21/02/2017 House of Commons

Government services telecommunication charges bill.

Second reading. Friday 24th of March. Friday 24th of

March, thank you. Now we will read the orders of the day.

Criminal Finances Bill as amended in the public bill committee to be

considered. Thank you. We begin with Government

new course seven which will be convenient to consider with the new

clause and Amendments group together on the selection paper. To move new

clause seven, I called the Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some time has

passed since we last considered this bill. There was, as honourable

members recall, cross-party consensus on the provision that both

secondary and committee stage. I hope we will be able to Italy that

in the spirit of constructive debate in how the scrutiny during the

proceedings. The first Amendment group we are considering concerned

gross human rights abuses of violations. The Government is

committed to promoting and strengthening universal rights

globally and I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. In

particular these have been prompted by the harrowing case of one person,

who was not a serious criminal but a lawyer who tried to blow the whistle

on large-scale tax fraud in Russia and he believed he would be

protected by the law. Unfortunately, he died in state custody in 2009

after suffering of mistreatment and assault, and being denied medical

attention. I share the strong feelings of many honourable members

about this case and I want to reassure the house that the

Government is expressing and has expressed both publicly to the

Russian Government our serious concerns about the man's death. We

must also remember that his case is only one of many atrocious human

rights violations committed globally each year. As I am sure honourable

members will highlight, the US legislated to prohibit the entry of

certain known individuals to the US and forbid their use of the US

banking system. This legislation was extended by the Obama administration

less than two months ago, so could be applied to those involved in

human rights violations were ever in the world they had taken place. This

sent an important signal that the perpetrators of gross human rights

violations would face consequences. However, we have an entirely

different legal system which merits a different approach. I want to pay

tribute to those honourable members that have raised the issue by

tabling new clause one. In particular, right honourable friend

for Walton, and the honourable lady there, and the honourable member of

Ross Skye and Lochaber. I am thankful to buy honourable members

for giving the advance notice of the amendments and I'm pleased to have

had the opportunity to discuss it with many signatories. It has a

listing the Government position that for further legislation to be

correct, there would need to be a real case that existing powers are

insufficient. Help honourable members should agree that we would

avoid doing anything that hinders the effectiveness of our existing

powers. The National Crime Agency have confirmed they have considered

all of the material divided in relation to that affirmation case.

We have decided that if individuals do not reside in the UK, and have no

assets of value connected to the case was in the United Kingdom... On

that additional powers proposed by new clause once if temps will need

to use them against individuals in this case.

The point about the act in the US is that it pulls together the Visa

bands with the no use of the American banks and the inability to

trade, and the problem, they do agree and appreciate we have a

different scenario in this country, but it is brought together. Could

the minister explain how he intends to pull the links together in this

country, using the different pieces of legislation that exist? In

relation to the Magnitsky Act. Al get into that further into the

speech, but the thing we must recognise different in the United

States do here is that most of our sanctions are under the European

umbrella, so there is a time to discuss those sections at a later

date, post-Brexit. We have slightly different dispersals of authority

and power when it comes to sanctions than the United States and can act

unilaterally and often do in that area. I think that is one point we

should point out. It contains no derogations. That is the problem

with the current clause as drafted. One of the problems as we think it

would be noncompliant with domestic human rights law here, because it

contains no derogations and would freeze of the assets of a designated

individuals or they would have no funds for living expenses, medical

treatment or to pay for legal representation. And the reversal of

the burden of proof to assume that all assets owned by the individual

are the proceeds of their unlawful conduct would be an unprecedented

step. This is different to the existing civil recovery regimes and

could be judged as disproportionate. We recognise the strength of feeling

and understand the deterrent effect this might have on those who may be

seeking a profit of gross abuse of violation of human rights overseas.

That is why the Government... I give way.

He is well informed about this issue because I know he has had meetings

on the subject. Any give confirmation that if, in fact,

assets were identified in the UK, and I know there is a dispute that

some people believe they are located in the UK, but assuming in the

future they were identified in the UK, is the Minister confident that

neither the existing legislation or indeed this new clause seven would

enable those assets to be frozen? I'm grateful for that point. What I

can say in I must respect that I as a minister cannot direct them to

take action because that is an operational freedom and independence

we value in this country but I can say they have said to me there

should be... If you are actionable evidence should be presented then of

course they are free to follow that and to enforce the law. I would say

as the Government minister on this that where we see evidence of gross

human rights abuse or other criminal offences, and there is presented

that could be actionable, we would like to see things. It is not about

trying to shelter people involved Mr trying to make sure appropriate

actions are taken and the correct evidence is presented. I concur with

his point that it is important to understand that we need to act on

the evidence. If there is evidence, even without this legislation, we

could take action, and I would certainly urge agencies of law

enforcement to take action to make sure these people are held to

account for the atrocious murder they carried out in Russia against

Mr Magnitsky That is why we have tried to come some way to beating

many of the concerns of this house by tabling new clause seven with the

50 and 59. I would widen the unlawful conduct within part 52

include torture, cruel, inhumane treatment of those identified as

promoting human rights. Including in cases where that conduct was not of

offence in the jurisdiction with which it applies. This would allow

any assets held in the UK which were deemed to be the proceeds of such

activity to be recovered under the provisions of part five. Yes.

In the Government's version, there is no requirement and no duty on the

Government to act at all. They can simply ignore the provisions. That

is one of the key differences between his version and the

honourable member version. The honourable member's makes a

point about duty and there are lots of criminal offences on the statute

book that the Government not have a duty to act on. We leave it to the

interpretation and the freedom of our law enforcement agencies to act

on them. Are we to say that the duty here is greater than the duty on,

perhaps, the police to act on burglary? Or the duty of the police

to act on a whole range of other criminal offences? He wants to put a

duty on the Government on one specific type of criminal offence,

which would, I'm afraid, hinder the freedom of our law enforcement

agencies to take the appropriate action when the evidence is

presented to them in order to do that.

Varies no ability to third parties to be able to bring their case to

the court to allow such things. It is closing off the options of

tackling this problem of money-laundering in London and the

UK. The National crime agency, HMRC are not full of people who don't

want to do their job. They want to enforce the law. It is insulting to

infer that if we didn't put a duty on them, they wouldn't do it. The

problem with that clause drafted is it allows for NGO's individuals to

go to the court with limited liability to force the Government to

take action without a high level of threshold. You could find a Cuban

exile living in Florida who doesn't like the Cuban Government come to

our courts to make accusation to alleged human rights abuse and

confiscate or freeze that asset. It would include as making peace and

would allow massive amounts of claims based on gimmick politics

will stop that is why we have to respect the independence of our law

enforcement agencies to make the case based on the evidence presented

to them. That is simply not the case. We already have applications

for extradition from the Russians and for lots of people who are now

resident in the UK. The court decides. An individual cannot decide

that somebody's assets must be frozen. It is a court that decides.

The honourable member misses the point. Pollute -- the courts do not

like time wasting applications with limited liability for those people

that want to come and use the courts to make a statement. Applications

for deportation is often made by the state. He would open it up to

individuals all over the world to come to our courts without

liabilities, to make the case or to make a gesture to freeze assets of

individuals without any recourse to the state ought to evidence that

would open up a whole can of worms for countries around world. We have

sponsored and supported the peace deal in Colombia. Should the

Colombian Government choose to send somebody from the background to

represent them or be a culture tache in the embassy and somebody in

Colombia doesn't like that, they could come to this court as an

individual and make a tokenistic application. Court's time can be

wasted by lots of people making statements and causing the courts to

be blocked up. On this specific debate we are having here, has the

Government considered any application should go to the

Attorney General before being allowed to go forward? To stop the

abuse they are suggesting. We did consider that. It was felt it was

not the appropriate need to do that so we progressed as we have done.

That is a major signal to countries around the world. We could interdict

with their assets and make sure we send that powerful message that

London, the UK is not a base for them to put their assets from such

behaviour. That is a point. The concern and worry would be that we

would get not just fixations complaints but complains the line

and -- designed in the knowledge that the complaint would not be seen

through the courts. There will be virtually no cost to the people

making the complaint. This gives the opportunity of nabbing the guilty

and saying that bloodstained dictators have no place putting

their money in this country. Bicester send a message but it with

specs the independence of our law enforcement agencies to apply the

law, to take action where they are presented with evidence, to make

sure that court's times aren't wasted and get successful results in

dealing with these individuals but it is done in a way that the state

retains the initiative to carry out the process and make sure by

taxation is complaints... The judges will tell you they don't want that

court rooms to become public relations arenas where people carry

out and make these applications. They want their courts to be able to

decide on the basis of evidence. They will be able to do that but we

respect the independence of our law enforcement agencies. That is why we

tabled this amendment. It would allow for any assets held in the UK

where they drained -- deemed to be in the process of subjectivity. The

court would need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that

the property in question and was the proceeds of crime used to further

pay for other activity. They need to consider which of their powers to

utilise on a case-by-case basis. I hope this measure would send a clear

statement that the UK will not stand by and allow those who have

committed gross abuse and violations to launder their money here. I want

to say that as the Minister with this bill, when my colleagues table

amendments, I have said to my officials from the beginning, do

they have a point? I want Asp about the evidence set against his killers

and find out if we have done the work we say we ordering. I don't

just take things at face value. What is important is I am confident that

we haven't taken action in this case because we have not had the evidence

all yet have the evidence to take action or the assets located in the

right place to be able to do something about that. I have

verified that made sure I have that out. I have come to the House with

an attempt to put a compromise on record. Hopefully we can send the

right message to those regimes around the world and those criminals

and individuals but respect the law enforcement agencies to make sure

they can carry out their job unhindered by political interference

or anyone else who may want to use publicity rather than evidence as

furthering their cause. That is something that is really important.

I will wait for other Government members in the debate and open

hopefully respond at the end. The question is new clause seven

should be read a second time. I don't think it is fair to live in

a world where criminals can generate cash and spend it without fear of

repercussions. Given what I have learned across the passage of this

Bill, all members would agree with that sentiment. For the vast

majority in society who choose to play by the rules. Until now the

focus has been on anti-money-laundering regulations

and proceeds of crime legislations which have been geared towards

tackling the process -- proceeds of drug traffickers and bank robbers.

It is not as easy to launder money as it used to be although it is not

impossible. It used to be the perception of criminals that if they

could evade capture and not flush the cash, they could eventually

spend their gains. Criminals would look forward to spending their gains

when they are released. This Bill has moved another step ahead of the

criminals so we as a society fit to face an attack. The finance of the

criminals in 2017 and beyond. I did think you could agree or buy into

the rule of law unless you could agree and buy into this affirmation

of regulations surrounding the financial industry that has happened

over the years. Today it is the threat grand corruption that we face

stop to clearly in relation to exposed people. Facilitated by the

City of London. Earlier this year, the Guardian revealed through the

Panama papers how powerful member of Gaddafi's inner circle have built a

multi-million pound portfolio of boutique scholars in Scotland,

London and he was head of Libya's infrastructure fund and has be

accused of plundering money intended for schools, hospitals and

infrastructure projects. Scottish police have confirmed they are

investigating. Libya has made a request for an asset seizure but it

has not been implemented. With the powers in this Bill, we have -- we

could've dealt with injustices like that so much quicker. Our issue has

been... It doesn't deal with the issue of

Scottish limited partnerships which my honourable friend has done so

much to campaign on. It doesn't deal with what in my view is the

facilitator of criminal finances which is the profit-seeking

responsibility sharing self-serving banking culture and the wider

western world. Until we challenge the attitude of the banks who house

this money, he will never deal with the criminality. This Bill attempts

to deal with the symptoms of the criminality. Getting at the assets

and seizing member it doesn't deal with the facilitators, the banks. I

think that is a great shame as I will discuss later. The two new

clause is the discussion in the first group have been touched upon

by the Minister and in interventions and much of the talk has been about

the scope of applicants able to bring an application under these

provisions. In general terms, new clause one and seven seek to extend

the scope of unlawful conduct. It makes sense in that a public

official or someone acting with the acquiescence of a public official

depositing funds in the UK should not be safe on account of that

criminality having occurred abroad. Most people would agree with that

sentence. It is a logical step and one which we support in principle.

We believe in the protection of human rights. It was a good thing

and we don't believe that violations of human rights should be able to be

hidden behind international borders. It should be there for the world to

see and I believe the consequences should be global consequences. Now

at least with the adoption of new clause one or seven, the UK will not

be a hiding place in this respect. That is worth looking at. New clause

seven and one. What is the difference? There is wider scope for

more applicants to make applications under new clause one. The

Government's says that will not be necessary as the judiciary would

that these claims. They would decide these claims and it wouldn't be up

to the applicants to decide the merits. It would be for the court to

decide. One other difference between you clause seven and new clause one

which I would like the Minister to remark upon is that it seems to me

that the amber of new clause seven, sorry, new clause one, is wider in

that it includes more connected persons to criminality with new

clause one which doesn't go to that extent. I will be grateful of the

Minister could touch upon the scope of respondents as well as the scope

of applicants and the difference between one and seven. There is

provision in new clause seven which is mirrored in sections 58 and 59 to

increase the limitation period to bring claims or applications under

these provisions. In one sense we welcome it because without it the

standard of limitation periods of five or six years would apply. Given

that we are talking about gross violations of human rights, torture

and the like, should a purple crepe -- perpetrator ever be free from

these crimes? I was saying that 20 years after you commit gross

violations of human rights that your money saved? Given some of abuses

take years and years and years to come to light, are they going to be

consequences that could let some of the criminals off?

Other questions I have are that within new clause seven, is the mere

suspicion of the act of gross violation enough? It seems to me

that a conviction in either jurisdiction would not be necessary,

but would suspicion be enough, and how does he see that playing out?

Could the prime minister explain if he is not minded to accept this

amendment that the new clause one -- could the Minister explain. --

explain why you think this is better and pick up one point because I have

much more points to make? Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to

speak to new clause one, known as the Magnitsky part, and will touch

on the Government's new clause seven. New clause one has been

tabled by myself also with the honourable member for Barking and in

total 50 honourable members representing eight different

political parties right across the house, testament to the cross-party

nature of our ambition here today. That ambition was kindled by the

tragic murder on the instructions of the Russian state of the young

Russian lawyer Mr Magnitsky, and in November 2008, Magnitsky was

arrested and detained. His crime had been to identify the perpetrators of

the biggest tax fraud in Russian history, committed by the Russian

Government against the investment firm that employed Magnitsky,

Hermitage Capital but also against the Russian taxpayer to the tune of

a mind-boggling 230 million US dollars. For his courage, Magnitsky

was jailed and tortured from was a year and that ultimately murdered.

The crime was perpetrated by some of the very officials that Magnitsky at

himself identified, and whilst these appalling crimes were documented by

two domestic Russian investigations, no one has ever been brought to

justice in Russia. Perversely, it was Magnitsky who himself was

convicted posthumously of fraud, frankly a rather sickening snapshot

of the corrupt state of the Russian justice system today. Large amounts

of the stolen money was subsequently laundered out of Russia, and

Hermitage Capital submitted evidence to all the UK authorities of

30,000,000% in 2000 and 82 2004, including firms owned by Russian

Mafia. Despite receiving this evidence. -- ?13 million. None of

the crime agencies have opened a single investigation. Understanding

the Minister made... This case does shine a light, I believe, and the

weaknesses of our own justice system, which is really what we're

here to address today. We should be clear in this house that Magnitsky

has been the standard bearer of the case for reform, but it is by no

means an isolated case. According to the Home Affairs Committee's 2016

report on the proceeds of crime, the UK sees ?100 million laundered

through UK banks alone each year, -- ?100 billion. That is an astonishing

sum and we know that it is only around 0.2% of that figure that is

currently frozen. Not one wants Britain to be a competitive global

hub that attract investment and open to international talent than I do,

but I want us to be known for our integrity as well. I want us to be

known for our adherence to the most basic of moral principles. That

means we have to stop turning a blind eye to the blood money that

butchers and despots, which frankly flows all too clearly through some

UK businesses, banks and property. New clause one is designed to

address the weaknesses in the current UK asset freezing regime,

and I ought to pay tribute to Jonathan Fisher QC, the expert in

this field, who helped as carefully craft the mechanism. He is one of

the leading experts in public law, human rights law as well. The

clause, new clause one, would enable the secretary of state, an

individual or an NGO to convince the High Court to make in order to

empower the UK authorities to freeze assets, work can be demonstrated on

the balance of probability to a senior judge that those assets

relate to an individual involved in or profiting from gross human rights

abuses. The clause puts a duty on the Secretary of State to produce

such an order where is sufficient evidence but where it is also in the

public interest. It will also establish a public register of those

subject to such an order, or against the backdrop of appropriate

safeguards in due process for law. The Government has responded to its

own proposal new clause seven. We must start by paying tribute to the

Security Minister and Foreign Secretary for engaging seriously on

this issue. Ultimately, in the end, for being willing to act. New clause

seven will indeed mark a significant step forward. Principally because it

would provide specific statutory grounds for an asset freezing order

based on gross human rights abuses, and targeting individuals

responsible for or profiting from such crimes against whistle-blowers

and defenders of human rights abroad. My view is that new clause

seven is not as robust as new clause one, mainly because it does not

impose a duty on UK law enforcement agencies, subject to the fight

ability I have described. It omits the third-party application

procedure and rev the public register. On each of those three

cases, I understand and recognise the reasons that might right

honourable friend the Minister has put forward as to why that is the

position of the Government, to remove the public register. It is to

be expected and I do not want to let this be the enemy of the good. I

retain a measure of underlying concern, and that touches on

something which is often the case with the criminal justice

legislation, that is the extent to which the new power will actually be

in force in practice. That is something the honourable member was

touching on and is something which we share across all sides of the

House. If I may be so bold, Mr Speaker, I would like to elicit some

further reassurances from the Minister, which he may feel free to

indicate in the course of my speech or the windups, which could give us

a measure of reassurance on that issue of enforcement. And he commit

the Government to collect in particular data on the exercise of

the new clause, say, annually, so the House and the public can

properly scrutinise the extent to which it is being exercised in

practice? I did recognise and understand the point the Minister

made in relation to that, that the success of the clause should not

just be judged by how many times it is exercised but also the deterrent

effect it would have. I think that would be a valuable source of

reassurance. I give way. I am delighted to tell my honourable

friend that I will commit to both collecting this and making sure they

are published annually alongside other stats about the proceeds of

crime. Can I thank the Minister for such

immediate, swift and decisive accidents and provision of that

assurance? I think it will be extremely useful. The only other

aspect of which I think it will be useful to have some reassurance is

understanding that there is a wider ongoing review of UK wide asset

freezing powers. I appreciate why the Government may be reticent about

reinventing a bespoke procedural mechanism for one new power, given

its relationship with those other white proposals which may be

forthcoming in future. I hope you will undertake to factor in the

proposals that have been made in new clause one to the review process,

and make sure that in the new proposals under enforcement,

whenever they may be forthcoming in future, we have the most robust, the

most rigorous mechanisms available under UK law, applying to the

Government's new clause seven. If my honourable friend the Minister is

able to give that assurance on top of the one he has just given, I say

for my part I am inclined to accept new clause seven and not to move new

clause one, heartened by the Government commitment to strive to

make the new power work as possible in practice. For those of us who

have campaigned for change, Mr Speaker, the remains the further

issue of these bands. That is for another day, Mr Speaker. Today the

house has the opportunity to lay down some moral red lines in UK

foreign policy, to take a lead in denying safe haven to the dirty

money of those profiting from the most appalling of international

crimes, and we have the opportunity to send... I give way.

Thank you for giving way. He says the Visa bands for another day, but

these bands already exist as a possibility. -- bands on Visas.

Could we reflect on how the existing band system could be, lamenting

this. -- could it be complementing this?

He is right and I think we will need a separate legislative vehicle to

address the wider question of visa bans and he has made his point and

he has been tenacious in campaigning for this. I want to move on to this

at the appropriate time, I do. Today is really about the asset freezing

side of things, and we have, Mr Speaker, the opportunity to send a

message of solidarity to those fighting for their liberty that we

in this country hold so dear. We have the opportunity to nurture the

flame of freedom on behalf of those brave souls like a Magnitsky, who

separate the very worst of crimes, standing up for the highest of

principles. I rise to speak specifically on this

grouping. It was going to be new clause seven and new clause wanted

it looks like new clause one is being withdrawn in favour of the

Government new clause seven. The Minister started off by saying that

this bill has enjoyed a degree of cross-party consensus up to now in

this parliamentary capacity, so I would like to say that His Majesty's

loyal opposition will not stand in the way of the new new clause. --

Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I want to welcome the amendment

targeting asset seizure for those guilty of human rights abuses

outside Britain who seek to use the UK to conceal their wealth. It has

become colloquially known as the Magnitsky Amendment, we have heard

some of the tragic details of that case just now. This bolsters the

bill's in to tackle the growing concern around money-laundering,

terrorist financing and corruption. There are figures out there, the

estimated annual loss to money laundered globally is between two

and 5% of global GDP. A staggering ?800 billion to ?2 trillion. We do

not know the figures because it is heading, white-collar crime, but

these are IMF World Bank figures. It is suggested that serious crime

across the UK economy, ?24 billion at least annually per year, and the

amount of money wondered every year here is between ?36 billion and ?90

billion. That is a loss to our exchequer, so it is only right that

we tighten up these things in this Bill. And this amendment tightens

them up even further. Simply, those who have blood on their hands for

the worst human rights abuses should not be able to bundle their dirty

money through our country. In a recent article in the New York

Times, the journalist Ben Judah, he attests, and I quote verbatim, just

because there are not bodies piled up on the streets of London does not

mean that London is not abetting those who pile them up elsewhere.

The British establishment has long think ignorance of the business but

the London laundromat is destroying this country's reputation. He uses

colourful language but under this amendment, individuals who have been

involved in or profited from human rights abuses, their names would be

published and the ministers would be obliged to go forth with a freezing

order for up to two years if provided with compelling evidence of

abuse and it is in the public interest to do so. It will make

despots think twice about using the UK as a safe place to stash dirty

cash. By creating personal costs for the perpetrators, of these human

rights abuses, we can protect whistle-blowers around the world, a

fitting tribute to the legacy of surrogate Magnitsky. -- Sergei

Magnitsky. And pleased to be given the

opportunity to speak to the significant legislation which will

help the overall objective of stopping the UK being used as a safe

harbour for illegal proceeds as it currently is being used all too

frequently. Like Sergei Magnitsky, I practised as a corporate lawyer. I

ask if his situation, uncovering the largest tax fraud, would I have

risked reporting to the authorities? Would I have refused to withdraw my

statement was being imprisoned, beaten and denied medical help?

Indeed, whilst being accused by the same perpetrators of the crime I

blew the whistle of? With the connivance of politicians, judges,

tax authorities, prosecutors and police, all the people running to be

there to keep people safe. I would like to think I would stand up for

what is right but I also appreciate that it is easier for me to say that

living here in the UK under the rule of law rather than in the vicious,

pernicious claptrap proceed that modern Russia has become elected for

Sergei Magnitsky. These amendments are doing with

individuals who have committed gross human rights abuses overseas against

whistle-blowers. These provisions do not stop with Sergei Magnitsky all

Russia and not all Russians are bad people. Russia is as good as an

example as any as to show how these amendments address a glaring

omission in our laws. Animation that has two long allowed the

perpetrators of this is crimes against mutuality to base themselves

and their ill gotten gains in the UK as though nothing had happened. On

the unwritten law that they do not do anything illegal whilst in the

UK. They will almost come from countries where the crimes of the

person are mixed up with crimes of the state. Russia operates a

repressive nasty society where human rights are rough and ignored, media

suppressed or where journalists are killed. Democratic opposition is

suppressed and businessmen have a glass ceiling beyond which they told

who to pay and how to toe the line. Russia has and diversify oil reliant

economy and a political system by a dictator who looks to address his

failures at home with threats abroad. All of this coming from a

country with an economy smaller than Italy. How does Putin get away with

it? With communism that was a belief and ideology misguided. Now there is

no belief in anything except money. Modern Russia is having small

numbers of rich people making the decisions and being bound together

through their honour. If the thieves thought President Putin was not

going to let them keep their money overseas, I have heard many experts

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

the black money through to where it reaches the UK and sees it. I'm not

acting against the thieves and torturers in the UK, we are

indirectly bolstering support for many of the worst regimes in the

world. The other point is thieves rarely steal for the sake of it.

They still because they wish to enjoy the benefits of their ill

gotten gains but where should they spend it or how to keep their money

safe until they spend it is the challenge. The best places someone

like the UK where the rule of law and property rights are sacrosanct.

This is why the Home Affairs Select Committee .2 ?100 billion of black

money being laundered here in the UK every year. Is why Russian and other

human rights abuses money has been pouring into many properties and

prized British education. I went on a trip to Hong Kong and heard that

after the recent Beijing corruption crackdown, the Hong Kong jewellery

shops have reduced takings of up to 60%. Hong Kong commercial and

residential property prices have also stopped rocketing. The

criminals come to London, many will be happy to pay top property prices

if they feel their money is 80% less likely to be confiscated in London

man in their home countries should they fall out of favour with the

powers that be. Even with higher stamp duty and the annual company

overseas tax, the security of the people anonymously owning property

can be worth it. Do we want this money here? We have a decision to

make. To evaluate the tax revenue more than the human rights abuses

and the legality it is connected with. We prepare to leave the EU,

this issue will become more relevant as we attempt to negotiate

free-trade agreements and cosy up to the regimes around the world. We

need to set a marker and new clause one is providing the mechanics of

action. It is making a statement against the values of torturers and

other criminals who might see it as an easy drop-off point for their

assets. This clause has been initiated by my honourable friend

and is now also recognised by the Home Secretary's Amendment as an

important issue. It is highly commendable. I want to put on record

my congratulations to the Minister at his department for listening to

the case and come forward with a meaningful compromise amendment. The

Government new clause seven falls short of the US Sergei Magnitsky

act. Furthermore the Government clearly wishes to keep to themselves

the choice of whom to prosecute an asset sees. I am minded to go along

with this giving that many or most seizures would have political

implications though I doubt they should be left to NGO's to

prosecute. I would be happy with this if I am given comfort that the

Government intend to use these powers once this bill is passed. On

the question of their list, I think we are missing a trick here. One of

the strongest aspects of the US listed thousands of seamen who is

blamed for what. I note that the US Treasury's office of foreign assets

control update the list last month. If you search engine the Sergei

Magnitsky act, they look at the job titles. Naming and shaming is a huge

negative issue the human rights abuses are wished to live in

security of criminal darkness. It is also a strong deterrent to others

who might consider such abuse. But the ministers say if he has consider

publishing a list of those who will be prosecuted under these

provisions? I am not sure if this would be included in the stats which

he said he would be publishing. Clarification here would be helpful.

My reading is that it is more likely looking at seizing assets but to

stop the undesirables travelling to the UK, trading in the UK, using UK

banks and buying UK property. Could the ministers say whether these

types of issues are dealt with through new clause seven or perhaps

other legislation that would be fused at the same time? Perhaps I

can inform my honourable friend on this abuse issue. We can refuse

visas to a person who does not meet the immigration rules, evidence that

a person has been involved in human rights abuse will be taken into

account when taking a Visa application. We can do that and the

power is there that the Government to do it and we have exercised it in

the past. It would be helpful if he would think because the Government's

position that when a prosecution is taken, a Visa exclusion should be in

that and should be considered by the court. If the sanction person were

to have his or her assets confiscated but they could go to buy

more assets or conduct business in the UK, the new clause seven

provision would lack the required teeth. In new clause seven, it

refers to proceedings needed to be brought within 20 years which seems

like a short period in any event. It looks to be 20 years from the

commission. Can I ask why this is not from the end of the abuse? If

someone has been abused with the right to prosecute, what they fail?

Would the court be required to connect the human rights abuse to

the assets being seized? In a situation where the individual is

accused of organising the torch of three people that only steals from

one of the three and then moves the stolen goods into the UK, in such a

situation, with the seizure have to be tied to the only one incidence of

torture which relates to the stolen goods? After the legislation is put

in place, is the Government actually intending to act? Mehri -- many

foreign nationals want to live here rather than the US so we have

significant influence in setting standards of civilised behaviour

that we expect the people to live stay here. I ask the Minister how we

are now going to say to those that have been merciless of their own

country will still bet you'll gotten gains and we do not want you here.

We do not want your money here and if you do come here, we will act. If

this is -- if this is the Minister's position, when he clarified please.

I want to pay tribute to the Minister not least the bringing

forward the bill because we all accept across all parts of the House

that the corrupt money that is around in the British financial

system and our housing market is a source of crime and corruption

across the whole of the world and it means it has a detrimental effect on

the housing market in the UK. Large number is -- large numbers of houses

ought and it is a means of laundering money. It might not

affect the majority of our constituents but they will be buying

property portfolios all the way down the housing market. By simply

increasing the value of those at the top of end -- top end of the market,

you are having an effect on the whole of the housing market. We have

to tackle this issue of corrupt money in the British system coming

from overseas. I welcome the main divisions of the bill and I applaud

the Minister for trying to come some way towards a piece of legislation

which might be termed the Sergei Magnitsky clause. I want to pay

tribute to the honourable member. We have had 70 conversations on the

subject for a long time and we still do haven't decided how to say so

gay. One of the most depressing things, to add to the long list of

what he himself said, that not only was he prosecuted posthumously,

which must be a new low and putting two fingers up to the normal

standards of criminal prosecution around the world, but also I am

absolutely certain that significant numbers of the people who are

prohibited from entering the United States of America advent entered the

United Kingdom since his death. That is why I say to the Minister, he

needs to think again about this issue of Visa bands. I do look to

the US. Several members have referred to this already. The United

States of America has gone further than us. The Minister tried to say

they have a different legal system. Yes, they do but it is based on the

fundamental principles as ours and I would have thought on the same

values as ours. That is why we ought to be going as far as the US in this

regard. I merely note that when the Commons debated this on the 13th of

December 2010, the motion was carried unanimously that we should

proceed with a Mac members -- with a Sergei Magnitsky act. He said we had

to wait to see what the United States of America would do. We are

not just going to see what the United States of America does at the

moment. We might need to choose our own path in relation to these

matters. I sometimes feel as if the UK is dragging its heels on this

issue. Magnitsky was killed when I was Minister for Europe in the

Foreign Office and so most of this has happened since 2010. Most of the

debate has happened between 2010. My personal perception was David

Cameron and President Obama were reluctant to show a strong arm to

Russia because they thought that by pressing the reset button, that was

Barack Obama's view and you would get major concessions out of Putin.

That has simply not proved to be an effective strategy. In every single

record, Putin has taken that moment as a sign of weakness and proceeded

to use force in greater degree. David Cameron, on the Thursday he

became leader of the Conservative Party, he went to Georgia to stand

with the Georgians against the invasion of Georgia and there are

still Russian troops in Georgia. We have had the Ukraine. There is clear

evidence of Russian direct corrupt involvement in elections in France,

Germany, the US and I would argue also in this country. Many believe

that some of the highest levels decisions affecting security in the

UK, Germany, France and the US are now compromised by Russian

infiltration. The murder of Magnitsky and his -- him

posthumously been put on trial shows Russia is a clip Tok received. It is

ruled by people that have stolen from the people and use every means

to protect themselves and guard their position with jealousy. It is

the politics of jealousy at large. My fear is it is always affecting

the UK and for that matter, it has affected one of our closest allies,

Cyprus, where much Russian money is stored away and laundered illegally.

A sign is it is impossible to extradite anyone from Russia because

Russia will not allow the extradition in its law and

constitution of any Russian National. We are unable to

prosecute. In many cases we are talking about... I must say I am

still mystified why the authorities in this country have failed in

relation to any of the assets belonging to those in this country,

who were involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and the corruption

he unveiled. Many people have pointed to some ?30 million worth of

such assets, none of which has yet been seized or frozen. Whilst in the

11 other countries in the world, ?43 million... Sorry, $43 million mark

has been seized or frozen. It feels this country has been reluctant or

had a knack -- inadequate laws. It is not just in relation to Magnitsky

and Russia, but if you look like the situation in Kazakhstan... There is

one person reckoned to have ?147 million worth of London property

there are, and here's the former secret police in Kazakhstan. He was

ambassador to Austria, then Austria, Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia. He

amassed an enormous fortune during those jobs from banking, oil

refinery, call Communications and virtually every form of state

monopoly he could get. He was the son-in-law of the former president,

and he was charged with money-laundering through the British

Virgin Islands. Again, another reason why we need to take more

concerted action. He was charged in Austria of torture, the torture of

two bodyguards and the murder of the opposition leader in Kazakhstan, and

of a cashback journalist. He committed suicide -- a journalist

from Kazakhstan. Up until 2015, up until that moment, there were still

no system in the UK which were then we would have been able to tackle

his financial assets in the United Kingdom and seek recovery of them.

Indeed there is an issue now about what we should do about those who

have inherited those substantial assets. I think those who have

inherited them would certainly not be covered by the Government's new

clause but would be covered by the honourable member for is Jerome

Walton's new clause, which is why it still support it, even if he is not

going to pitch a vote. The honourable member for the Scottish

National party referred earlier to the issue of Libya, a major issue

because the Libyan transitional Government found some $10 billion

worth had been taken from the Libyan people, depriving schools, hospitals

and the whole of the Libyan state infrastructure under Colonel

Gaddafi. And that, a lot of that money has clearly come to the UK,

and the Libyan authorities have been trying to pursue that money here

that have done it phenomenally difficult to do so. As far as I am

aware, the only asset that has so far been discovered as a ?10 million

hand-out. The minister suggested the threshold in new clause one was too

low, and it was just too easy for people to be able to bring

prosecutions, and that it would fall foul of the Human Rights Act. I hope

we are keeping the Human Rights Act, incidentally. I would argue quite

the reverse that in actual fact as a honourable member pointed out, this

has to go to a senior judge in the High Court. You do not just turn up

and say, I want to have this chap's asset frozen, please can I have it?

You must make a proper argument. It is on the balance of probability, a

standard evidential basis in most civil actions, and his bill places a

duty on the Secretary of State, that is true, to pursue these matters.

But only where it is in the public interest to do so. There are plenty

of protections against the abuse, which seems to be what the minister

was suggesting might otherwise apply. There are significant

differences between the two new clauses,, as Huntington's honourable

member mentioned. The Government's new clause only applies to abuses by

the public officials, and definition of public official in the UK is

established in statutory law and that is a significant notation. As

said already, no duty for the prosecuting authorities or

Government to initiate recovery proceeding at all. It will apply

under the new public clause and there will be no public register of

abusers subject of human rights abusers, subject to recovery

proceedings. There will be no designation orders, which means it

will be easy for people who felt they were about to be proceeded

against two squirrel their assets away to another domain quickly,

because there is no system of freezing them before recovery

proceedings start. There is... It only applies to new degrading

treatment or punishment after the incorporation of the act, rather

than the events that have already taken place, and also, as has been

referred to, I does not apply to human rights abuses that happened

more than 20 years ago. I hope the Minister will respond to the point

made by the honourable member for Huntington when the 20 years begins

and ends. In all of this, it just feels as if the Government still has

a view in its mind, which as you can somehow or other please some of

these people around the world and they want to pussyfoot around the

issue. I do not think that needs the present danger and Snead, and in

particular the risk that there is to the financial impropriety and

reputation of this country around the world. Because we cannot prosper

if we allow Gregory and corruption to flourish in this country through

the back door. -- bribery and corruption. I think we will say that

none of these people whether from Russia or any other country are

welcome in this United Kingdom, we should say so. I have said before I

believe many of those involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and

the corruption he unveiled have actually visited the UK,

notwithstanding what the minister says, which is that a visa can be

refused or any of these people, which may be the case but we cannot

know that they are being excluded and they cannot know that, unless we

can bring these two edges together, the visa ban, and the Magnitsky

proper acts such as they have in the USA. One final point, Deputy

Speaker, is that we are present as... I think the minister said

earlier, we are presently operating under unsettling circumstances where

we are in the European Union, and we rely... The Prime Minister has

regularly set, which yes, from European councils, it has been great

to be able to tough sanctions against Russia imposed by the

European Union. If we were the only country arguing in that European

Council meeting for such tough sanctions, when we are no longer

there, it is going to be much more difficult for us to be able to

prosecute the foreign policy that we want, and in particular the policy

in relation to Russia will stop the honourable member has a completely

different view from me on this last point, but I hope he would agree,

and I hope the whole House would agree, that we will have to find new

mechanisms to be able to ensure that we do not become the centre spot for

international corruption, bribery, and human rights abuses who want to

abuse the rights and privileges of owning and living in the United

Kingdom. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a

great pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman. Much as I

agreed with what he had to say, some I did not agree with but we will put

that to one side. I want to congratulate my honourable friend

from East sure and Waltham, never forgetting Waltham, in his patch.

Because I think he has achieved an enormous progress on this and when

he started, I don't think he had a chance of getting this through. --

the honourable member for Esher and Walton. A huge progress from the

Government, and it is usually out of panic from defeat but there is no

possibility I do not think. These concessions come out of the power of

my honourable friend's argument to right a wrong and to include within

British law something I think will make a difference. I'm sure the

house is very grateful for what he has done. I stand before you as the

UK Government's champion of anti-corruption. When I was

appointed by David Cameron, I came out to find that he had described me

as the czar. -- the anti-corruption czar. The Daily Mail shortened that

to corruption czar, one step too close to the Romans. -- Romanovs. I

went to a meeting in Paris and one of the speakers, bearing in mind

this was an and high corruption conference, one of the speakers

talked about taking a lorry worth full of goods that were time

sensitive, and customs asked for a facilitation payment, a private

facilitation payment, and how many people would make that payment? And,

to the amazement of myself, and I suspect the greater amazement of the

person asking the question, 60% of the hands went up that they would. I

was proud to say that if that lorry driver had been British, not only

would he have committed a crime that he would have been prosecuted on his

return to the UK for doing that, and so would his company. I think this

amendment, amendment seven, the excellent amendment. New clause, I

beg your pardon. It has to be seen in that context that we have been

gradually translating this. I am old enough to remember listening to a

minister, a Conservative minister, I am ashamed to say, saying on the

radio a number of years ago, I want British companies to bribe.

Everybody bribes and I want Britain to be among those that break. It was

a ludicrous thing to say but it was the kind of reaction that we got to

the braving. They said, everybody is doing it and we are doing putting UK

companies at the till your risk. It has not been the case. -- peculiar

risk. After the bribery act, we have seen boardrooms that in due

diligence to ensure they do not face the problem, and this is part of

that process and progress of triangulating. I do not think we

have seen any drop-off in terms of British business. So I am pleased

and this has to be seen within the context of the call for a

consultation on economic crimes, and in the place of the board on

economic crimes. It should be seen within the context of transparency,

beneficial ownership, of property in this country owned by people who

want to trade with the Government and want to see something positive

coming out of that. So, given the degree of consensus that seems to be

breaking out around this particular issue, I have a slightly shorter

speech than I originally had intended. But what this will do is

it should ensure that bloodstained dictators, that those on the take in

that Tucker sees around the world, and I do entirely agree that a post

you must conviction for dishonesty, for death, is as ridiculous as I

think occurred in the French Revolution, of putting animals out

on trials. -- in kleptocracies around the world. We must understand

there are part of the world, governments and progress business,

where governments and Private business move hand-in-hand. It looks

like the very epitome of puritan restraint in comparison. And it is

to those people we are sending out a clear message that their assets will

be seized, that their lives will be interrupted, and that those who seek

to buy expensive flats, expensive jewellery, that they will face a

problem. We have dealt with, I think, the worry of third parties

and vexatious claims, and I think I will not go over that point. There

is a further point which needs to be emphasised, which is this. Often,

particularly non-government organisations, they play an enormous

part in bringing prosecutions together, or bringing evidence to

the authorities. Now, I suspect and I have had the privilege of seeing

how the Serious Fraud Office works, a lot of those cases are compact and

a lot of those cases take a lot of time. I think there would have been

a risk where were third parties allied to make these applications

that they might actively tip of an ongoing investigation. We must build

up a compelling reason why. And why it should be the state of the

particular prosecution authorities that bring these.

I want to end by agreeing with my honourable friend for Huntingdon.

This is pointless unless there are prosecutions. It is useless unless

there are prosecutions. I had the honour to talk to various

governments around the world and often they will talk about the

marvellous laws they have and dealing with bribery. But the number

of prosecutions that are not seen through. The number of prosecutions

not made. I was with a country which I shan't name, I was pressed on

this, they managed to produce that that they had prosecuted a local

government official for taking away eight television aerial and making a

profit on that. Yet they were dealing, a place riddled with

prosecution. Unless the people at the top get their collar felt, this

will not be effective. But I think this along with other clauses and

amendments in this bill should make a difference so I am pleased to be

supporting the government and I entered the game by congratulating

my honourable friend foreseeing this through. Deputy Speaker, I would

like to make some beef comments and start by thanking the member for

Esher and Walton for putting this together. The Minister for

responding positively, I have been in House long enough to know that

ministers often do not respond positively, even it took cross-party

efforts. There was someone else I would like to page review to, that

is Bill Browder, who many members will have met. He has really led the

charge on this. I am sure that what you'll doesn't want is a tribute but

to see action on this. I share some of the reservations that the

honourable member for Rhondda has around the fact that there have been

in other countries, assets seized that were related to the Magnitsky

case. But it seems London as many members would accept, is somewhere

where some people dubiously put their assets.

The Minister has reassured us that the prosecuting authorities, not

that he can put pressure on them but he has confirmed that the

prosecuting authorities would indeed prosecute if there was evidence. And

I can assure Bill and others that I think he would have the support of

the House as expressed by the Minister if this evidence is

forthcoming. Or if there is more evidence or more detailed evidence

that the Minister for one has endorsed the need for firm action to

be taken. Which he says could be taken even under existing

legislation but even more effectively in relation to the new

clause put forward. I understand the reason why I and others would prefer

to see new clause one but I understand why the Minister has put

forward his own new clause. And today, in-house, we would not have

the numbers to push and win successfully the cross-party

amendment. What we will have to do do is follow this matter very

closely. I welcome that the Minister is going to publish statistics on

it. A number of members have referred to the Magnitsky act. If

members want to see the list of names, they could look my motion 113

forward I named them. I tabled that and it listed the Russian citizens

subject to the Magnitsky act in America. The member for Rhondda

reminded me it may need to be redone because there have been new names

added in the American version. That information is there if people need

to refer to it. With that Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome that the

government have moved on this but the proof will be in the pudding. If

evidence is forthcoming that these assets are here in the way that Bill

Browder and others believe, that the government will ensure that those

responsible are prosecuted and brought to justice for the gross

human rights railways and is they have committed. That macro human

rights violations. I can be brief in my intervention as a symmetry of new

clause one. Because my right honourable friend and honourable

friends across the House and those across the House have made the case

with such eloquence on what is known as the Magnitsky amendment. Also, it

seems to me as a signatory that the government has listened and the

Minister has quite rightly heard the cross-party voice on these issues

and brought forward a new clause seven. I congratulate the Minister

on having achieved that. My honourable friend for Esher and

Walton who has done such a good job on this pointed out that we must not

allow the best to be the enemy of the good in his acceptance of the

government amendment. And the story of his Paris meeting that my right

honourable friend, the anti-corruption czar made reminds me

of how complex the attack on corruption is. Of which we must all

be a part. I remember being told by an eminent New York lawyer, and

anti-corruption lawyer, who had been engaged in a variety of

anti-corruption mechanisms. He was once invited to Afghanistan to give

a lecture on how to tackle corruption. A vast number in this

auditorium of Afghan officials turned up and to his horror, he

suddenly realised halfway through this lecture, as he observed the

Rolex watches that they had not turned up to learn how to tackle

corruption but had turned up in order to learn how to evade the

tackling of corruption. Corruption is a cancer. It is insidious. In a

whole variety of ways. One of the good things about this bill is that

it is seeking in this complex area to make a number of very clear

aspects of progress. In an area where I feel the former by Minister

and former Chancellor of the Exchequer and others in the

government on these benches have made a very big contribution in that

fight to tackle corruption. I want to make two brief final points. The

first is, I think the Minister has recognised this, that there has been

in the Magnitsky case, and I speak as someone who knows Bill Browder

and has been horrified to hear the tale of the experience he has

undergone. I think it is clear that the British law enforcement agencies

have shown a degree of confusion, delay and obfuscation in their

handling of these matters. I think there are issues of the Minister to

ordination and effectiveness and I hope very much the Minister will

ensure this remains clearly on his agenda, tackling this. And the

second and final point Madam Deputy Speaker is that we need in Britain

to send a clear signal about the approach we take to human rights

abuses. And to money-laundering. And the failure to send a clear signal

on which hopefully will be ended by the decision the House takes this

afternoon, damages our international relations. Britain's relations and

dealings with Russia are very complex. We need to work with Russia

on a number of matters where we have a common interest. But we need to be

absolutely clear as well where we stand on the issues, which my

honourable friend for Huntingdon so eloquently set out in his speech, so

that there is no misunderstanding where the British government stands

on many of the horrific aspects of Russian governance and Russian

conduct. Which my honourable friend set out. I have been a strong critic

in this House of Russian abuses of human rights and commitment of war

crimes in Syria. And I do think given that we have this other than

mention of areas where we must be able to work constructively with

Russia, that being clear on where we stand on these human rights issues

in this House, with our government is truly important. Thank you Madam

Deputy Speaker. I think we have had an important and well-informed

debate. I am grateful for the contributions of honourable

colleagues and honourable friends. And the honourable friend for Esher

and Walton for his remarks. I have done my best as the Minister to

speak to as many colleagues as possible during this. To listen to

their concerns and to go back to the law enforcement agencies and ask us

questions. I cannot say if my predecessors did or did not. Our job

as ministers is to go beyond just the briefing papers that we have all

received in our boxes in the past. To test the resolve. And to send a

clear message to the agencies that when hopefully this bill is passed

by Parliament and becomes an act, that we want to see prosecutions. We

want to see the power was used. I will not interfere with how they

choose to apply those powers. I will not choose which ones they choose to

use to achieve the right effect. I think the main aim is to make sure

we say loud and clear that we don't want money-laundering is in this

country. We don't want organised criminals, people who abuse people

with torture and inhumane treatment coming here. You are not welcome in

this country and nor is your dirty money. If you come to this country,

we will try and have you and we will certainly try and have your money.

If we can return that money to regimes it has been stolen from, we

will aim to do that. We have started doing that, returning ?27 million to

Macau recently and a memorandum of understanding with Nigeria. If we

can, we shall do that. I think this amendment and the new clause one,

and there are many things I agree agree with in the spirit of that

clause and says it loud and clear. Those who want to exploit laws

around the world and immunity or state sponsorship or state umbrella

or tacit support, it won't be good enough. I think our new clause helps

achieve that. I have also highlighted to the honourable member

that we will have a reporting on the use of this revision. The government

has agreed in conjunction with the public amounts committee -- Public

Accounts Committee, to make them public. As I made clear in committee

stages that we will commit to include the use of this provision.

Will also include the names and titles of people from him the assets

have been taken? I will have to check back with my honourable

friend. Certainly the matter of a court action will be a matter of

court record. So that would become a matter of public record. And

therefore available to all. I think that is important. Just to

reiterate, the government is at present on the sanctions issue

taking an assessment of existing sanctions policy post Brexit to

ensure we can continue our proactive approach. Any changes to our Sam

Jones will be considered in that context rather than making any

changes at this point. We will continue a dialogue with

parliamentary colleagues on this work. And to say to my right

honourable friend the member for Esher and Walton, I will ensure the

spirit of his new clause one amendment is carried forward into

those discussions. But I think the time to do that is not now with this

piece of legislation, the time is obviously when that assessment is

being made and we come to a place post Brexit where we will have to

look at sanctions in the wider picture. Just on the issue about the

duty of law-enforcement agencies to use these powers. Part of the rule

of law, the strength of our system as opposed to perhaps some other

regimes that have been talked about today. Is that our law enforcement

agencies are operationally independent. That I don't sit as a

minister behind a desk and use these agencies to pick on people I don't

like or political rivals I don't like. We leave as much as possible

be operational independence to these agencies because that is part of the

balance and safeguards in our society. But if the prosecuting

authorities, for a wrong reason, a corrupt reason, to choose not to

prosecute, there are powers through the court to make sure that they

have done so. I'm afraid our give our law enforcement agencies are

much better view of their integrity than to say or do even allude that

there is some corrupt reason they may not use their powers. We all

have constituents who write to us and say they made a complaint to

police and they did not take any action. Sometimes that is valid and

sometimes we follow a path to try and get a better result for them.

Honourable members here today who have met Bill Browder have brought

to this House and colleagues their evidence and made presentations to

the National crime agency and cross-examined the National crime

agency witnessed during the committee stage.

Sometimes they have to live with the disappointment and it is our job as

members of Parliament to tell them it doesn't constitute a crime or

indeed the police have to make that case. Sometimes they seek to solve

that by changing the law to create a crime that may be appropriate or

up-to-date. It is important to respect that operational independent

stomach independence, tempting as it may be to wish to prioritise their

priorities for Stott have to press on. Honourable member is have made

valid queries and I have made a small but short book to go through

handed to me from the box. To the honourable member for Dumfries and

Galloway, he raises a number of issues on the retrospective nature

of some of the issues. On that basis these provisions are retrospective

in so far they would lead to torture, even when it occurred prior

to the enactment of this Bill. The government amendment would only

cover conduct constituting cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment

where it comes in after coming into force, this act. What we have done

already is significant legal step to suspend the requirement for dual

criminality, providing for civil recovery to be pursued against

property that was not necessarily unlawfully obtained in this country

in which the conduct took place, means that we think we are at a

place where taking a suitably proportionate approach. We have

already gone further than we do in some other areas because we couldn't

take action where the unlawful event took place if it wasn't in this

country. So it have to balance that. Recovery of proceeds of crime

generally is subject to a 20 year limitation period under the

Limitation act 1980. On the question the honourable member for Rhondda

made and the member for Dumfries and Galloway about when we can generally

claim the proceeds, the timescale where it starts. Is starts when the

property was obtained through unlawful conduct, whereas under new

clothes one it seems to run from the date of the conduct itself -- Clause

1. It could be a shorter timescale than the Government's new clause.

Can I reassure the member for Dumfries and Galloway that it does

cover conduct linked to torture such as assisting it, directing it,

facilitating it, or profiting from it. Even where the linked conduct is

not conducted by a public official. So I think it does go wider than

perhaps some people may fear. I think the other point is what

evidence is needed to allow for the assets to be recovered. Any civil

recovery would be subject to all existing processes and legal

safeguards of the Proceeds of Crime Act. The court would need to be

satisfied of the balance of probabilities that the profits were

the proceeds of crime or likely to fund further criminal activity and

law enforcement agencies would need to consider which of their powers to

utilise on a case-by-case basis. It would also apply to inherited

wealth. That would not be excluded, inherited wealth would be covered by

that ability to recover assets, and so I can hopefully reassure the

honourable member for Rhondda on that point. To my honourable friend,

then the member for Esher and Walton, I would reiterate the spirit

he is trying to achieve is something the government agrees with. We want

to say loud and clear that you are not welcome, organised criminals,

crooks, corrupted individuals, are not welcome in this country and nor

their money. That's why I was very pleased to be part of the process of

the implementation of the bribery act brought in by the last Labour

government, the implementation and statutory guidance that went along

with it by this government, or the government before, the Conservative

government, and that is part of the whole package along with the

criminal Finance Bill, goes the Bribery Act and some other issues. I

do not want the United Kingdom to be fuelled by dirty money and don't

want people to be profiting from it and what people need to understand

is the reason people should want to come to London and the way you make

London open for business, and the United Kingdom, is the rule of law,

one of the best ways to make it open for business, and I would say a

competitive tax base. Those two things are white people should want

to come to the United Kingdom, not because they can hide their money,

or launder it. It doesn't make us a better place for hosting these

individuals and I hope the new powers, not just in this part of the

Bill but in the whole Bill will help us tackle it and I'm very keen to

make sure that as soon as this Bill becomes an act, hopefully, we start

making sure we deal with some of these individuals and getting the

money back to where it belongs. To my Right Honourable friend, the

member for Huntington, it was a well articulated speech, he's right about

sending that message. There are regimes around the world who

deliberately take advantage of Britain's openness and quality of

places to live, and indeed what we have to offer and those regimes need

to be sent a message that we are serious here, and go elsewhere, we

would like to catch you first and put you in prison, to be brutally

honest. To the honourable member for Rhondda, I think I have clarify the

point for him of inherited wealth. The worries about the London

property market, it's not just nice town houses in Knightsbridge being

bought up, huge portfolios up-and-down the country. It doesn't

just apply to overseas citizens, the rest of the Bill hopefully also

deals with drug dealers in my part of the world in the north-west,

north-east, or Northern Ireland who may be funnelling money into

property. As part of our work the Government's doing on the

fermentation of the fourth anti-money-laundering directive the

government consulted on whether estate agents should carry out

checks on the bias of property as well as the sellers. I was surprised

to find out that they only do it on the seller. They intend to publish

the response imminently is what my note says so we will look carefully

at what the response is. On the member for Rhondda's other question

about freezing of orders and why people would move the money pretty

quickly, part five of Poca does allow for interim freezing orders

allowing for the freezing of property while the court considers

the case, so hopefully to do that. I also recognise that both the Home

Affairs Committee report on proceeds of crime or recovery of assets, did

point out some very valid problems in the system and I have asked in

the department that we set about making sure that we are timely when

we make cases for confiscation of funds and assets to make sure that

the gaps don't allow criminals and bad people to take the money before

we actually do that. The honourable member for Rhondda, and my Right

Honourable friend the anti-corruption czar will recognise

it within government. We always have to satisfy the competing issues

within departments and he will know himself as a Foreign Office minister

and former Secretary of State for DCLG that we have competing

interests in government when it comes to making some pieces of this

legislation and inevitably amendments like this had to walk a

fine line between the number of challenging diplomatic and political

issues but I trust the House agrees the Government is taking a

constructive approach. I have been determined to listen to my

colleagues and produce something that hopefully is a strong message,

but also an actual power to allow us to act on people who have abused

human rights. I want to finish by congratulating the sponsorship of

new country-macro and it's important we have had the opportunity to make

this debate, my honourable friend for Esher and Walton is a formidable

campaigner, if I have to say, and I think he has successfully

articulated the case -- Clause 1. Imbued the spirit of his amendment

into our Bill, and I hope the House will support government knew Clause

seven which I beg to move. The question is that government new

clause seven beach read a second time. As many as are of the opinion,

say "aye". To the contrary, "no". I think the ayes have it, the ayes

have it. The government is that the government knew Clause seven be

added to the Bill. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the

contrary, "no". I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. We come

to government knew Clause eight which it would be convenient to

consider the motion to transfer an amendment grouped together on is

that this election paper. Minister to move new Clause eight. We come to

a group of amendments relating to law enforcement, investigative and

recovery powers, primarily composed of government amendment which I hope

the House will agree of the most part are technical and

uncontroversial. I do not intend to linger on each of them and will

quickly summarise the key amendments for the benefit of honourable member

is. Clause eight and other consequential amendments remove the

restriction on HMRC's criminal powers being used for former revenue

functions, this follows a merger of HM Customs and Excise in 2005 and in

the intervening period legislative changes have brought most major

taxes within the scope of HMRC's criminal justice powers. However,

there remains some anomalies. For example, investigators cannot use

certain powers to investigate tax fraud and stamp duty, regardless of

which part of HMRC it is committed against and these will make sure

necessary powers are available in all cases. They do not provide HMRC

with any new criminal justice powers. Amendments to- 15, 70 and 71

relate to the power at clause nine of the Bill allowing an extension of

the moratorium period in which law enforcement agencies can investigate

a suspicious activity report before the transaction is allowed to

proceed. These amendments deliver a number of mine and technical

improvements to this provision. They allow for an automatic extension for

moratorium period while a court is hearing awaiting a decision on an

application. They help to ensure that a company does not provide any

information to the customer whose transaction is subject other than

the fact suspicious activity report has been made. They allow

immigration officers to apply for an extension and allow for an explicit

right of appeal in Northern Ireland. The majority of the remaining

amendments in this group, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, 38, 46, 47, 49, 57, 69, 72

clarify the operation of the seizure and forfeiture power that the Bill

adds to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the anti-terrorism crime

and Security act 2001. Many of these changes are extremely technical in

nature but I will highlight a few of the most significant. They allow the

director-general of the National Crime Agency to designate the level

of senior officer that can authorise the use of certain powers, unlike in

the police where no such designation currently exists in law. They ensure

an interest on forfeited funds while in the agency's account is returned

to the owner of the funds if the person successfully appeals against

the forfeiture. They provide that where the National Crime Agency has

used the powers and the court determines compensation should be

paid, that the National Crime Agency will be responsible for paying the

compensation. They produce a duty on the police and others to consult

with the Treasury to ensure the full range of terrorist asset freezing

powers are considered before exercising the related power

provided by the Bill and they require consultation of the devolved

administration before the provisions in clause 12 relating to the seizure

of gaming vouchers and betting slips are commenced. This will ensure the

provisions are implement it effectively in Scotland and Northern

Ireland. On the issue of devolved administrations, we hope the

Scottish Parliament will approve the legislation on the Bill shortly

although the government asserts and none of the provisions are devolved

with respect to Wales, I know the assembly has provided a legislative

Consent Motion. The government has extensive discussion with the

Northern Ireland Executive about the Bill and plans were in place for a

legislative Consent Motion to be considered in the assembly. Law

enforcement authorities of Northern Ireland are keen to ensure they have

access to the powers in the legislation. However, the suspension

of the assembly prior to the election has prevented the

legislative Consent Motion from being pursued at this time. These

are clearly extremely unusual circumstances but the government

remains committed to the central principles of the convention and we

will therefore commit not to commence provisions on that is

related to Northern Ireland without the appropriate consent being

obtained. It is our intention to pick this up with the executive

following the elections but it may not be possible to be resolve this

prior to the Bill and receiving Royal assent. We will make further

amendments to the Bill in the House of Lords to put beyond doubt all of

the relevant provisions that can be commenced at separate times for

different areas in the United Kingdom. Very grateful Thank you,

Madam Deputy Speaker.. To my honourable colleague, I would

say that we are in discussions with the Northern Ireland assembly and

they are ongoing. We would hope that those assembly elections are

completed and Stormont takes up the reins again and devolution returns

to Northern Ireland. That is what we all wish. There was a good

cross-party consensus for these provisions in Northern Ireland

before the assembly. I can't member the date of the actual election, he

may have to remind me. But I think the start point is that let us plan

for normality in Northern Ireland and make sure we are in a good

position. 2nd of March, Madame deputies bigger. I agree with his

aspiration that we see a return to as soon as soon as possible but

would the Minister believe there would be merit in corresponding with

the ladies of each individual political party -- with the leaders

of each political party. I am grateful, I will certainly put that

suggestion to officials. I think my view would be that before suspension

of the assembly that the place we were at, I am not sure why there has

been a change of leader or that we have had any signal that that has

gone backwards. The 2nd of March gives me some good Hope. I've never

known the other place to move at the speed of light so hopefully we have

time to make sure this gets through. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, this

group concerns new clause five in the number of officers for the all

Parliamentary group on anti-corruption, I will allow

honourable members to speak to those amendments and talk about them in my

closing remarks. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs removal of

restrictions, the question is that new clause eight be read a second

time. We on this side of the House support the spirit of this bill and

we broadly support this group of amendments. We welcome new

provisions to prosecute those professionals that fail to prevent

tax evasion as well as unexplained wealth orders that where assets can

be seized. We will support the government effort to tighten up

state powers against white-collar crime. But we have concerns that

they have squandered an opportunity that the bill provides to stamp out

everyday corruption of the super rich getting a free ride on the

expense of wider society. A problem that amid the government cuts to

public services, this bill could be very difficult to enforce. While I

understand the giving of new powers to HMRC, is good government not

concerned about how they will carry out their new Judy is given to the

coalition government decimated H MRC Bosman budget by ?100 million. And

they lost 137 officers by 2027. There seems little point creating

laws that potentially cannot be enforced. Unless of course it is to

give the impression that the government is doing something. A

theme I fear that has sadly run through proceedings on the bill so

far. We on this side of the House put forward the argument that for

the agency involved in civil recovery powers, it is crucial they

have sufficient resources to do their job properly. We therefore

request a distinct and clear annual report which details the resources

allocated to agencies concerned solely with the task of carrying out

these recovery powers. In previous stages of the Bill, the government

objected on the grounds that the asset recovery and centralisation

scheme would allow front line agencies to keep 100% of what they

recover. But this argument is seriously flawed. In theory, yes,

the agencies could retain the total value recovered. But as the

committee of Public accounts made Leah in its progress through view --

review. These agencies have been typically poor in terms of their

recovery rate. Consequently, it remains to be seen as to how these

agencies will improve their rate of recovery to benefit from the new

incentive other nations gain. Another reason that if one wanted to

find out this information, you could obtain it by going through a number

of different sources. Yet again this is flawed. We previously argued for

detailed reporting of resources specifically for these agencies in

the exercise of the powers laid down in the criminal finance bill and the

proceeds of crime bill. The government has already blocked a

number of measures that Labour have proposed to make this a meaningful

and effective Bill. We proposed a corporate probation order. If a

company was found to have committed a failure to prevent an offence, it

would be subject to an independent review of compliance procedures. It

would also pay the full cost of such a review. This was coupled with

allowing the removal of directors from companies who failed to ensure

that proper procedures were in place to prevent UK and foreign tax

evasion offences taking place. But the government believed this was

unnecessary because UK law could already deal with such cases of

negligence. And whilst there may be a case that some UK law could be

used to a similar effect, it would not be an identical effect. Once

there is an implied threat to the EU that the government could change the

economic model that a strong case for legislation to protect both UK

and global citizens from around the world. With the potential for a race

to the bottom and the destruction of workers' rights and slashing of

corporation tax, it could be argued that a Brexit government would

foster an environment where tax evasion was implicitly encouraged.

As colleagues have said and will no doubt say again, this bill must do

more to tackle the deeply entrenched and extraordinarily costly

phenomenon of tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is in effect living to the

letter of the law but not in the spirit of the law. And repeated

investigations of companies that sail close to the wind, but they

know they have bought the lawyers and accountants to make their tax

abuse legal is both very frustrating and extremely costly. As the UK

general anti-abuse rules show that there are ways to minimise the risk

of corporate abuse of the tax system and these should be absorbed into

this bill. Spain, Canada and Australia each have one single

agency responsible for supervising and enforcing anti-money-laundering

regulations. Britain has 22. Worse still, according to transparency

International UK, 15 of these 22 supervisors also lobby on behalf of

the interests of their sector, creating clear conflicts of interest

and a system inefficient to its core. The government raised this

problem in its action plan that preceded the bill but were not

concerned enough to cover this in the proposed legislation. The system

needs reform and the criminal finance bill needs to reflect this.

Unless the government takes all of these concerns and all of the

changes raised in opposition amendments into the bill, there is

likely that this will fail on the intent to clean up on

money-laundering and tax evasion. It is a pleasure to speak on this bill

and the new clause five which is the minister said, stands in my name and

honourable colleagues from the all parliamentary committee on

anti-corruption. I want to probe the government on this issue so that we

get the full use of the unexplained wealth orders and the interim orders

we envisage in passing this bill. I know there is concern that if we are

not careful, what might happen is the various authorities that can use

them might be concerned that the people they can use them against

will in some cases the very rich and powerful people who I suspect

probably won't go lightly in having their wealth frozen or restricted.

They would seek to frustrate those orders and oppose them with every

means they have including significant costs, perhaps well

above what could be considered reasonable in that situation and

force those onto the taxpayer at a later date if they can successfully

resist though does attempts on those orders. It is absolutely right that

if the state tries to impose one of these orders and those orders fail

that they cover reasonable cost. What would be unreasonable is if

those individuals could engage numerous high paid barristers and

end up with costs of a wholly disproportionate in that situation

and the taxpayer having to pay them. The real risk here, that would be a

deterrent effect on body is trying to use these powers where they fear

that an individual may impose and take large chunks of the budget for

a long period. The whole point of this clause was to explore whether

the existing powers that are there for the courts to restrict or

recover can be set to apply a reference to obtain orders set out

in this bill so it will all be clear. That's where the various

state authorities, acting competently and reasonably clearly

in trying to get these orders, cannot be unreasonably opposed and

end up with a significant amount of costs. It would be helpful how he

thinks these orders would work and the interaction with the existing

rules the courts can have while capping costs. It is not an entirely

theoretical issue. We have seen examples where the Serious Fraud

Office have had significant cost orders against them. I would not

like to pretend there's a similar situations to what are talking about

here, there were incidents concerned that were not the finest hour for

the Serious Fraud Office. There is cruelly some evidence that the

potential for people here will try to obtain significant costs as a

deterrent effect against the order. It would be good if the Minister

could set out whether he thinks the clause can use cost capping measures

to make sure we are not unreasonable exposed to high level of costs. I

will rise briefly to talk about if what I may admit is my favourite

section of the bill and that is unexplained wealth orders. It is an