. > :45:53.done and this bill is that something or rather it introduces a set of

:45:54. > :45:58.somethings to deal with this problem. It introduces new corporate

:45:59. > :46:07.offences which are no longer reliant on the guiding mind principle t

:46:08. > :46:12.creates unexplained - some eye-catching stuff, failure to

:46:13. > :46:14.prevent offences, and it's made necessary amendments to preexisting

:46:15. > :46:20.anti-entire legislation and the Minister pointed out it actually

:46:21. > :46:27.builds on a raft of Labour initiated legislation, the 2002 proceeds of

:46:28. > :46:31.crime act, the bribery act of 2010, the Terrorism Acts of 2006. So all

:46:32. > :46:35.this, on the whole, we do support this bill and all this stuff is not

:46:36. > :46:41.to be sniffed at. We also mention the new additional monitoring he

:46:42. > :46:46.announced on-the-spot earlier in relation to the human rights abuses

:46:47. > :46:50.that were mentioned in the First Grouping this afternoon. However, as

:46:51. > :46:56.the bill has progressed it has become apparent this bill does have

:46:57. > :46:59.chinks in the armoury of fighting money laundering. So we welcome