Transnational Repression in the UK (JCHR Report)
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, on his excellent maiden speech. I note that he was a partner at a top law firm that was established in 1769, so he will fit seamlessly into your Lordships’ House, which is another amazing place to work, having also been around for many centuries. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra so eloquently put it, the CV of the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, is so extensive that I could keep going for quite some time. I would like to focus, however, on just one further item. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, is the first provost of Worcester College to keep bees, and has been known to sell his honey in college, so perhaps he might consider selling a jar to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Moving on to the report in front of us, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and those on the committee, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for their thorough and forensic work, which has resulted in the excellent report and debate today. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition would also like to pay tribute to all those who had the tenacity and strength of character to give evidence to the committee, despite the potential personal risk that they were taking in doing so. Through their voice, others will, hopefully, be spared the suffering of transnational repression here in the UK.
The security of our nation is clearly the first duty of government. It is a pivotal priority for any Administration that aim to foster a high-trust society where people are and, more importantly, feel free—that is, they are free to speak openly, free to debate and free to challenge constructively. Transnational repression has a chilling effect on those very freedoms. It is neither fair nor reasonable that individuals living in the UK are unable to speak out and bring to the fore perceived abuses perpetrated by foreign states, both internationally and here on our home soil.
The Government’s own National Security Strategy 2025 concluded:
“Hostile activity on British soil from countries like Russia and Iran is increasing, threatening our people, critical national infrastructure and prosperity”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the committee found that
“In the last year, the number of state-threat investigations run by MI5 jumped by 48%”,
with that agency dealing with more than 20 threat-to-life cases relating to just Iran since the start of 2022. This repression is not limited to just those countries. As we have heard, Egypt, Eritrea, Rwanda and others feature in the committee’s report.
In that same national security strategy, Ministers recognised the vital importance of diplomacy in approaching the threat posed by China, and they are entirely correct. So as a starting point, we would be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, would confirm that his Government will action at pace an appropriate diplomatic conversation with senior counterparts from every country on the committee’s list, and update your Lordships’ House on what is being done and when.
Many noble Lords have made specific reference to Iran. In the same vein, we would appreciate a blow-by-blow account of the steps Ministers are taking to address the committee’s finding that:
“Iran represents one of the highest kidnap and assassination state threats to the UK”.
Surely, that is a line that must never be crossed.
Regarding evidence calling for a formal definition of transnational repression, in line with the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, is the noble Lord the Minister in a position to explain why Ministers have resisted calls to issue such a formal definition? What is the logic behind that decision? Does he not agree with all noble Lords, I am sure, on what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said: that a definition might improve our data on transnational repression? If he does not agree, perhaps he could provide colour on why the Government believe that data and monitoring of transnational repression can be improved without a further change to the way the Government describe the act. On the specific recommendation that new offences in respect of transnational repression may be required in future, is it not a sensible idea that Ministers keep existing offences under review and respond to emerging threats in the way the committee suggests?
Turning to China, the statistics do not lie, and I am afraid to say that the Government have failed to deliver the growth they promised 18 months ago. One just needs to look at the market-standard benchmark of GDP per capita, a measure often highlighted quite correctly by my noble friend Lord Hintze. The Prime Minister’s recent trip to China was a sensibly cautious yet tangible reset of UK-China economic ties. However, in line with the calls to action from my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Moore of Etchingham, it would be wrong not to challenge the Minister on why China remains at a lower foreign influence registration scheme designation and not on the enhanced tier. Can he please explain what the threshold for China’s designation on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme would be?
My noble friend Lord Young of Acton rightly mentioned the Uyghurs, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The evidence given by the Uyghur Muslims to the committee was both brave and insightful. The same applies to the Uyghur communities in the UK and around the world.
Only last week, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, was asked at that very Dispatch Box which UK-registered firms imported component parts for solar panels that include polycrystalline silicon from China, and how many of these components were sourced from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, to which he replied:
“The Government does not hold or publish data identifying which UK-registered firms imported component parts for solar panels containing polycrystalline silicon from China, nor data on how many of these components may have originated from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region”.
The Great British Energy Act is crystal-clear. It requires the Secretary of State legally to satisfy himself or herself that no schools are clad in solar panels made from slave labour. It is only fair and reasonable that the Minister and the department confirm to schools, parents and children that they have a cast-iron guarantee from this Government that no schools are clad in solar panels with any component parts made by slave labour.
Noble Lords are also all too familiar with the situation of Jimmy Lai, and Ministers have flagged that:
“We will continue to protect the Hong Kong community in the UK and others from transnational repression”.
Is it the case that, if the Minister were to raise China to the enhanced tier, then Hong Kongers’ confidence in our national commitment to their safety and security would increase accordingly?
Finally, the committee’s report touched on strategic lawsuits against public participation. I assume the Government do not believe it is right to use a SLAPP to silence individuals who are exposing or criticising unacceptable conduct. Does the Minister agree with the committee that the current framework for tackling misuse of SLAPPs is too limited?
It would be wrong to end without touching on a critical element of the entire report, namely support for victims. The committee welcomed the Government’s guidance and improved training for the police, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her live example. But actions speak louder than words, and all victims of transnational repression will be watching the Government’s every move to improve communication with and support all those affected.
Counter-Extremism Strategy
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for tabling this Question for Short Debate, which, given the current political environment, is incredibly timely. Ever since the horrific attack on Israel by Hamas on 7 October, which was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, we have witnessed weekly marches and protests where those involved have chanted antisemitic slogans. The Jewish community has been not only intimidated but attacked. Even before the horrors of 2023, we saw a worrying rise in extremism across the United Kingdom, Palestine Action and Bash Back being prime examples.
The noble Lord, Lord Massey, was entirely correct when he said that Palestine Action attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. I ask noble Lords to briefly ponder this: a female police officer, a symbol of law and order, who puts herself on the front line to protect innocent members of the community, was attacked with a sledgehammer. The chair of Avon and Somerset Police Federation was entirely right when he said:
“When an officer is assaulted while simply doing their job, the impact is felt across the policing family”.
While His Majesty’s loyal Opposition know that all noble Lords support constructive challenge—it is incredibly important to have an effective balancing view—in the same vein, the Government surely cannot allow a situation, which was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, where violence is normalised to further a cause that a group of individuals believes in.
Bash Back has engaged in a campaign of systematic intimidation. It hacked the Free Speech Union and vandalised the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, told us during Oral Questions about the impact its illegal actions had not just on employees at the Equality and Human Rights Commission but on other completely innocent bystanders in the building. The effects are far-reaching, mentally and psychologically. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, mentioned social media and online activity. Bash Back published a manual on its website which advised people how to commit serious criminal offences and avoid prosecution. I simply ask the Minister: how can that be possible?
The noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Walney, flagged that a comprehensive definition of extremism does exist. It was drafted by the previous Conservative Government and, in answer to a Written Question on 18 June last year, the Minister confirmed that the Government were also using that definition. While this is, of course, positive movement, law-abiding citizens are clamouring to ask how the Government intend to operationalise that definition across the country. How exactly will local authorities, regulators, schools, prisons, online platforms and others be trained to utilise the definition?
So we welcome the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to drive forward a counterextremism strategy. There is a developing tranche of organisations which, while not meeting the threshold for terrorism, pose serious threats to public safety, law-abiding citizens and democracy. It has to be the case that an appropriate and relevant legislative response is put in place at pace by this Government to deal with the ever-increasing threat to society of extremist groups. Delay is simply not an option.
Huntingdon Train Attack
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I know that he spent time in a Stockport signal box in a previous life, and he is right to pay tribute to the signallers who helped with the safety measures that undoubtedly saved lives. Whatever the incident on the train, arriving at the station with police and ambulance services there saved lives. That speedy response was made by the driver, who made instant judgments and took steps that involved risks, which is something that the House should commend. I hear what my noble friend said on staffing. The Transport Minister, my noble friend Lord Hendy, is here, and this is an area for which he has responsibility, so I am sure he will reflect on that.
It is worth pointing out something that I have learned only in the last hour: Samir Zitouni, the LNER staff member who put his own life at risk to save the lives of others by standing in the way of the alleged assailant, is a customer service host. He is the person who would normally be serving tea or refreshments, but he stepped up to the plate and put his own life at risk by taking strong steps. We should recognise his act of tremendous bravery, and I wish him well for the future.
My noble friend made a number of points around the need for good, well-paid staff. I use the train every week. During one bored day, I worked out that, over 28 years, I have probably spent a year of my life on the train transporting myself back and forth to this House and the House of Commons. This Monday, I looked at the train guards and the train staff in a very different way from how I looked at them last Monday. I pay tribute to them for the service that they give.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, according to the Statement, the Government are committed to halving knife crime within a decade. However, recent research shows that last year there were 1,300 offences in schools. Does the Minister agree that a watertight, zero-tolerance policy should be taken in schools, so that if you bring a knife into school you will be expelled—end of story? Surely that would ensure a positive knock-on effect into adult life and help to reduce knife crime.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that contribution. It is slightly off the topic we are talking about today, but it is important that we focus on the issue of halving knife crime. The measures we have brought forward to date concern education, policing, new legislation on knife sales and tackling the culture of young people in particular carrying knives for defence. The noble Earl raises points that, with respect, are not directly for me, but I will make sure that my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern is apprised of his view. The point we can agree on is that, in the Crime and Policing Bill that will come before this House for Committee shortly, there are a number of measures that we believe will assist in continuing to reduce the level of knife crime. I will certainly reflect with my colleagues on the points that the noble Earl has made.
Gaza Protests: Anti-terrorism Legislation
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The police are acting extremely professionally, and I am grateful for their support on this matter. I assure the House that it is not an offence to say, “I wish to see the Palestine Action proscription overturned”. People can hold a placard saying that, but they cannot say, “I support Palestine Action”. In the same way, because of the tests that have been made under this legislation, they cannot say, “I support Hamas”.
I hope the police will exercise their discretion and examine those issues, and the CPS will do the same, but under the legislation there has to be a clear line in the sand. The JTAC assessment to Ministers was that this line had been crossed. Therefore, we have had to take action. I will continue to support the police in their difficult task of interpreting that action in an executive way, which it is not my responsibility to do.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, peaceful protest about the unspeakable suffering in Gaza is entirely legal and allowed, but supporting an organisation which has been proscribed by Parliament, and which engages in illegal activity, allegedly including hospitalising a female police officer, should not be permitted. How will the Government explain the reality to the public and ensure that this distinction is crystal clear?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Earl’s support. We will do that and have done that, but there are several cases pending on which we are not able to comment. Therefore, I hope the public will accept and understand the reasons why that assessment has been made, but he is absolutely right in his comments .
UK Modern Industrial Strategy
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, if this Government are pro-business, as the Statement says, why has £143 billion-worth of initial public offerings gone to New York? Why are Revolut, Unilever ice cream and many others jumping ship?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, since we got into government 11 months ago, we have secured £100 billion of inward investment in this country. People are coming to invest in this country because they have confidence in the Government. We have set out the infrastructure strategy, the industrial strategy, the trade strategy and will, hopefully very soon, set out the small business strategy. This Government are getting on with growing the economy, and we will attract more and more investment.
Foreign Influence Registration Scheme
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for his work in this field and for his question. Where the scheme will be of best benefit is that it will allow greater transparency around individuals who may be influenced, in this case by Russia or, as in the previous announcement, by Iran. That gives confidence to parliamentarians particularly. Any individual who is engaged with or supporting an all-party group, in whatever shape and form they do that, will have had to make a declaration about foreign influence before they participate in any activity as a whole. After 1 July, that will be a public matter of record. If they do not declare it and are subsequently found to have such influence, they will be subject to severe penalty, tested by the police, the CPS and the court, and ultimately subject to penalties of potential long terms of imprisonment of up to five years. I hope that will bring a transparency and confidence to all-party groups in the event of individuals believing that such groups are somehow influenced or fronted by organisations which are seeking to do malevolent damage to the UK. It gives transparency and flushes that out. If anybody tries to do that in a secretive way and is found to be doing so, they will face a severe penalty.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, exactly as the Statement says, it is our duty to defend the safety and interests of the UK. However, it also says that businesses will have to ensure they understand their obligations and that there must be strong compliance with the scheme. What consultations have taken place with businesses, both large and small to medium-sized, to ensure the process is entirely rigorous but, equally importantly, easy to undertake?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very important point. We do not want to damage business, trade or engagement with any nation currently under the FIR scheme or potentially under FIR schemes. Currently, there is a significant difficulty with trade with Russia, because of the issue with Ukraine, and rightly so. Ultimately, we have had widespread consultation on this matter. We want to make sure that we do not damage business, but it is important that national security is at the forefront of our thinking. The prime move today is to make sure that malevolent actors do not operate in a non-transparent way, and that if they do, and are found, they will face the full force of United Kingdom law under the cross-party Act that we supported collectively in both Houses.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2024
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Opposition welcome this order, and we hope that it will allow the police in Northern Ireland to seize the property of criminals who abuse crypto assets, ensuring that Northern Ireland has the appropriate measures in place to tackle illicit financial activity.
This order brings into operation a revised code of practice relating to the search, detention and seizure of property in Northern Ireland, making it easier for the police there to take control of and recover crypto assets under the powers in Part 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act. We request that the Minister provides the latest figures on the use of crypto assets in Northern Ireland. We need to ask: is there a specific problem related to crypto assets and criminal activity in Northern Ireland that he is aware of and that the order seeks to address?
Clamping down on the misuse and criminal use of crypto assets is an essential part of stopping crime in Northern Ireland. As much as we welcome this order, we must pose additional questions to further understand its scope. Can the Minister please outline roughly how many people he expects to receive a custodial sentence because of this order? How does the policy fit in with recent moves to release some criminals early? Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum notes that an agency
“requested that the definition of ‘control’ is given clear guidance”.
Will the Minister provide guidance on the use of this term in the legislation?
We welcome this order as a necessary evolution of our legislative response to economic crime, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to our questions.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his support for the order, and I will return to his questions in due course. I am also grateful for the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Hay, Lord Browne, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. It feels like old times. I have not been a Minister in Northern Ireland since 2007. I had two fabulous years there, and it is good to see that scrutiny of government continues as it did when I was in Northern Ireland previously. It was good to hear the points that were raised.
I remind colleagues and noble Lords that the purpose of this order is to provide a code of practice to ensure that guidance is given, on a reserve basis, to officers who exercise the powers under the Act, in order to give proper accountability for the use of those powers by those officers. Colleagues and noble Lords will know that that includes scope on the search and seizure powers and limitations on the exercise of powers. It also provides for seeking senior officer approval and it gives reasonable grounds for suspicion, refusal of prior approval, limitation on the exercise of powers by immigration officers and a whole series of measures that are designed, in that code, to put a framework around the operation of the powers under the Act.
I will answer noble Lords’ points in a different order, but I hope we will cover them all. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, talked about the date of implementation and the discussion with the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the impact assessment and the impact of the Act. The Northern Ireland codes came into operation on 17 July 2024. Those codes have been published and are available. Northern Ireland ran a public consultation on its code and any citizen or organisation in Northern Ireland was able to comment upon this code. The codes in Northern Ireland have been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly on a cross-party basis.
The noble Baroness mentioned the impact of the Act. From April 2014 to the end of October, 90 cases have been exercised with this new power. Those figures are for Northern Ireland, England and Wales. I am not able today to give her and others a breakdown of the particular usage in Northern Ireland, as opposed to England and Wales, but the powers have been used 90 times. Noting what the noble Earl and other colleagues said, I say that the purpose of this order is to ensure that we take action against people who wish to use cryptocurrency for illicit criminal purposes. The code we are discussing is about putting in place the framework so that the powers are not open to challenge, so that there is clarity about how they are used and so that, when they are used, individuals have the ability to challenge them—but there is a legal back-up to ensure that, when bad actors are doing bad things, they cannot wriggle out of those bad things by saying that those powers were used improperly. That is the purpose of this code. I hope that answers the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Browne, and others, but, if not, please feel free to intervene. Again, these powers were subject to wide discussion and consultation generally.
The noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, particularly raised what happens to the assets when seized. I am pleased to tell him that, when a court has been satisfied that the crypto assets are the proceeds of crime or are terrorist crypto assets, the asset holder—whoever that may be—will be permanently deprived of those assets. They will be sold and the proceeds will go into supporting the compensation of victims—that is an important aspect, to make sure that victims are at the heart of this—or they could be retained by the state and reinvested into tackling economic crime and countering terrorism downstream.
We want to stop the type of activity that is taking place. Seizing assets means that people are still trying to get some assets through. Hopefully, we can get to a position where this is a deterrent as well and stops people wishing to act with these assets. But, in the event that they do, that they are convicted and that there is an asset recovery regime in place, those assets will be used for the wider community at home.
A number of noble Lords asked about the impact assessment. We produced an impact assessment on the legislation, which was assessed and went through a number of routines—including on 11 November in this Room—and we finalised it very recently. I point out to the noble Earl and others that there is cross-party support for the legislation. It would have possibly gone through earlier had we not had the great event of the general election in July, which has propelled me from a quieter life back here. It also meant we had some delay in our cross-party discussions and agreements on the legislation.
We did not have a specific impact assessment on the powers in the code, but I hope they have been established in the way they have so that they can be operated and safeguarded. There was a consultation, which has come forward, although there was no impact assessment.
Another point noble Lords mentioned is the confiscation regime, which is largely for the Northern Ireland Assembly and devolved matters. I am repeating myself, but it is important to reflect on what we are discussing: the code is about how UK officials in immigration, Border Force or other named organisations in the code are held to account by a standard set by this House, the House of Commons and the UK Government on those devolved areas.
I think the points the noble Earl mentioned have been covered; if not, I am happy to reflect on Hansard in due course and any points that have been made by noble Lords and try to refer back to them. However, I think and hope there is a co-terminosity of agreement between us in this House, from His Majesty’s Official Opposition through to the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the SDLP in Northern Ireland.
We are trying to ensure that crypto assets under this legislation are deterred and, if they are found to be used for criminal activity, seized. There is a code of practice that monitors the use of officers for seizing those assets. If those assets are seized for criminal purposes, they are wound back into the community in a positive way. That sends a signal to both sides of the border in Northern Ireland in relation to the Administrations there that the use of crypto assets is not an acceptable way of financing criminal activity or terrorism.
I will check this outside of the Committee, but to answer the noble Lord, Lord Hay, there has not been any formal consultation with the Irish Government on these powers because they are for the Northern Ireland Assembly, under the joint leadership of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Justice Minister and the Home Office, under the leadership of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, I believe they are not areas that would cause concern as they are entirely matters for within the confines of the United Kingdom, with different responsibilities between the two different agencies.
With that, I hope the Committee can accept the order. If I missed any points, I will reflect on Hansard and write. If anybody wishes to intervene on any point I have not made, please do so now. I can see my noble friend Lady Ritchie ready to bungee jump into action, so I will let her intervene.