Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Absolutely. That is why the Magnitsky amendment, which we have just passed, is absolutely central to our proceedings and legislation on anti-money laundering.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and I congratulate her on this excellent cross-party consensus. Is she not concerned that the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) seems more concerned about a promise made to the Cayman Islands than about the people of his own constituency and of the UK who are suffering as a result of corruption and money laundering? Does that not seem odd?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The truth is that the traffic in illicit money has an impact not just on people here in the UK—for example, through the acquisition of properties here—but worldwide. We see that in the losses in tax revenues, particularly to the poorest developing countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I hope to at least press new clause 19 to a vote, because there needs to be some action on SLPs, and tying it to a bank account is a good way of doing that.

The SNP is extremely proud of Scotland’s reputation as a successful place to conduct business, but with SLPs continuing to generate new scandals, there is an ever-growing reputational risk to Scotland, and indeed the UK, if action is not taken. I would like to take this opportunity to dig the Government up for their shenanigans on SLPs.

Owing to the diligent campaigning by the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Roger Mullin, the UK Government launched a consultation on SLPs on 16 January last year and closed it on 17 March last year. We then had an election, in which my dear friend did not get re-elected. We waited. Questions were tabled, and we were told again and again by Government that a response on the consultation was imminent. There was nothing. A month ago, we were told that it would be a matter of weeks, but probably not until after the Bill came back. Last week, we were told by officials that the report on SLPs was awaiting sign-off in Government, and on Sunday there was an announcement in the press that action was going to be taken, with a “Crackdown on abuse of UK businesses for foreign money laundering”. When we get to the detail, what in fact is it? It is another consultation—it is a consultation about a consultation.

That simply will not do. The UK Government are well aware of the problems with SLPs, which are well documented. The Secretary of State mentioned earlier the evidence that led to the bringing into scope of the person of significant control. We know that that was required, and there was evidence on it. We are waiting for fines to be levied on people who have not registered their persons of significant control.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental point in all this is that closing a consultation and then having a debate on Report shows a Government in complete chaos? How can they commit public money to a consultation process that has no influence on the legislation before us?

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. The Government have been told all the way through this process that this is the opportunity to act on the evidence that has been gathered and is out there in the newspapers—it is in The Herald on a weekly basis, for goodness’ sake—about abuses of SLPs. The Government could have done something about this. They could easily support the amendments we are proposing to the Bill. The press release that came out said that there was

“growing evidence SLPs have been exploited in complex money laundering schemes, including one which involved using over 100 SLPs to move up to $80 billion out of Russia. They have also been linked to international criminal networks in Eastern Europe and around the world, and have allegedly been used in arms deals.”

So why will the Government not act?

Proposals are far too vague. We are promised that the Government will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Secretary of State said that the consultation will close on 23 July, so we are looking at after the summer recess before anything comes back to the House. This is the stuff of never-never land. Minsters could accept our new clauses and amendments today and start to legislate now. If they are really serious about this, they should stop fannying around, support the new clauses and amendments and stop the flow of dirty money through SLPs once and for all.

The Government’s move not to oppose new clause 6 is astonishing, but I am very glad they have made it. There has been some speculation by Conservative Members about the Scottish National party’s position on this issue, and I will deal with that, but I first want to pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for their Herculean efforts in bringing this before the House today. For a long time, we did not know when or if the Bill was coming back, but they have steadfastly worked hard to garner cross-party support, and I absolutely pay tribute to them for doing so.

Earlier in the Bill’s progress, I made clear the reservations I had at first, and it should not be the case that the UK Government impose things on other territories. Again, I reiterate that I would not like this if it were about Scotland, but I should say to all Members who doubt the sincerity of the SNP’s position—[Interruption] I hear some of them chuckling—that we cannot envisage a situation in which a Scottish Government would deliberately act to damage the financial interests of the UK economy by allowing tax evasion and avoidance to take place on an industrial scale within our jurisdiction and to shield the flow of dodgy money. That is what we are talking about today, and that is the fundamental difference. In Scotland, the fundamental issue of landownership is also hidden behind the shield of overseas entities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I promise to be brief, as there are so many colleagues who wish to speak. As a mere callow youth in this House compared to so many who have campaigned on this issue for a number of years, I just want to put my views on record.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my predecessor as leader of Islington Council, has led the way on this matter. I commend her and others for the excellent cross-party nature of their work. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) argued that this measure will enhance not just our standing in international development, so that we can feel good about ourselves, but the work in developing nations to enrich everybody, not just a few who may benefit, often nefariously, from the tax havens that operate and provide cover for bad behaviour. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for all her work in Committee and all the tiny tit-bits she has let us have, as Members with an interest, as it has progressed. It has been like following a series on television. I am so pleased that we can welcome the Magnitsky clause and new clause 6.

As a London Member, I want to put on record how pleased I am that there are measures that may assist in relation to property. It may not be perfect, but those of us who are London Members have very affluent parts of our constituencies where properties are purchased, often at a very high price, but then sit empty as assets, while in other parts of our constituencies families live in overcrowded homes. We need to use such international approaches to try to achieve some sense of equality.

[Hannah Bardell]

Given that across London almost 40,000 properties are owned by companies based in tax havens and given the scandal after Grenfell of trying to find people homes, does the hon. Lady agree that there is huge concern about these companies and organisations, and whether we are able to tackle the housing issue?

[Catherine West]

Indeed. And I hope that the challenge will be met to reduce inequality in housing in Scotland, because I know that a very small number of people own rather a lot of properties.

On the role of other facilitators of tax evasion and avoidance and the big four accountancy firms, many Members feel it is time that they were brought to book. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has done a lot of work on that. The next stage is to try to clean up the City of London more effectively and to see the closure of certain poor practices, such as Mossack Fonseca and others. Yes, it was a one hit wonder, but we did see the closure of a number of underperforming legal practices. The next step of this campaign is how to allow the pin-striped enforcers of tax evasion and avoidance to have a more honest and equal way of practising their profession.

That is all I want to say. It is so good to see consensus in the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

We have discussed the key issues of beneficial ownership, public registers and the overseas territories, but again the Government have delayed, and that has been the hallmark of their approach. Although the issues were well aired in the House of Lords, and in this place on Second Reading and in Committee, the Government made a rather late attempt this morning in tabling their amendments. I must confess that that screamed out at me as a tell-tale sign of a Government who were afraid that they might lose a vote. None the less, I welcome their acceptance of new clause 6. I pay tribute to the work of Members on both sides of the House, including the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell).

[Hannah Bardell]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is disappointing to hear Conservatives saying that the money will move elsewhere? If we do not make a start, how will we move forward? The gender pay gap reporting has done exactly that.

[Jo Swinson]

I concur absolutely. The fact that we cannot solve this problem in every single jurisdiction in the world does not mean we should not do what we can in those areas where we can have influence. We should certainly be using our diplomatic influence to try to expand the use of public registers in other countries, but we should also be setting our own house in order, because if we do so, we will have more legitimacy and credibility when we urge other countries to follow suit.

The United Kingdom is trying to take a leadership role on this issue, and that is important. That dates back to 2013, when the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, set out the Government’s plans at the G8 summit and was aiming to secure international agreement through the anti-corruption plan. I was delighted to play a role as a Minister in the introduction of measures on beneficial ownership and the public register in this country through the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. There was also an anti-corruption summit in 2016. However, there has been delay since then. At that time, the Government committed themselves to legislate to increase transparency in the housing market and to require overseas companies that owned property to declare their beneficial ownership publicly. That was supposed to be in place by April, but now it, too, has been delayed. We will not see even a draft Bill until the summer, and we will not get the actual legislation until next year.

The issue of the overseas territories really matters. More than three quarters of corruption cases involving property that were investigated by the Met’s proceeds of corruption unit involved anonymous companies based in secrecy jurisdictions, and nearly four fifths of those were registered in either the overseas territories or the Crown dependencies. As I have said, it is important that we get our house in order. Conservative Members have said we should try to do that through consensus but, as I pointed out in an intervention, the Government have been attempting to do that with various levels of enthusiasm over the last five years yet the registers have remained firmly private.

What we are talking about is an international crime. It is not victimless. We are talking about corruption that has a very serious impact on vulnerable people in countries throughout the world. Money is siphoned off through corrupt means and denied to the populations of those countries when it should be funding public services and enabling individuals to be looked after. That has an impact on the UK’s own reputation as well.

It is worth recognising the significant role of the overseas territories. In the Panama papers, the British Virgin Islands was the most popular tax haven mentioned, and Bermuda is No. 1 on Oxfam’s list of worst corporate tax havens. That is why it is important that we act. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield rightly explained the challenges involved in including the Crown dependencies under new clause 6 and the specific relationship levers that we have as a country. Nevertheless, I hope that, having accepted the new clause, the Government will be enthusiastic about pursuing the same issues with the Crown dependencies to ensure that they follow suit. They should definitely be required to publish such a register so that the UK can show global leadership on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, may I welcome the changes that the Government have made regarding the Magnitsky amendment? It is likely to have an impact on those who think that they can get away with human rights abuses and hide behind and use their wealth in the United Kingdom. However, I am disappointed that we have not discussed on the Floor of the House the Government amendment and new clauses that were tabled as alternatives to new clause 6.

I have two main concerns. Coming from Northern Ireland, I know the impact on devolved Administrations of interference in devolved matters by the Government at Westminster, and I also know the impact that this can have on those with nationalist tendencies. New clause 6 presents a real danger in this regard. People have had to do constitutional somersaults in the House today. The Scottish National party, which has vigorously defended the rights and independence of the devolved Administration in Scotland, now suddenly has no difficulty supporting interference in the overseas territories.

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

Let me finish my argument. The point has been made that the SNP has done a constitutional somersault because this issue is of such importance. Well, during debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the Scottish National party was quite happy to have things devolved to the Scottish Parliament that could have broken up the internal market of the United Kingdom and affected the economy of the whole country, yet they insisted that it was their right for those things to be devolved. This constitutional somersault indicates that a different attitude has been adopted towards the overseas territories on this issue, and it is an attitude that we will live to regret.

The Minister has said that he will hold the hand of the overseas territories, give them support, encourage them along and give them the opportunity to have a say in what goes into the Order in Council. Nevertheless, those who have already done a lot of what has been asked of them will feel that we have brought down a heavy hand on them.

[Hannah Bardell]

Can the hon. Gentleman name one Scottish policy—just one—that impinges on the human rights or the economy of the rest of the UK?

[Sammy Wilson]

This is the first time we have ever had a qualification put on the Scottish National party’s view that devolution is sacrosanct. All through the debates we have had in this House about the sacrosanct nature of devolved Administrations, there has never, ever been a qualification, but today we have the qualification added—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Yes. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but—uncharacteristically for someone who is normally as fastidious and precise in his use of language and exegesis of what others say—he errs in quoting me. He said that I had indicated that I was not able to select the amendments. I accept that the error is inadvertent and not deliberate, but I never said that I was not able to select the amendments. I said at the outset that I had decided not to use my discretion to select the late starred new clauses and amendments from the Government, which were tabled yesterday afternoon and appeared in print for the first time only this morning. I absolutely accept that I have discretion in the matter, and I used that discretion as I thought right.

As for the other part of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point of order, he was being most courteous in advising the House of that matter, but—and I do not mean this in any sense discourteously—I think it would be true to say that he was more interested in what he had to say to me and to the House than anything that I might have to say to him on the subject. He has made his point with force and clarity and I thank him for doing so.

[Hannah Bardell]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. New clause 6 has just passed in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. I find it interesting that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke so vigorously against the new clause. What can we do to ensure that Members who speak so vigorously against an amendment put their money—as we know, the DUP have rather a lot of it—where their mouth is, proverbially speaking?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a somewhat tendentious attempt at a point of order, which is rather revealed by the hon. Lady’s grinning visage. The convention in this place is that votes should follow voice. Votes should not be in opposition to voice, but as to how the hon. Gentleman voted I do not know. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that he spoke on the matter in one direction and then did not vote, that is entirely up to the hon. Member. The hon. Member has not behaved improperly. The hon. Member may have irked the hon. Lady, but that is another matter. If it was in relation to an amendment on which there was no vote, there is nothing to be said—that is no matter for the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. I will rattle through them and say why they have been tabled. The primary concern is about Companies House. Very much as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has just said, we have laid out our serious concerns at all stages of the Bill. It is disappointing to get to this stage and find that the Government are still not listening to those concerns.

Companies House does not have the adequate resources or powers sufficiently to monitor and ensure the integrity of the company incorporation data submitted to it.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems to be harder to open a gym membership than to register a company with Companies House?

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Registering with Companies House seems to be the easiest thing possible. It is baffling that anything else, such as a tax return, a passport application or a driving licence application, needs to go through the gov.uk verify scheme, but Companies House does not have that requirement. Just tightening up those rules would help hugely both to ensure the accuracy of the information and to clamp down on those who wish to abuse the system. It is in all our interests to make sure the system is accurate, but it is not accurate.

Worse, there are only about 20 people at Companies House policing some 4 million firms’ compliance with company law. There are no proactive checks on the accuracy of the information submitted, which, as the hon. Member for Oxford East has just said, allows a significant amount of false and misleading data to be submitted to the companies register.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

This is not about tracing. These companies use British registration but undertake activities through a set of subsidiary companies or other companies that they are linked to abroad to take part in the nefarious activity. The individuals might be directors of both companies, for example.

The current threshold of requirement to disbar individuals or strike off a company is at the criminal level of responsibility, but that level is just far too high. If it were brought down to the civil level of responsibility, the Minister would be able to take action. Now, the Minister may feel that he would not want to take action and I am not compelling him to do so. I am simply giving him the powers, if need be, that already exist in the Insolvency Act 1986. This is not about extending powers that have never been used before.

The Government say that there is no information about these companies at all. Well, let us look at S-Profit Ltd, a UK-registered company that brokered arms to the South Sudanese Government. This Government have received copies of the contracts involved. The Ukrainian directors of the company have even admitted that the contracts were genuine, as did the Ukrainian state company responsible for brokering the weapons. It is not enough for a criminal action, but it is clearly enough for a Minister to invoke the public test—that is, to ask whether the company is acting against the public interest and breaching sanctions. Such companies should be struck off, so that they cannot use the brand Britain as a front for their activities.

When Sir John Stanley was in this place, he recommended the same powers in the Committees on Arms Export Controls. I am not trying to bring in something that is hugely controversial. The Government have already said today, in general, that they would like to take action on these things. I was really disappointed that we were not able to get the Government to support this. I tried to meet the Government a number of times, even coming up in recess time to do so, with the meeting being cancelled 20 minutes before it was due. It is a real shame, and I would like the Government to give way. However, I will not press the amendment to a vote on this occasion if they make a commitment to look at this further and to take it on, as I think they have done today. I hope we can work together on this.

[Hannah Bardell]

Thank you for letting me speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not expecting to get in, so it is a real privilege to have the opportunity to bring up the rear of the debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for her steadfast work on this Bill. I also thank other Members across the House. In particular, we heard an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who spoke about SLPs and the negative impact—the devastating impact—they have had across the UK. I recently met a Moldovan human rights lawyer at the Council of Europe. Many Members will be familiar with the nefarious activities of the Moldovan Government and certain oligarchs. She—I will not name her—has experienced huge tragedy in her life, being separated from her young son in trying to fight the Government, who are using an SLP to launder money and are engaged in criminal activities.

The point about reputation is really important, not just for Scotland but for the rest of the UK. The Scottish name is being used, and misused, through a piece of legislation. By and large, those who use SLPs are doing so for legitimate reasons, but a few are spoiling it for the many. SLPs are increasingly being abused by money launderers because of their unique characteristics. The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the Russian laundromat case, which extracted £16 billion out of Russia between 2010 and 2014. There were 114 SLPs in the laundromat, two of which were core laundering vehicles. Progate Solutions no longer exists—the Sarajevo-based Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project uncovered that company and highlighted its activities—but it is still being used to launder money. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who has done a lot of work on this, described there being an “explosion” of SLPs. In terms of the statistics, 82% of all SLPs registered at the end of 2016 and 70% of SLPs incorporated during this period are registered at just 10 addresses.

Getting to the core of the issue of transparency, this is about how business is being done now. We look at gender pay reporting and the impact that that has had on business in this country. That is a move forward. It was interesting to hear some Conservative Members talking about resources for us to have the power to investigate these companies. Our very limited and stretched public resources are being used so that our trained taskforces can investigate them. If we bring about a more transparent system and more transparent laws, our vital resources can be directed towards other crimes to protect our citizens. This is fundamentally about protecting our citizens across the UK.

With regard to Companies House, it is important to put it on record that I do not think anybody would want to criticise the staff or the job that they do, but what has happened to some consumers cannot be right. I have had constituency cases where people have bought services or goods, the company has gone bust, and they are left with nothing—neither their money back nor the items. A constituent of mine followed the individuals concerned through their registration in Companies House, and discovered that they had set up a new company and started trading again within a few weeks. She was told by the police that there was nothing that she could do because this was an entirely legitimate practice. It cannot be right that people are allowed to do that. That is why we feel that new clause 2 is so important.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We have heard from earlier speakers that Companies House is desperately under-resourced, with a small number of staff. Is under-staffing a body not a simple way to make it ineffectual? It should have many more staff.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. It is also important to note the point made earlier about how difficult it was to make Companies House bigger or give it more resources or a greater remit. That seems bizarre. I sat on the Public Bill Committee on the Enterprise Bill, in which the Government, in a welcome move, introduced the Small Business Commissioner, which involved setting up a whole new organisation with new resources. The failings of Companies House, to my mind, will work against the Small Business Commissioner and give it more work.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister on that point. Companies House needs more resource and better oversight. Companies that are not doing business properly and going about their business in the right way are surely a threat to good businesspeople across the UK. If the Government will not support new clause 2, it would be interesting to hear why.

The Panama and Paradise papers have been mentioned a number of times. We know from them that the Odessa oil mafia controls a number of British Virgin Islands companies collectively known as the Rubicon Group. One of those individuals controlled a number of BVI companies without officially declaring them, and that group owns at least eight high-end London properties worth tens of millions of pounds. The secrecy afforded to those individuals, who have questionable sources of income, has allowed them to hide their identities and their wealth.

In the point I made earlier to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), I was not criticising the Labour party in any way. I was trying to get across that after the tragedy of Grenfell and given the housing crisis, the rise in homelessness and the fact that these kinds of people own 40,000 properties across London—that is four fifths of my Livingston constituency—and more than 86,000 across England and Wales, we surely face a huge issue and a massive challenge. If we want to tackle the housing crisis, this is how to do it. The Government should be doing something about it, rather than standing by and saying that we already have the powers, when we clearly do not.

I commend the Government for new clause 6, which is an excellent and positive move. However, if the Prime Minister was really serious when she took office about governing for all the people of the UK, there is a great gulf still to cross. There are some serious and important amendments tabled by Members across the Chamber that the Government could put their support behind and in doing so make a real difference to our citizens.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Retained EU rights

‘(1) If and to the extent that anything in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 would, in the absence of this section, prevent any power within subsection (2) from being exercised so as to modify anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 of that Act (saving for certain rights etc), it does not prevent that power from being so exercised.

(2) The following powers fall within this subsection—

(a) any power conferred by this Act, or by regulations under this Act, on a Minister of the Crown within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (however that power is expressed);

(b) any power conferred by regulations under Schedule 2 on a supervisory authority.

(3) In this section “modify” has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”—(Sir Alan Duncan.)

This new clause is consequential on government amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and makes clear that any restrictions in that Bill on the modification of retained EU law do not prevent powers under this Bill (for example, powers to impose an asset-freeze or immigration sanction) from being exercised in cases where their exercise will interfere with a retained right that a person would otherwise have under clause 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

Enforcement: goods etc on ships

‘(1) The provision that may be made by virtue of section 17(2) (enforcement of prohibitions or requirements) includes provision as to the powers and duties of prescribed persons in relation to—

(a) British ships in foreign waters or international waters,

(b) ships without nationality in international waters, and

(c) foreign ships in international waters.

(2) Regulations may make provision by virtue of this section only for the purpose of enforcing relevant prohibitions or requirements.

(3) A prohibition or requirement is a “relevant prohibition or requirement” for the purposes of this section if it is—

(a) a prohibition or requirement specified by the regulations which is imposed by regulations for a purpose mentioned in any of paragraphs 2 to 7, 15(a), (b) or (c) or 16(a) of Schedule 1, or

(b) a prohibition or requirement imposed by a condition of a licence or direction issued by virtue of section 15 in relation to a prohibition or requirement mentioned in paragraph (a).

(4) The powers that may be conferred by virtue of this section include powers to—

(a) stop a ship;

(b) board a ship;

(c) require any person found on a ship boarded by virtue of this section to provide information or produce documents;

(d) inspect and copy such documents or information;

(e) stop any person found on such a ship and search that person for—

(i) prohibited goods, or

(ii) any thing that might be used to cause physical injury or damage to property or to endanger the safety of any ship;

(f) search a ship boarded by virtue of this section, or any thing found on such a ship (including cargo), for prohibited goods;

(g) seize goods found on a ship, in any thing found on a ship, or on any person found on a ship (but see subsection (8));

(h) for the purpose of exercising a power mentioned in paragraph (e), (f) or (g), require a ship to be taken to, and remain in, a port or anchorage in the United Kingdom or any other country willing to receive it.

(5) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (f) or (h) must provide that a person may not exercise the power in relation to a ship unless the person has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship is carrying prohibited goods (and the regulations need not require the person to have reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being or has been committed).

(6) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (4)(e)(i) or (f) must provide that the power may be exercised only to the extent reasonably required for the purpose of discovering prohibited goods.

(7) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (4)(e)(ii) on a person (“the officer”) may permit the search of a person only where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that that person might use a thing in a way mentioned in subsection (4)(e)(ii).

(8) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (4)(g) on a person—

(a) must provide for the power to be exercisable on a ship only where that person is lawfully on the ship (whether in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of this section or otherwise), and

(b) may permit the seizure only of—

(i) goods which that person has reasonable grounds to suspect are prohibited goods, or

(ii) things within subsection (4)(e)(ii).

(9) Regulations that confer a power on a person by virtue of this section may authorise that person to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.

(10) Regulations that confer a power by virtue of this section must provide that—

(a) the power may be exercised in relation to a British ship in foreign waters only with the authority of the Secretary of State, and

(b) in relation to foreign waters other than the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to any relevant British possession, the Secretary of State may give authority only if the State in whose waters the power would be exercised consents to the exercise of the power.

(11) Regulations that confer a power by virtue of this section must provide that—

(a) the power may be exercised in relation to a foreign ship only with the authority of the Secretary of State, and

(b) the Secretary of State may give authority only if—

(i) the home state has requested the assistance of the United Kingdom for the purpose of enforcing relevant prohibitions or requirements,

(ii) the home state has authorised the United Kingdom to act for that purpose, or

(iii) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941) or a UN Security Council Resolution otherwise permits the exercise of the powers in relation to the ship.

(12) The reference in subsection (11) to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea includes a reference to any modifications of that Convention agreed after the passing of this Act that have entered into force in relation to the United Kingdom.

(13) In this section—

“arrangements” includes any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable);

“British ship” means a ship falling within paragraph (a), (c), (d) or (e) of section 7(12);

“foreign ship” means a ship which—

(a) is registered in a State other than the United Kingdom, or

(b) is not so registered but is entitled to fly the flag of a State other than the United Kingdom;

“foreign waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to any relevant British possession or State other than the United Kingdom;

“goods” includes technology within the meaning of Schedule 1 (see paragraph 36 of that Schedule);

“home state”, in relation to a foreign ship, means—

(a) the State in which the ship is registered, or

(b) the State whose flag the ship is otherwise entitled to fly;

“international waters” means waters beyond the territorial sea of the United Kingdom or of any other State or relevant British possession;

“prohibited goods” means goods which have been, or are being, dealt with in contravention of a relevant prohibition or requirement (see subsection (3));

“regulations” means regulations under section 1;

“relevant British possession” has the same meaning as in section 7 (see subsection (14) of that section);

“ship” has the same meaning as in section 7 (see subsection (14) of that section);

“ship without nationality” means a ship which—

(a) is not registered in, or otherwise entitled to fly the flag of, any State or relevant British possession, or

(b) sails under the flags of two or more States or relevant British possessions, or under the flags of a State and relevant British possession, using them according to convenience.

(14) In the definition of “prohibited goods” in subsection (13), the reference to goods dealt with in contravention of a relevant prohibition or requirement includes a reference to a case where—

(a) arrangements relating to goods have been entered into that have not been fully implemented, and

(b) if those arrangements were to be fully implemented, the goods would be dealt with in contravention of that prohibition or requirement.”—(Sir Alan Duncan.)

This new clause allows regulations under section 1 to provide for powers to stop and search a ship outside the United Kingdom, and to seize goods or technology found on the ship. The powers are exercisable for the purpose of enforcing prohibitions in sanctions regulations relating to the goods or technology.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 16

Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct

‘(1) Regulations may make provision conferring on prescribed persons powers exercisable—

(a) in relation to—

(i) British ships in foreign waters or international waters,

(ii) ships without nationality in international waters, and

(iii) foreign ships in international waters,

(b) for the purpose of—

(i) investigating the suspected carriage of relevant goods on such ships, or

(ii) preventing the continued carriage on such ships of goods suspected to be relevant goods.

(2) The powers that may be conferred by virtue of this section include powers to—

(a) stop a ship;

(b) board a ship;

(c) require any person found on a ship boarded by virtue of this section to provide information or produce documents;

(d) inspect and copy such documents or information;

(e) stop any person found on such a ship and search that person for—

(i) relevant goods, or

(ii) any thing that might be used to cause physical injury or damage to property or to endanger the safety of any ship;

(f) search a ship boarded by virtue of this section, or any thing found on such a ship (including cargo), for relevant goods;

(g) seize goods found on a ship, in any thing found on a ship, or on any person found on a ship (but see subsection (6));

(h) for the purpose of exercising a power mentioned in paragraph (e), (f) or (g), require a ship to be taken to, and remain in, a port or anchorage in the United Kingdom or any other country willing to receive it.

(3) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (f) or (h) must provide that a person may not exercise the power in relation to a ship unless the person has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship is carrying relevant goods.

(4) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (2)(e)(i) or (f) must provide that the power may be exercised only to the extent reasonably required for the purpose of discovering relevant goods.

(5) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (2)(e)(ii) on a person (“the officer”) may permit the search of a person only where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that that person might use a thing in a way mentioned in subsection (2)(e)(ii).

(6) Regulations that confer a power mentioned in subsection (2)(g) on a person—

(a) must provide for the power to be exercisable on a ship only where that person is lawfully on the ship (whether in exercise of powers conferred by virtue of this section or otherwise), and

(b) may permit the seizure only of—

(i) goods which that person has reasonable grounds to suspect are relevant goods, or

(ii) things within subsection (2)(e)(ii).

(7) Regulations that confer a power on a person by virtue of this section may authorise that person to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.

(8) Regulations that confer a power by virtue of this section must provide that—

(a) the power may be exercised in relation to a British ship in foreign waters only with the authority of the Secretary of State, and

(b) in relation to foreign waters other than the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the territorial sea adjacent to any relevant British possession, the Secretary of State may give authority only if the State in whose waters the power would be exercised consents to the exercise of the power.

(9) Regulations that confer a power by virtue of this section must provide that—

(a) the power may be exercised in relation to a foreign ship only with the authority of the Secretary of State, and

(b) the Secretary of State may give authority only if—

(i) the home state has requested the assistance of the United Kingdom for a purpose mentioned in subsection (1)(b),

(ii) the home state has authorised the United Kingdom to act for such a purpose, or

(iii) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (Cmnd 8941) or a UN Security Council Resolution otherwise permits the exercise of the powers in relation to the ship.

(10) The reference in subsection (9) to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea includes a reference to any modifications of that Convention agreed after the passing of this Act that have entered into force in relation to the United Kingdom.

(11) In this section—

“regulations” means regulations under section 1;

“relevant goods” means goods in relation to which relevant non-UK conduct is occurring or has occurred;

“relevant non-UK conduct” means conduct outside the United Kingdom by a person other than a United Kingdom person that would constitute a contravention of a relevant prohibition or requirement if the conduct had been—

(a) in the United Kingdom, or

(b) by a United Kingdom person;

“relevant prohibition or requirement” has the same meaning as in section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships) (see subsection (3) of that section);

“United Kingdom person” has the same meaning as in section 19 (see subsection (2) of that section).

(12) In the definition of “relevant non-UK conduct” in subsection (11), the reference to conduct that would constitute a contravention of a relevant prohibition or requirement if the conduct had been in the United Kingdom or by a United Kingdom person includes a reference to a case where—

(a) arrangements relating to goods have been entered into that have not been fully implemented, and

(b) if those arrangements were to be fully implemented (and if the conduct had been in the United Kingdom or by a United Kingdom person) the goods would be dealt with in contravention of that prohibition or requirement.

(13) In this section, the following expressions have the same meaning as in section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships)—

“arrangements”,

“British ship”,

“foreign ship”,

“foreign waters”,

“goods”,

“home state”,

“international waters”,

“relevant British possession”,

“ship”, and

“ship without nationality”.”—(Sir Alan Duncan.)

This new clause allows regulations under section 1 to provide for powers to stop and search a ship outside the United Kingdom, and to seize goods or technology found on the ship. The powers are exercisable for the purpose of seizing goods or technology where there has been conduct (or suspected conduct) which would be a contravention of a prohibition in sanctions regulations relating to the goods or technology, but for the fact that the conduct falls outside the territorial scope mentioned in Clause 19 of the Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

Procedure for dealing with goods etc seized from ships

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with goods seized under a power conferred by regulations under section 1 by virtue of section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships) or (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct).

(2) Regulations under this section relating to goods seized on suspicion of being prohibited goods or relevant goods may include provision—

(a) requiring prescribed persons to be notified of the seizure of the goods;

(b) requiring the Secretary of State to determine whether the seized goods were, at the time of their seizure, prohibited goods (where the goods were seized under a power conferred by virtue of section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships)) or relevant goods (where the goods were seized under a power conferred by virtue of section (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct));

(c) enabling the making of a claim by prescribed persons in relation to the seized goods;

(d) about the determination by a prescribed court of any such claim;

(e) about the publicity to be given to any such determination by a court;

(f) for and about the return of seized goods to prescribed persons before or after any such determination of a claim by a court;

(g) about the treatment of seized goods not so returned (including, in prescribed circumstances, their destruction or sale);

(h) for and about the payment of compensation by the Secretary of State following a determination by a court that the goods were not, at the time of their seizure, prohibited goods (where the goods were seized under a power conferred by virtue of section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships)) or relevant goods (where the goods were seized under a power conferred by virtue of section (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct)).

(3) In this section—

“goods” has the same meaning as in sections (Enforcement: goods etc on ships) and (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct) (see subsections (13) of those sections);

“prohibited goods” has the same meaning as in section (Enforcement: goods etc on ships) (see subsection (13) of that section);

“relevant goods” has the same meaning as in section (Goods etc on ships: non-UK conduct) (see subsection (11) of that section).”—(Sir Alan Duncan.)

This new clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how goods or technology seized from ships under the new clauses which would be inserted by NC15 and NC16 must be dealt with.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Public Register of Beneficial Owners of Overseas Entities

“(1) The Secretary of State must, in addition to the provisions made under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, create a public register of beneficial ownership information for companies and other legal entities registered outside of the UK that own or buy UK property, or bid for UK government contracts.

(2) The register must be implemented within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) For the purposes of this section “a register of beneficial ownership for companies and other legal entities registered outside of the UK” means a public register—

(a) which contains information about overseas entities and persons with significant control over them, and

(b) which in the opinion of the Secretary of State will assist in the prevention of money laundering.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)

This new clause would create a public register of beneficial ownership information for companies and other legal entities outside of the UK that own or buy UK property, or bid for UK government contracts, within 12 months.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Council of Europe

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Vernon Coaker]

I think that it is really important that the Council of Europe has standards and says that it will not compromise on its principles. I also believe that it is extremely important to continue to talk and discuss with people. I agree absolutely with that, but not with saying, “We will not worry about that, on the basis that we want to keep talking to you.” We have to be tough and say, “This is what we believe,” but that does not mean it is impossible for us to continue to have dialogue with people even if we do not agree with them. That is what I think about Russia.

It is astonishing that even in Europe—this continent that holds itself up as an example to the rest of the world—there are still examples where we have to defend the principle of freedom of expression. It is astonishing that in some countries in Europe journalists have been imprisoned simply for criticising the Government of the day. It is hard to believe. When the Council of Europe was set up in 1949, would those who went to its first meeting believe that we would be here in 2018 and that there would still be people locked up for what they say or write? I do not believe that they would have. The Council of Europe says to the Governments of its member states that they cannot lock people up simply because they criticise a Government, however much they disagree with what has been written or said. It is a fundamental principle that people can organise, write and demonstrate peacefully for something they believe in. Here again, the Council of Europe is standing up and demanding that.

I do not want to speak for too long, because I know that others want to contribute, but I have a couple of further remarks to make. The challenges that the Council of Europe has faced and is facing should not hide its achievements. Sometimes it is criticised for being a talking shop. There is a lot to be said for talking shops. Where else would we bring that collection of countries together and force them to listen to opinions that they might not agree with?

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I apologise for my late arrival to the debate—I was detained by a constituency issue. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and making such a powerful speech. I am a very new member of the Council of Europe, so it is fantastic to hear. Does he agree that, given the current geopolitical situation and what we are facing in Syria, talking is one of the most important tools in our armoury?

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her apology—of course that is fine. I agree that it is about talking, but the Council of Europe also tries to help us understand. Ignorance is not bliss, and in order to solve the problems facing Europe and the world we have to try to understand what is going on. That does not mean that we abandon our principles; it means that we have to try to understand why people are doing what they are doing. I agree with her that that is really important.

The Council of Europe has helped to establish democracy and certain other principles. We should celebrate the fact that it is now a “death penalty-free zone”, as it puts it, which is of huge significance. One of the Council of Europe’s great achievements is the European convention on human rights and the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights. It is important for the country to recognise that, although we are leaving the EU, the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EU. When we look at some of the cases that have been heard at the European Court of Human Rights, even those relating to our country, we see a body standing up for the universality of a principle and holding even Governments to account. That is not necessarily the most popular thing to say, but I fundamentally believe it. I make that argument in my constituency and tell people that we should celebrate the fact that we have human rights and bodies that stand up for them; we should not abhor them or use populist rhetoric.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

In making a list, there is a danger that we will miss someone out, but I had that on my list. As I will mention later, the redoubtable Nick Wright and his team really look after us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), who leads the European Conservatives, has worked tirelessly to make the European Conservatives—surprisingly enough—now the third largest political group in the Council of Europe. I also pay tribute to all other Members from the other parties, because we truly are UK plc. We are a really good team, not managed by mission control—although we are well served by Christopher Yvon and his team, who provide us with advice.

I do not think that people fully realise what the achievements of the Council of Europe are, so it is worth repeating them briefly. It was responsible for ending the death penalty in Europe by making it an accession condition, which is one of its proudest and best achievements. We are a death penalty-free zone thanks to the Assembly’s efforts. After 1989, it also helped the ex-communist countries move to democracy. When we really think about what has happened over the European territory in that time, what this fantastic institution has contributed is remarkable.

We have already mentioned the hijacking of “Ode to Joy” and the flag, which is a great shame. The organisation has also inspired a host of national laws, pressing for new conventions. It provides a forum to debate timely, really hot and controversial social, political and international topics. It has sought to hold debates on major social issues that have divided Europeans, including advancing the rights of minorities such as the Roma and the LGBT community, and dealt with painful issues such as the relationships between Russia and Georgia and some of the crimes of communism. It is certainly leading the way in terms of gender balance as far as the committees and its operation are concerned.

I do not want to repeat everything that has already been said, but I do want to mention the system of rapporteurs. We have nine committees, and I am pleased to be the vice-president of the Political Affairs and Democracy Committee. In fact, for my sins I am currently the rapporteur on the commitment to introduce rules to ensure fair referendums in Council of Europe member states. I have to say, I achieved the rapporteurship with help from Lord Foulkes, a member of the Labour delegation. I sometimes think it may be a poisoned chalice, but I am honoured to be working with the Venice Commission and with an expert, Dr Alan Renwick, from the Constitution Unit.

[Hannah Bardell]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing that role. I and those in my party very much look forward to working and engaging with her on that issue.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

Every cloud has a silver lining. The issue is important, particularly because of the referendums we have had in this country, and the Catalonian referendum and others. The rules need updating.

The rapporteurs’ work is broad and far-reaching. For example, we are evaluating the status of the Kyrgyz Republic and Morocco and Jordan as partners for democracy, and we are looking at strengthening our co-operation with the UN, the political transition in Egypt and the dialogue with Algeria—I could go on. There is a really impressive list, and I hope the Government will take that on board and read the reports as they come through, because they contain valuable information.

In addition to calling for an annual debate on the work of the Council of Europe on the Floor of the House in Government time, I will sow another seed. The last time I was at a plenary session, I asked the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority if I could take one of my researchers with me, because it is quite difficult to explain how the Council of Europe operates. It is completely different from here, exceedingly complex and full of layers—and controversies, as it happens, at the moment. Of course, as Members of Parliament, we now have limitless travel in Europe, which is a great improvement, for which we thank IPSA, and our researchers can travel for us, if necessary, on parliamentary business anywhere in the UK.

I ended up supporting my researcher to come for four days to the Council of Europe. I think—I hope—she found it really interesting and rewarding. It was good to work with Nick and the team here and to meet the ambassadorial team and all the Members, and it gave her a greater understanding to support my work as a parliamentarian. I hope the powers that be will look at that, because it is not unreasonable for full-time members of the Council of Europe to be allowed at least one trip for a member of their research team to come with them—to enable us to do a much better job, Minister, on behalf of UK plc.

That said, the UK delegation punches above its weight, because it really is the epitome of a national team from our four constituent nations and both Houses of Parliament working together in harmony in the interests of UK plc —and, more importantly, in the interests of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. I am proud to be a member of the delegation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Hosie, and I apologise again for my lateness. It is somewhat unfortunate to be presided over by a member of my party and to be late, but constituency matters held me back.

Like others, I pay tribute to Nick Wright, Jonathan Finlay, and the staff who serve us so well. As a new member of the Council of Europe, I lead the SNP group together with my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). We were well served by our predecessors, Alex Salmond and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, and I pay tribute to their work. Unfortunately, the press were not very kind to them at times, but those who served with them at the Council of Europe know the incredible power of work that they did, and how hard they worked on behalf of the SNP and Scotland. It is important to put that on the record.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for securing this debate, and for his passion and verve. His speech was fantastic, and I hope that people will watch this debate and understand the work of the Council of Europe. When I was asked to take on this role by our group leader, I took it very seriously. I admit that I was not prepared for the volume of work and the complexity of the issues raised, or for the amount of time it would take up. The suggestion from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) about staff is sensible. We are accountable to our constituents for the use of public money, but we can only promote and do our best in the Council of Europe—and, indeed, with all our work—if the right resources are available to us. The promotion of such work is extremely important.

I wish to reflect a little on what others have said, and on my recent experiences at the Assembly’s first sitting this year. At the Irish ambassador’s reception, he made a powerful speech about the work of the Council of Europe and its importance post-Brexit, particularly for trade and international relations, as well as the continuation of campaigns for human rights and democracy. Many people do not realise that the Council of Europe brought an end to the death penalty in Europe, or that the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights have allowed people to take forward many cases. A number of those cases have been very high profile, particularly on the rights of service personnel who have suffered injury or death, and the rights of LGBT people.

As we leave the EU, we must reflect on what our role in Europe will be. The SNP has a clear position of maintaining membership of the single market and customs union, but as many have said we put politics aside when we come to the Council of Europe and we work together. Towards the end of our time at the Council of Europe, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I had a very interesting discussion about deaths abroad—that is an issue on which I have been working on behalf of my constituent, Kirsty Maxwell, and a matter that I hope to raise at the Council of Europe. The hon. Gentleman and I could not be at more opposite ends of the political spectrum, but we had a shared interest on a shared issue, and the Council of Europe gave us the opportunity to have a discussion about that. He gave me his personal support, for which I was grateful, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him and reflect that the Assembly gave us space to have that discussion.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one important point that has not yet been mentioned is that each member of the Council of Europe is a parliamentarian who has been elected in their own country? That cornerstone of democracy is so important to the Council of Europe.

[Hannah Bardell]

I absolutely agree, and our being able to return to our constituencies and report on the work done by us and the Council of Europe is important. We must look for as many opportunities as we can to do that within this place, and in the media, and there is an opportunity to engage more positively.

I remember returning home on the tube one evening and reading a declaration in the London Evening Standard that it had a new Brussels correspondent. I thought, “Well, isn’t that ironic? Where have they been for the last 10 years?” There was a recent report about the reportage not just of the EU and its institutions, but of Europe in general, and the UK came very near the bottom for quality of reportage and coverage. I do not wish to diverge or digress too much, but the sad truth about Brexit is that people are learning about the EU, what it brings to them and its benefits, only as we leave. We will continue to be a member of the Council of Europe and, for the many reasons that people have highlighted, its work will be extremely important.

Let me reflect briefly on some of my observations from the Hemicycle during the initial days that I spent there. It is completely different from the Chamber of the House of Commons. There is electronic voting. Voting takes merely a few moments; I could not help reflecting on that and thinking, as I put my fingers into the black box and pressed the buttons, how much quicker and more efficient this place would be if we had a similar voting system—[Hon. Members: “No! No!] I know there will be many dissenting voices, but I will press on.

It was also incredible to see the Danish national girls’ choir sweep into the Hemicycle and sing for the Members. It would be difficult to imagine something like that happening in the Chamber of the House of Commons —although perhaps we should consider putting it to Mr Speaker—with people taking pictures of each other and engaging in a lively, democratic way.

The hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned the breadth of coverage of the Council of Europe, and the number of people: 820 million people is incredible. He leads us ably and I have enjoyed working with him very much. He has spoken of the breadth of issues dealt with and challenged there, including torture, racism and trafficking. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke about child trafficking and her work on that. As to the fact that the UK Government have not ratified the Lanzarote convention on child sexual exploitation, it is important that we continue to press the matter.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Perhaps I can put the hon. Lady’s mind, and that of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), at rest by confirming that our assessment is that we are now compliant to ratify the convention. We laid the means of doing so before Parliament last week, on 12 April, so the hon. Member for Rotherham can dance a little jig of joy.

[Hannah Bardell]

That is excellent news and testament to the work of the hon. Lady, as well as the work done and pressure put on by the Council of Europe.

For my part, the work of the SNP in the Council will be very much about putting forward Scotland’s voice about its place in Europe, as well as working with colleagues on issues of common interest. I look forward to working with the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham in her role as rapporteur on referendums. She will know that, whatever side of the argument—if any—people took in the 2014 referendum in Scotland, it has been held up as the gold standard in terms of process. I hope that we can work together.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

As the hon. Lady may know, I also had the pleasure of holding a referendum that went without any hitch at all, in Wales.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am glad to hear that. It sounds as if the right hon. Lady has the right expertise and credentials. Hers is an important role, and we look forward to working with her on it. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House in our future endeavours at the Council of Europe.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on the amendment. Does she agree that public perception is very important—people understanding why we have sanctions and what they look to achieve? Her amendment speaks to that. It will be absolutely vital to have that detail set out by Government, which they so often do not do.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks. Let me give a couple of examples about two different sanctions regimes where the content of sanctions and object of the sanctions are quite different. Sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are aimed at preventing it from developing weapons of mass destruction. That is a really big foreign policy objective for all of us. Nobody wants the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and not in that region; it is an extremely destabilising occurrence. At the same time, we need a parallel diplomatic strategy. The South Koreans are doing quite well on that following the Olympics, with efforts to shift the discussion from sport to politics. I am not absolutely clear what the Government’s view is on the exit strategy and precisely what changes in behaviour they want. This has been difficult and fraught and the Government have made serious efforts at the UN, but we are trying not to starve the North Korean people, who anyway have an extremely low standard of living and a horrible quality of life; we are trying to stop the regime from developing weapons of mass destruction.

The situation in Myanmar and its risks and problems are different. Those sanctions are aimed at preventing the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya and ensuring their safe, voluntary and dignified return to their homeland in Rakhine state. We want the UN to be able to oversee that return and the full implementation of the Annan commission recommendations. Again, we are trying to influence the regime to do something. We have an aid programme to other parts of Myanmar and we are not trying to undermine that, but we want to shift the military, which is why the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition on sanctions on Myanmar is different from the Government’s position. We agree on the North Korean sanctions, but not on Myanmar, because we would like the sanctions to cover the whole of that part of the Myanmar economy that is controlled by the military.

Those two examples show that different problems need different approaches. We need to be clear about that. We will be better at running our foreign policy if we are clearer. This co-operation was very strongly commended by UK Finance, which is the collaboration between banks and financial service providers. For them, life just becomes extremely difficult if we do not have the same approach as the Europeans and the Americans. They have said to us that they want us very much to maintain our integration with the EU on our sanctions policy, because they are worried that if we were to have a different tweak here and there, other international finance actors would be very risk averse, and would not want to put money into British banks and then find that they were suffering second round sanctions, particularly from the Americans.

To be honest, I thought that the speech the Foreign Secretary made on Second Reading—it was typical of him—did not really take that into account. It began and ended with a lot of Brexity rhetoric, but it did not really focus on the detailed policy reality of what to do when we are operating sanctions. He said:

“The Bill will give us the freedom to decide on national sanctions as we see fit”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 77.]

He went on to say that “Britain can act independently”, that we will have “freedom of manoeuvre”, be an independent global power, and be able to

“exert our rightful influence on the world stage”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 80.]

The thing about this is that we can and we will, but the truth is that we do that much better by collaborating with other countries. Everybody knows that sanctions are much more effective when we co-operate with other countries. That is why we included paragraph (e) in this amendment.

Suspicious Deaths Abroad

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I think it is fair to say that when we are elected to this place, we have our own ideas and ambitions about what we want to campaign on. So often, however, we are guided by the real-life experiences of our constituents, and that is what brings me here today for a debate on deaths abroad in suspicious circumstances, particularly in relation to two of my constituents—Julie Pearson and Kirsty Maxwell—and their families. I am honoured and privileged to get a chance today to tell their stories. Some of the details are very harrowing and distressing.

Julie Pearson and Kirsty Maxwell were two young, beautiful and vivacious young women taken from their families when they still had their whole lives ahead of them: two bereaved families; two innocent women killed in suspicious and unexplained circumstances abroad, both at the hands of, we believe, violent men. In both cases, the alleged perpetrators of the crimes are walking free, with very little having happened in terms of investigations into their deaths.

I want to put on record the admiration and respect that I have for staff who work in the foreign service for the very difficult job that they have to do, often in the most challenging and dangerous circumstances.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I sought permission from the hon. Lady to intervene because she is bringing forward an issue that has touched my constituency as well—in May last year, before the election. I commend her for doing so. I want to put on record my thanks to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for working hard over the weekend to enable the young boy’s body to come home at a very difficult time for the mum and dad, who were in Northern Ireland when he was in Spain. Those of us who have been through this with our constituents know just how heartbreaking it is. When we have staff who work hard and do the business, as our Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff do, we have to put that on record and say thank you.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As someone who worked in a foreign consulate—for the American State Department in its consulate in Edinburgh—I know first-hand how difficult the job of consular staff is. I have sat in on calls with senior officers when they had to break the news of the death of a loved one. However, it is my belief, having spent a lot of time with both Kirsty’s and Julie’s families, that much, much more can be done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to resource and support its staff to help families such as Julie’s and Kirsty’s when their loved ones die abroad in suspicious circumstances.

Julie was 38. She was learning Hebrew to get citizenship in Israel because her dad was Jewish. She went to Israel to live and work and immerse herself in the local culture. Her aunt Deborah, who is my constituent, talked of how Julie loved the heat, loved to sing karaoke, and was really fun-loving. On 26 November 2015, Julie was badly beaten by her ex-boyfriend. The police were called and attended, but she was never offered medical treatment or admitted to hospital. The following day, 27 November, Julie was found dead in her hostel room in Eilat, Israel.

Following Julie’s death, and largely because of erroneous and inaccurate claims made by the authorities in Israel, her family took the hugely brave step of releasing photographs of Julie’s badly beaten and bruised body. Those images are deeply distressing, but the family felt they had no choice, because the autopsy report, which the family believe is deeply flawed, claimed that Julie had died of natural causes. The bruising and damage to Julie’s beautiful face, in my view, tells a very different story.

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Hannah Bardell]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me make some more progress, I will then take interventions.

Julie is survived by her parents and her aunt Deborah, who is one of the most determined, fearless and inspiring women I have ever met. In her own words,

“My family will continue to fight for justice for Julie. We’d hate for any other family to go through what we have. The FCO promised in 2014 there would be processes in place for suspicious deaths abroad yet our family had to fight every step of the way for help and advice, even after requesting freedom of information. Instead of the promised 20 day response, I had to pursue every 21 days and eventually received it after 5 months. I ask the Foreign Office when will they listen to what families need? Why did it take so long for basic information to be relayed to me? Why are families still being let down with lack of help and support?”

Just over a year later, I find myself dealing with another tragic case, that of Kirsty Maxwell. Kirsty was 27 years old, newly married to husband Adam, and was on holiday in Benidorm, Spain, with friends. On 29 April 2017, Kirsty fell to her death from a balcony on the 10th floor of a block of apartments where she had been staying. The family are still struggling to get full details, largely because the Spanish police failed to interview key witnesses and initiate major crime scene protocols and procedures.

We know that the room she fell from was not her own. However, due to the apparent flawed investigation, the reason she was in that room is not known. The room she entered was occupied by a group of English men who were high on drugs and alcohol, and the circumstances that ensued may have been fuelled by the men’s use of drugs and a case of mistaken identity by the men in the room. The Spanish police report, Spanish media reporting and some crime scene examinations indicated that Kirsty tried to escape, possibly in fear of her life.

Adam sent me a poem that he read out at Kirsty’s funeral. I will not read it here, but it gives the view of a warm, funny, loving young woman who had just been promoted at work and loved her family, her husband and her pug dog with all her heart. I have spent quite a significant amount of time with Kirsty’s husband Adam and her parents, Brian and Denise. They too are some of the bravest folk I have had the privilege of meeting, and they have worked tirelessly to get answers, along with the independent reviewer, David Swindle. It is impossible to put into words the depths of their devastation and sorrow, but they provided me with the following words:

“Mentally, emotionally and physically this has been extremely tough and still with no real end in sight. When Kirsty was brutally taken from us they also took a part of us all, something we will never regain. Kirsty was visiting an EU country as a British citizen, she lived by the ‘rules’ set out in today’s society. She worked every day, paid her taxes and never called on the system for any assistance. Now we plead for that assistance, plead for justice to be sought, plead for her country not to desert her and her family in their hour of need. She needs this help more than ever, needs much more than lip service to be done, needs more support for Scottish and UK families who lose a loved one abroad in suspicious circumstances. Those past 10 months as a family we have felt lost, confused and abandoned. Lost at the lack of direction and compassion we were shown from authorities. Confused at the revolving door of dysfunctional protocol and procedures which are not in place, displaced and misunderstood. Abandoned by legal systems not understood, not relevant and not fit for the purpose of protecting victims of suspicious deaths and murders abroad. This and trying to grieve while fighting a case through the Spanish courts with no assistance financially, legally or morally from either the UK or Spain. We hope this cross party of MPs”—

a group that I hope to set up in the very near future—

“can get together to produce a procedure that can offer their constituents assistance, support and a means of gaining justice for any suspicious death of a loved one abroad.”

[Royston Smith]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I apologise for interrupting her when she was making such a powerful and emotional speech. It was at a point that reminded me of my constituent, Mrs Brenda White, who, tragically, lost her son Michael in Thailand. She was told that it was suicide, but she simply did not believe that, and much of the evidence did not support that. I agree with the hon. Lady that, although the Foreign Office does a great job under some very trying circumstances, she, myself and others are giving examples of where the Foreign Office has fallen short for our constituents who feel they should have had much more support when their loved ones were so tragically taken from them.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and my thoughts and prayers are with his constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Paul Maynard.)

[Hannah Bardell]

What can we say to those families—our constituents—other than that we need to resolve, right here and now, that we cannot and will not let any more families die?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to them for allowing me to intervene. Since 2015, three families in my constituency—that of Caroline Hope from Clydebank, whose family had to raise funds to allow her to come home to die; that of Lisa Brown, who has been missing in Spain for two and a half years; and that of Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been in detention in India without charge for nearly four months—have had to go through a maze of bureaucracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to consider a legislative framework for consular support, because of its complexity, rather than the ad hoc policy approach that we have seen for a long time? That is no detriment to the staff of the FCO, who do a commendable job.

[Hannah Bardell]

I absolutely agree; it is about having the most robust framework possible and giving officers in the foreign service the tools and the resource to do the best job they can.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

A young man from my constituency, Craig Mallon, was killed—murdered—in Spain in 2012. The case could be resolved if we had more information. I want to work with the hon. Lady and the Foreign Office on the Craig Mallon case, and the police have to work with us. They are withholding information, six years on. The family is distraught, and we need more information.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I look forward to working with him. I am aware of the case of Craig Mallon, and my thoughts and prayers are with him. The experience of the families whom I have supported is that at times, communication has been disjointed and it has been difficult to interact with officers. In the case of Kirsty’s family, her husband Adam received a call from the Spanish police to say that Kirsty was dead. Adam told me that he thought initially that it was a prank call, and he asked whether the FCO should have clearer protocols for informing family members of a death.

Julie Pearson’s family learned of her death through informal channels. It was Julie’s aunt, Deborah, who brought the news of Julie’s death to the attention of the FCO. Deborah told me recently that the consulate denies ever having received a letter from me or correspondence from her about getting Julie’s personal belongings back. I have that letter, and I know that I sent it. More than two years on, Julie’s personal effects have just been passed to her family. It is a very basic thing, but having the personal effects of a loved one back is vital.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this most important debate. On that point, I raised in this House last summer the case of Kirsty Jones, a constituent of mine. Her parents, Sue and Glyn, received a phone call from the Foreign Office to say that their daughter Kirsty had been tragically murdered in Thailand. That was 18 years ago, and Thailand closes cases after 20 years. The family are trying to get Kirsty’s belongings back into this country. DNA testing has improved, and they are trying to get DNA tests done. The local police force now has to send another international letter of request to get Kirsty’s belongings back over here for final assessment and analysis. The process—internationally, rather than that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—is wrong, and we have to change it.

[Hannah Bardell]

I absolutely agree. There is much more that can be done on the global stage about these issues, particularly when they cross jurisdictions and families have to deal with a legal system that is alien to them. While I appreciate that many of the issues we are raising may have been outside the power of the FCO, it is interesting to note that, in 2014, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee published its fifth report, “Support for British nationals abroad: The Consular Service”. I quote from that report:

“In cases of deaths abroad, we received substantial anecdotal evidence to indicate that FCO services to bereaved families are inconsistent and have at times fallen well below the expected standards of the FCO, with repeated failures of communication and compassion. We welcome the FCO’s ongoing review of how it provides services in cases of suspicious deaths abroad, and give our support for a proposal for a specialised central unit to provide expert and dependable assistance.”

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for bringing this important debate forward. One of the issues that she has raised, in common with Members on both sides of the Chamber, is the series of unanswered questions that families have to experience. Does she agree that another concern is the lack of pastoral care and support for families who go abroad? Two of my constituents lost their son abroad. When they went out to the EU member country where he died, they were given no police contact and no pastoral support; they were completely abandoned in their grief and isolated in a country where they did not speak the language. This really is not good enough. People do not just need help with the legal process; they also need support in their time of grief.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I absolutely agree. This is often about taking a lead, but some of the language in the Foreign Office guidance is very conditional, and I will come on to that.

In Kirsty Maxwell’s case, it took me from first writing to the FCO in October 2017 to February 2018 to get a contact name, which is not the sort of compassion I find acceptable. To date, I am still unclear about the remit and power of the murder and manslaughter unit, and I also do not know why it cannot become involved when a criminal investigation is ongoing. Perhaps that is something the Minister can shed some light on.

Similarly, we have been chasing the whereabouts of the clothes that were on Kirsty’s body when she died. We found out only very recently that these key pieces of evidence have been destroyed by the Spanish authorities—a matter I believe the FCO should be raising at the highest possible level. I appreciate that, at times, these are diplomatic issues—matters that have to be raised and pushed by the Government or by a Minister—but it is vital that the flow of communication is as clear and defined as possible.

The report I referred to goes on to highlight the use of language and the fact that support is discretionary. It quotes the FCO:

“We will consider making appropriate representations to the local authorities if there are concerns that the investigation is not being carried out in line with local procedures…Where possible, if you visit the country during the early stages of the investigation and initial court hearings related to the death, our staff there may be able to meet you…Where legal systems differ significantly from the UK, or proceedings are conducted in a language you do not understand, we may help to arrange, or attend, an initial round of meetings with the authorities.”

The language is too discretionary—it is way too conditional—and it needs to be more robust and more definite.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is giving a very powerful and moving speech. I have details of what happened to constituents of mine. It was not a suspicious death, but very much a sudden death, involving an elderly constituent on holiday with his family. In that instance, the local embassy failed the family very badly. The advice they got consisted of an email with a link to a 28-page document that they were supposed to read in the hours when the lady was still trying to come to terms with the fact that she had lost a husband and the rest of the family were trying to come to terms with the fact that they had lost a father and a father-in-law.

The family were at the departure gate waiting for what would have been a very difficult flight home when they got a phone call saying that they were responsible for finding a Spanish qualified lawyer who spoke English. Later, they were told out of the blue that they had to find £2,000 to have documents translated between Spanish and English. Nobody told them at the time that when their dad was brought home, there would need to be another post mortem. Somewhere along the line, the authorities lost his passport and death certificate. I think the insurance company and the insurance broker are still arguing between themselves as to who should be funding the additional costs.

Not all of that is down to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but does my hon. Friend agree that a first step would be to make sure that one person in the specific embassy or consulate is attached to a grieving family and is responsible for sorting out whatever needs to be sorted out, so that the family do not have to argue with undertakers, lawyers and insurance companies at a time when, as in this case, all they want to do is get their dad home for a burial?

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He raises some very pertinent and important points. I appreciate that some of them are outside the FCO’s remit, but there are wider issues in relation to insurance companies, with whom some of my constituents have struggled, and protocols, procedures and legal systems. Unfortunately, when Kirsty’s family arrived in Spain they were initially given very little support. They were given a list of English-speaking lawyers, but there was no indication of whether any of them had any expertise in homicide. That has been very challenging.

[Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate and for the proposed all-party group on deaths abroad, on which I have said I will help. She refers to poor local police performance. That was certainly the case for Michael Porter, whose mother from Dumfries died in suspicious circumstances in March 2009 on the island of Crete. It was over a year later that the police decided it was murder. Since then, very little has happened and Michael Porter is still fighting for justice for his mother. I hope that the Minister will meet Michael Porter at some point. I also hope that the hon. Lady’s proposed all-party group and this Adjournment debate will help the many people in this dreadful situation.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I very much look forward to working cross-party on this issue, which transcends party political boundaries. We can all work constructively to bring about change.

We want to know what more the FCO can do to assure people like Julie’s and Kirsty’s families that, where a police investigation is not being properly executed, it will make representations and put pressure on the authorities to investigate properly, or invite the police from the nations of the UK to help, as was rightly done, as we all remember, in the case of Madeleine McCann. No one expects them to promise to fix it, but more attempts can be made. I feel very strongly that not enough has changed for the families I represent since the report.

We have heard of many other cases from constituents. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has a constituent, Julie Love, who has done a huge amount of work on this issue following the death of her son Colin, who died in a swimming accident in Venezuela. She successfully campaigned to have the law changed in Scotland on fatal accident inquiries.

The correspondence with the Government on both of my constituency cases has uncovered some concerning points.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She is being incredibly generous with her time. I, too, pay tribute to the amazing work of Julie Love, and the determination with which she fought for that change in the law. Indeed, our fellow colleagues Anne McLaughlin and Bob Doris, the local MSP, helped her with that. My hon. Friend makes a point about the need for the FCO to listen carefully and to respond. The expectations people have of their own Government’s representation in foreign countries very often does not match their experiences. I have also dealt with constituents who have survived terrorist attacks. They, too, found that the service they received from the FCO did not match their expectations. I therefore wish my hon. Friend all the best with what she is taking forward.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend. It is a testament to the police services of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland that they do have the highest standards. I know, from talking to a very senior police officer, the level of support received by the families of foreign nationals who die in Scotland. She spoke to me about how they took the family of a loved one who had been killed in a road traffic accident to the site and how they had been given support every step of the way. Rightly, our citizens expect a high level of service because they get a high level of service across the UK.

On 11 August 2016, in response to my letter about Julie Pearson, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), stated:

“The FCO does not translate formal documents because this type of support is best provided by independent professionals and we do not have the funding or the expertise to provide such specialist services... The FCO also does not pay legal costs so could not contribute towards any case Ms Pearson’s family may wish to initiate in Israel.”

I understand that. That is a very fair point, but it raises the question about translation services and what more can be done in that regard.

On 7 February 2017, the Prime Minister said in response to a letter:

“I fully understand why you believe improvements can be made to the way in which the Government provides support to the relatives of British nationals who die abroad... The Government has a responsibility to help them through the subsequent process with clarity and compassion.”

Even the Prime Minster recognises that there are flaws and issues with the FCO’s support and processes when dealing with deaths abroad in suspicious circumstances. I wonder whether the Minister would like to take the opportunity to apologise to the families who have been let down. I and other Members and campaigners on this issue have been inundated with stories and experiences of the families of British citizens who have died in difficult and distressing circumstances abroad.

As I said at the beginning, I have the highest regard for the Minister, for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and for the consular profession and the work that they do in some of the hardest and toughest circumstances. However, it is clear to me from the experiences of Kirsty’s and Julie’s families that they deserve better, and for the families and constituents of Members across this House, we need to make sure that there is a review of support and proper action to ensure that the processes and protocols are absolutely the best that families can expect.

In memory of those who have died and to protect and prevent future distress, I plead with the Minister: let us work together to help the families who are suffering now and to change the system. We owe it to them and to the memory of those who have died to make sure that the services that are offered abroad to our citizens are the very best that they can be and that our citizens get, where possible, proper investigations into such deaths, and answers and justice.

[The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) on securing the debate, on the very sensitive way in which she put her case and those of her constituents and on the very constructive way in which she is approaching her engagement with us on this issue.

Every year from this country, 70 million Britons travel abroad. Last year, tragically, 3,912 British citizens died overseas, and 74 of those were identified as cases of murder or manslaughter. The death of a loved one in any circumstances is distressing, but when it happens far from home, where the culture or practices are unfamiliar, and particularly when the cause of death is unclear, it can be especially traumatic. My thoughts go out to all those who been mentioned in today’s debate and to all those who have lost loved ones, and I offer my deepest condolences in particular to the families of Julie Pearson and Kirsty Maxwell, about whom the hon. Lady has spoken so movingly this evening.

Sadly, British nationals do tragically die overseas, and our global network of 772 consular staff are there to be contacted in these situations. I am glad to add my tributes to the work that they do out in the field. We heard that echoed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other Members. Whenever the death of a British national is reported to us, our consular officials in London and in our posts overseas do everything that they can to support the relatives. They explain to them what they need to do under the local system—for example, the procedure for getting a death certificate, how to find out whether a post mortem will be carried out and whether or not there will be an investigation into a death. They also provide details of local lawyers, local translators or organisations that can provide specialist help. However, as we try to make clear in our travel advice, we cannot ourselves provide legal advice or translation services. We must also respect the other country’s legal systems and cannot interfere in their processes, just as they could not interfere in ours.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am grateful to the Minister for her initial comments. Does she recognise that it is only fair and appropriate for the UK Government and authorities to press where processes and procedures are not being followed? In the case of my constituent Kirsty Maxwell, Spain has a victims’ bill of rights, which, as far as I can see, is not being respected. The rights of the victim and the family are not being respected. It is only appropriate to intervene and put pressure on to hold that country and its authorities to their standards—not necessarily ours, but the standards that they have in their own judicial system—and say, “Look, you need to undertake a proper investigation, in line with your own law.”

[Harriett Baldwin]

The family in this case have retained the services of a local lawyer. The hon. Lady asked about the case of Madeleine McCann and UK police going out to help. She will appreciate that UK police only go out following a request from the local police team. We cannot just send out a team of police officers without a local request. In our travel advice, we emphasise that we cannot interfere in local processes, and we would not want that kind of interference in our own.

We regularly review our consular policy to make sure we provide the best possible service to British nationals travelling abroad, and this sometimes leads to changes in our approach. For example, in response to recommendations from the FAC report the hon. Lady referred to, and following our own internal review, we created a dedicated murder and manslaughter team in our consular assistance department. Formed in 2015, the team has established strong relationships with key stakeholders and partners, who can include organisations such as Victim Support as well as police family liaison officers and coroners’ officers. The team has also created new guidance for bereaved families. We now have 15 country-specific leaflets explaining the requirements and processes that families need to follow, and consular officials receive specialised training on handling deaths abroad. We continually work to ensure that our internal guidance reflects the needs of British citizens.

On average, 60 British nationals are murdered overseas ever year. Since our murder and manslaughter team was established, it has provided assistance to approximately 220 families across the globe. A great deal of interest has been expressed today in two cases, which I would now like to turn to, if I may.

[Hannah Bardell]

I want to take the Minister back briefly to her point about the police going abroad and the case of Madeleine McCann. I am sure that she will appreciate, as will others, that it seems somewhat random how much publicity a case gets or in what circumstances police are invited abroad. In the case of my constituents, the families want to know that there is equity in how cases are investigated and how negotiations are done around police being invited abroad. The police in Scotland would very much like to go to Spain to investigate the case of Kirsty Maxwell but cannot without that invitation. What can she and the Government do to initiate invitations and make sure that police forces work together and that in more cases the police across the UK, who do an excellent job, can go abroad, support families and investigate?

[Harriett Baldwin]

It is hard to make generalised statements when talking about specific cases, but, by way of a generalised statement, I am saying that it will always require a request from the local team. We will sometimes work through Interpol and others, but, given that the variety of cases is so broad, I can only make the generalised point that a request has to come from the local teams.

On the specific cases the hon. Lady raised, I commend Kirsty’s husband, Adam—they had been married only seven months when she died—and her for their continued efforts to find answers about the circumstances of her death. Throughout this time, consular officials in Spain and London have continued to provide support to the family. She rightly raised the phone call that Kirsty’s husband received from Spanish police, and we have gone back and made very clear the process we would prefer they followed. We have spoken to the Benidorm police to ensure that it is local police who break the news to families back here in the UK.

I understand, however, that the families still have concerns about how the Spanish authorities have handled the case, especially what steps the police took to compile the evidence they presented to the courts. I hope that they can resolve those concerns with the help of their Spanish lawyer, who is best placed to advise them on local law. As I said earlier, we cannot intervene in another country’s legal affairs. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas discussed this case with the hon. Lady back in November, and I know that he is always willing to discuss consular cases on his patch with Members, as am I. Since that meeting, we have continued to raise our concerns about the case with the Spanish authorities, and our consulate in Alicante remains in contact with the family’s lawyer. We stand ready to make further representations if they do not receive a satisfactory response from the authorities.

As I said earlier, the police cannot become get involved in cases outside their jurisdiction unless they are invited to do so. I am pleased to hear that Kirsty’s family have received additional support from a homicide consultancy, which has helped to review her case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I have so little time left that I am going to use it.

The death of a loved one is devastating wherever it happens, but particularly when it happens in another country and suspicious circumstances are apparent. We know that families are often desperate to find answers. In such cases—and, indeed, whenever a British national dies overseas—the consular staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office support bereaved families with compassion, dedication and tenacity, often in very difficult circumstances. We will continue to take every one of these cases extremely seriously and to provide that dedicated consular assistance for those who are most in need of our help, seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

I welcome the idea of an all-party group, which I think is extremely constructive. I have my own opinions about how we can improve assistance in these cases, as did my predecessor, now the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice. First, I am sure that we would all want to ensure that resources are focused on the most vulnerable. Secondly, we must try to work with British citizens to ensure that they take responsibility and take precautions, such as obtaining adequate travel insurance, following the advice on the Foreign Office website, and not engaging in inherently risky activities. Thirdly, we must be very clear about prevention.

[Hannah Bardell]

My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) has a constituent whose son was killed in a road traffic accident in Ibiza. In a bid—unfortunately—to smear his name, it was insisted that there should be an alcohol test and blood should be taken from his eyeballs in what was a very distressing case. I hear what the Minister says about British citizens abroad, but it is important that we critique such processes in-country.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I think that it would be very helpful for the all-party group to become involved in such issues.

Again, I congratulate the hon. Lady and all the Members who have raised constituency cases. We in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stand ready to meet individual colleagues, and we continue to look for ways in which to improve our consular service.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development’s visits to Djibouti and Riyadh in December, the Saudi authorities announced that the coalition would fully open the Hodeidah port for 30 days from 20 December. From then until now, more than nine ships have docked, delivering food, fuel and coal, and that process is continuing with more ships having been cleared. It is essential that the port remains open after that time, and we are working with others to try to ensure that that will be the case.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

T4. It has been nine months since my constituent Kirsty Maxwell tragically fell to her death from a balcony in Benidorm and still the family do not know what happened to the clothes on her body when she died or the circumstances of her death. The Minister has been very helpful in trying to assist, but we are no further forward. Will he put more pressure on the Spanish authorities, and will he do a full-scale review of the support that families who have lost loved ones get?

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I fully understand what the hon. Lady says, and we have been working closely on this tragic consular issue. I am happy to offer her a further meeting and to pursue every possible step to go into the details in more depth.

Rohingya Crisis

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. Please excuse my voice; the cold has reached Livingston, but I will do my best to get through my speech and be heard.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) on securing the debate and on a really powerful speech. We were able to hear from all those in the Chamber who have visited Myanmar and seen at first hand the tragedy that is unfolding. It struck me during the hon. Lady’s speech that some of the things being denied to the Rohingya people—food, education, sanitation, water and citizenship—are the very basic needs of human beings, and that we should be and are joining together proudly to stand against what is and appears to be genocide. I appreciate the Minister’s point about the legal language in relation to that and the definitions, but I urge him to look for every avenue possible, to use the utmost imagination and every channel available to him and the Government, to stand up to the regime on behalf of the Rohingya people.

[Mrs Main]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that His Holiness the Pope made a speech in Burma today, yet still could not bring himself to mention the word “Rohingya”? It is not just our Government but the whole world that needs to do more.

[Hannah Bardell]

Although the hon. Lady and I are in different parties, I agree with her words and sentiments, because language is very important in these situations. However, although our words and our support are very important, we will be judged on our actions. I think that this place is at its best when we are in agreement, and we are in agreement today across all parties and, indeed, all Governments. The Scottish Government pledged in September £120,000 from their humanitarian emergency fund for the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for the Rohingya people.

We have seen images of what is unfolding and heard the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) talk about going to the area as a doctor to use her skills to provide support. We are very fortunate that people come to this place with professional skills that they can then use in their role as parliamentarians. I cannot imagine what that is like; I have not been myself, but those who have visited have spoken powerfully about their experiences at first hand. I commend the hon. Lady for the work that she did in her own time to support those who are suffering so terribly.

The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke about military sanctions and what the Government can do to crack down in that regard. Watching the news recently, we have seen the reporter Alex Crawford, who managed to gain access to a camp. As the world rolls on and Brexit rolls on, some of these stories, some of these issues, fall away into the background. Sadly, we often see only through the lens of our media what is happening, and it is a huge challenge for them to report on it. Some of the experiences captured in the images—of people’s houses being burned and so on—are some of the worst experiences that human beings can possibly have. It is just devastating, so we must pull together and look at all the options available to us.

The return of people to their state will be hugely challenging, but I ask the Minister what practically we can do when we are talking about timescales of five or 10 years. That seems truly incredible. In a world and in countries of plenty such as ours, can we not find solutions and shorten that time? These are such long timescales for people living in such terribly tragic situations.

I know that there are huge challenges in looking to resettle people, which has been considered. I think that Canada has been looking at resettlement options, but are there avenues for the countries in the United Kingdom to give more support in that regard? I would be very interested to hear from the Minister on that front. I know that many other people wish to speak, and my voice is failing me, but I congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and I again call on the Government to do everything they possibly can to support the Rohingya people.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

My right hon. Friend is, I am afraid, absolutely right. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we remain very careful in what we say about the entire case.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I hope the right hon. Gentleman is reflecting very seriously on his position—the position that he holds not just in this Government, but in society—because, for Nazanin, it would have been reasonable to assume that when the Foreign Secretary got involved in her case, things might have been better. Unfortunately, it has made this situation very much worse. Why was another Cabinet Minister not briefed properly, and why did he say live on television that he did not know why she was there? What is going on at the heart of this Government?

As a direct result of these reckless comments, Nazanin is now in an increasingly perilous situation, which has given the Iranian authorities added cause to keep her locked up on false and arbitrary grounds. The Foreign Secretary’s apology is welcome, but he must reflect, as must the Government, on how they do their business and how they protect our citizens. What guarantee will he give that Nazanin will be granted diplomatic protection and be brought home? The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues must make it very clear that they are able to do their jobs and to protect our citizens.

[Boris Johnson]

Our priority is to secure the safe return of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and all other political considerations are entirely secondary. The only other thing we have to bear in mind is the safety and wellbeing of the other consular cases in Iran, and that is very important.

I said to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that I am seeing Mr Ratcliffe tomorrow. I am in fact seeing him on Wednesday.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Clearly, the situation in Cameroon is very disturbing. As my right hon. Friend suggests, the Anglophone community has been particularly victimised in terms of internet access, which has now been restored. We call on all parties to refrain from violence and to respect the rule of law, and call particularly on the Government of Cameroon to exercise restraint and address the root causes of the dispute.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State may be aware of the tragic and unexplained death of my constituent Kirsty Maxwell, who died in Benidorm in April this year. Her family are distraught, as the investigation’s progress has been very slow and there are a number of issues. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Kirsty’s family to discuss what further support can be given at this very difficult time?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady in the first instance to discuss this; we would like to extend all the consular assistance we possibly can to anyone in such circumstances.

Exiting the European Union: Sanctions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch). She made a fantastic maiden speech, and she is a great credit to her community. Her speech was delivered with verve and class, and a good deal of wit. While I may not have agreed with everything she said, I am sure that her contributions will be very welcome to the Chamber.

The world looks at the United Kingdom as the Brexit negotiations develop, to see how we will manage the situation in which we find ourselves, and what kind of relationship we plan to have with the European Union and, indeed, the rest of the world. Given that the UK is without a coherent strategy and seemingly bereft of ideas—and, as we have seen in recent photos, notes—I suspect that the external image of how things are going is not entirely positive. Our international reputation is on the line. SNP Members, however, welcome the opportunity to debate the real impact that leaving the EU will have on our international influence and clout.

There is a risk that after leaving the EU, the UK will be marginalised and diminished on the international stage. I know that no one in the Chamber wants that to happen, but there will inevitably be a reduction in our ability—if not a complete loss of ability—to impose meaningful sanctions on our own, or to make any meaningful contribution to a progressive international agenda. One of the Government’s own colleagues, the former Foreign Secretary, has called for the UK to keep its seat on the EU’s Political and Security Committee. I hope that the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers will enlighten us as to whether he agrees with his colleague.

As has already been pointed out, sanctions rarely operate effectively in isolation. Success depends on a combination of dialogue, agreement and conflict prevention between various countries. Clearly, working with the EU presents a broader range of tools than would be available to the UK when operating alone. Giving up our seat at the sanctions table will see the UK lose the ability to apply sanctions with the same breadth and weight. It will also lose access to key forums through which to push for ongoing momentum and accord among fellow EU member states. There must not be any serious divergence from EU partners in respect of sanctions. The UK must not relax any sanctions that are materially more restrictive than existing or new EU sanctions, especially when the UK has significant trade with a particular country.

Many have expressed fears that the UK may be dragged on to the new United States President’s rather unpredictable turf. For example, as President-Elect he severely criticised the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. If he were to impose new sanctions on Iran, there might be pressure on the UK—and our “special relationship”—to follow suit. The new President has also indicated that the US would ease sanctions on Russia. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, has indicated that the EU will not change its policy on Russia, even if the US does. The UK must do likewise. Leaning more closely towards an Administration led by Donald Trump creates concern for many. We must hear from the Government that they will continue to take their international obligations seriously, keeping fairness and decency at the heart of any new trade deals and sanctions policies.

As the largest trade bloc in the world, the biggest global aid donor and a notable international investor, the EU adds weight to the UK’s foreign and security policy efforts. Commenting on the possible impact of Brexit on the EU’s own sanctions policy, Dr Erica Moret at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva recently said:

“A Brexit-weakened EU sanctions policy is likely to intensify the need to employ other, more expensive, controversial or complicated forms of diplomacy, coercion or pressure. It will also likely strengthen Russia’s hand against Europe, as it benefits from a fragmented Europe with a weaker toolbox of security instruments at its disposal.”

Those comments are deeply concerning and should worry us all.

Indeed, a Foreign Affairs Committee report said that the United Kingdom’s relations with Russia gave an interesting insight into trouble ahead for the UK acting alone on sanctions. The report concluded that

“it will be increasingly difficult to sustain a united western position on sanctions, not least if they become a bargaining point during Brexit negotiations.”

Our worry is that there is everything to play for, but also everything to lose.

We should all be concerned, because our international role and responsibilities extend much further than just Russia. On 4 April, the latest in a series of barbaric chemical weapons attacks took place in Khan Shaykhun in Syria. More than 80 people were killed and estimates suggest more than 500 were injured. Just this week in Brussels the UK was able to play a central role in imposing sanctions against those involved in that horrific attack. The EU’s Foreign Affairs Council agreed on Monday that 16 individuals will be sanctioned, their movements restricted and their assets frozen. But after Brexit the UK will be diminished and we will have no clout to impose meaningful sanctions, resulting in the UK losing its opportunity to contribute to a progressive international agenda.

After Brexit the UK will need to establish the necessary independent policy development and sanctions design architecture, for which it has mostly relied on Brussels until now.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making some important points, but does this not underline the arguments she is making about the complexity of imposing travel bans, asset freezes and so forth, and stopping those who are the target of sanctions? Does this not underline the argument for a proper transition period in respect of our withdrawal? The suite of instruments the hon. Lady refers to are complex in nature, not least legislatively. I do not see how we are going to be able to complete the process of putting in place a framework that we can apply independently in the tiny timescale that we have before our scheduled exit from the EU.

[Hannah Bardell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and think he may have been reading my mind, as will become clear from my next point.

If the UK Government cannot agree among themselves on a transition policy for Brexit and a deal, as we have seen this week with the vastly differing approaches of the Chancellor and the International Trade Secretary, I and others seriously doubt their capacity to design sanctions architecture, let alone agree on what and where those sanctions should be imposed. And even if they do, the effectiveness of UK-only applied sanctions will be severely diminished.

The UK Government’s own White Paper sets out, in pretty stark language:

“The UK needs to be able to impose and implement sanctions in order to comply with our obligations under the United Nations (UN) Charter and to support our wider foreign policy and national security goals. Many of our current powers flow from the European Communities Act 1972 so we will need new legal powers to replace these…It is not possible to achieve this through the Great Repeal Bill, as preserving or freezing sanctions would not provide the powers necessary to update, amend or lift sanctions in response to fast moving events.”

And events are moving fast; we have a short period, so the Government need to think very carefully and give us a response on that transition period.

Any new legislation must be clear about how these powers will be developed and implemented and, further, what infrastructure and regulation will look like to support those new powers. Additionally, the Law Society of Scotland has raised a number of pertinent points in relation to the UK Government’s White Paper. These points are significant because they highlight the complexity—as the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) has just said—and scale of the task at hand, not to mention just how many sectors and areas of competence will be impacted by exiting the EU, and the need for a new set of rules and regulations. It is clear that lawyers, accountants and consultants will be very busy over the next few years—and, no doubt, considerably richer. But what estimate have the Government made of the cost of training lawyers and accountants to deal with the new laws and regulations, and what provision has been considered for the teaching of the new regulations and laws at our universities, colleges and institutions? We need a workforce that will be ready to go when those new provisions arrive.

An interesting point about cross-border jurisdiction also arises on page 23 of the Government’s White Paper. The Law Society of Scotland is very concerned about this. The White Paper identifies special advocates as

“barristers in independent practice of the highest integrity, experience and ability, from civil and criminal practices. They are bound by the ethical standards of the Bar Council.”

I know that many in the profession would like clarity and assurances that special advocates should be able to be drawn from the ranks of not only the Bar in England and Wales but the Bar in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and from suitably qualified solicitor advocates in all those jurisdictions, but it appears that the UK Government have again—whether by accident or intent—failed to recognise at the most fundamental level that the devolved nations exist.

According to the Law Society of Scotland, the Government’s proposed additional power to seize funds and assets in order to freeze them appears to be unrelated to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. This therefore seems like a curious thing to sneak in. Will the Secretary of State clarify why this has appeared at this juncture? It concerns me and, I am sure, others that the UK Government would introduce new legislation that is potentially unrelated to the UK exiting the EU. This is not good practice, and we need to understand the rationale behind it. It is clear that the UK Government are going to have very little, if any, time in which to do their day job as they deal with the enormity of Brexit, but they have some serious questions to answer on how they will manage and develop their sanctions policy. It is key to our reputation on the global stage, and to how we will work with the rest of the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Mr Andrew Lewer to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great pleasure to follow two such excellent maiden speeches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) on her speech. We share a background and a love for the London Assembly, of which we have both been members, and for Nigeria; I sense that she shares not just my love for it, but my frustration that that wonderful country still faces so many challenges. I look forward to working with her over the coming years. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on his speech. He has described his interesting and illustrious predecessors, but his track record, both in Europe and as an excellent council leader, augurs well for his future here. I am sure that he will be named similarly in future maiden speeches. I welcome them both to this place.

Today, we are here to focus on exiting the European Union and sanctions. I want to discuss both those things—together and slightly separately—because they are very connected. I reiterate the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), which is: where is the Bill, Minister? We have already seen the publication of the grand repeal Bill, but this Bill has a pretty important connection with that. We cannot do the one without the other, and it really sums up, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, the challenges of how we timetable and deliver on this hugely challenging programme for our Parliament over the next 20 months. The Minister’s response to that from the Dispatch Box underlines the lack of planning that we have seen on the Public Accounts Committee, which I have had the privilege of chairing for the past two years, where we have repeatedly heard examples from permanent secretaries about the lack of planning—a deliberate policy.

For example, on 7 July, the permanent secretary to the Treasury confirmed, when questioned, that the Prime Minister had said at several points that the civil service was not, as a whole, preparing for Brexit. On 13 July, Sir Martin Donnelly, the permanent secretary to the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, said:

“We were following the guidance given by Ministers, which was not to make contingency plans for this outcome.”

On 26 October, we heard from Jon Thompson, the permanent secretary and chief executive of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, of the eight serious areas that his Department has to consider now that Brexit is a reality. I will not run through them all, because it is not the main point of the debate, but let me just mention customs. He said that,

“we run £40 billion-worth of the benefits system in tax credits and child benefit…there is excise and the decisions to be made there…there is VAT…and the question of what difference this would make to direct taxes and state aid.”

He went on to list other big concerns.

Let me take HMRC as an example of the challenges that this Government, this Parliament and this country face as we move to leaving the European Union over the next 20 months. That Department is already going through huge change in its estate management, in its IT and in the way that it tackles and deals with taxes.

We all know that it takes about 18 months on a fair wind to make a major change to the tax system, which is why budgets are planned some time in advance for those technical points, and yet the permanent secretary and the chief executive of HMRC has listed to our Committee and to this House eight other serious areas of concern—more than one Government Department can realistically manage—and that is just one Department. I have to say that that permanent secretary was the only one who actually had a long list. Other Departments—I will not name them all—mentioned the discussions they were having, but nothing really concrete about how they were planning to implement our exit from the European Union.

[Hannah Bardell]

The hon. Lady is making some pertinent points about HMRC and the challenges of the customs system going through a transitional phase when it is already creaking under the pressure. Does she not also share my concern that in constituencies such as mine in Livingston, a high proportion of staff who are highly skilled in such systems and processes will be lost because of the transition the Government are going through? If we put Brexit on top of that, it becomes a perfect storm that is about to hit us.

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. If we add on the other changes in Government Departments—the DWP is going through some changes of property and where jobs might be—that poses a challenge. We face a challenge with skills in this country anyway, and we can add to that our exit from the European Union and the fact that we have so many unanswered questions about what will happen to EU citizens residing in the UK and others who need to come here. We heard only the other day that the NHS needs to bring in a large number of GPs from the European Union because we are unable to recruit in this country. Whatever one might have thought of these policies before, we are now seeing skilled people who are potentially unable to move to new locations and we do not yet have a skills strategy to fill not just those gaps but the others we might see as we leave the EU. A perfect storm is perhaps a polite way of putting it; I could think of fruitier ways of describing it, but I will leave the fruity conversation to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who stretched the boundaries further than I will on this occasion.

I will not list every Department and its problems, but we have a long list if other hon. Members are interested in seeing it, given the challenges that each Department faces in its exit from the EU, the lack of planning, and the lack of joined-upness across Government. A problem in one Department, such as HMRC, will have knock-on effects in another, such as the Department for International Trade. We cannot see these things in isolation and there is not yet a coherent plan.

I hope that when he sums up the Minister can reassure me that what I am saying is not true, but the evidence we have seen in Committee suggests that this is the reality. As I have said, senior civil servants acknowledged that they were told very definitely not to plan for the leave scenario, which has put us very much on the back foot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I will come to that in just a moment, if I may.

A sanctions Bill will enable the UK to continue to impose, update and lift sanctions in response to fast-moving events. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will not be sufficient to do that, since we need powers to do more than simply preserve or freeze existing sanctions. The United Nations Act 1946 is also insufficient for UN sanctions, because in 2010, the UK Supreme Court ruled that it could not lawfully be used to implement asset freezes, and that additional powers were needed for measures of this kind involving any infringement of individual rights. In short, the sanctions Bill will enable the UK’s continued compliance with international law after we leave the EU, ensure that, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK continues to play a central role in shaping UN sanctions, and return decision-making powers on non-UN sanctions to the UK.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, the Bill will focus on powers, not policy. As such, it might be described as a framework Bill. It will provide powers to implement UN sanctions and to impose UK sanctions independently or in co-operation with allies. The question of how we use those powers will be addressed later, when we introduce secondary legislation applying sanctions to particular countries. We are obliged to implement UN sanctions, but we will face political choices on how far to replicate current EU sanctions.

The Bill will take account of the consultation mentioned by my hon. Friend in his opening speech. We envisage four main elements: powers to impose sanctions where justified and appropriate; powers to ensure that individuals and organisations can challenge the sanctions imposed on them; powers to exempt or license certain types of activity that would otherwise be restricted, such as humanitarian deliveries and supplies, in countries that might have been sanctioned; and powers to amend and adopt regulations for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing.

Detailed scrutiny of the Bill can obviously come only once it is published. That is why we will have Second Reading, Committee, Report and so on, as this House always does. However, perhaps I can respond as rapidly as I can in the time I have—and I am running out of time—to some of the questions that have been asked, mainly by Opposition Front Benchers. “Where is the Bill?” was one question. We have a consultation. We have just had an election and purdah, and we need to consider the responses and then decide our final position. Only then can we publish the Bill—but we will do so. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked who will lead on it. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will take the lead on foreign policy, including sanctions.

On the question by the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) about whether the procedures we intend to adopt will be affirmative or negative, we note—this is very important for the efficacy of sanctions—that the delay involved with affirmative procedures can lead to asset flight before assets are frozen or caught. We are considering this issue, and will respond in our consultation response, which will be published very shortly.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I have no time; I am very sorry.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked about the overseas territories. The UK has responsibility for the external relations and national security of overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and we will continue our policy of ensuring that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies apply international and UK imposed sanctions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is chairing regular meetings with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies on how best to achieve this end. We will include a power in the Bill for the UK to continue to legislate directly where appropriate.

It was suggested that we would lose the ability to be part of international sanctions development. I would say very clearly that I believe that we will not lose this ability. The Bill is intended to give us all the necessary powers to work internationally. We note that the UK, with its international allies, was a key player in securing the Iran nuclear deal. We will continue our constructive and productive relationship with our European and international partners after we leave the EU.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) asked about the legal risk of the UK adopting EU sanctions—in other words, our having a separate regime and doing this individually. The UK will take responsibility for the sanctions it adopts, including taking on legal risks. When working with the EU, we will take all necessary steps, co-ordinating sanctions and sharing information, to reduce the risk, and if the risk is not acceptable, we do not have to follow the EU.

There are some other issues that we have not had the chance to discuss, but I am sure we will do so on Second Reading and in further consideration of the Bill. On civil liberties, for example, there is a very delicate balance to be struck between using sanctions to counter threats such as terrorism and respecting due process to protect the rights of individuals.

Another issue is abuses and violations of human rights as a reason to impose sanctions. The Government are firmly committed to promoting and strengthening universal human rights, and holding to account states responsible for the worst violations. Indeed, during the previous Parliament the Government amended the Criminal Finances Act 2017 to allow law enforcement agencies to use civil recovery powers to recover the proceeds of human rights abuses or violations, wherever they take place, where the property is held in the UK. We also have powers to exclude from the UK individuals whose presence is not conducive to the public good, and we operate a watch list system to support this.

We know that innocent individuals and organisations can sometimes be inadvertently affected by sanctions. We hear reports of this, for example, from humanitarian organisations delivering assistance in countries subject to sanctions. We will do everything we can to minimise these unintended consequences. We will publish guidance to make UK sanctions regimes as clear as possible to the individuals and companies affected. We will have more flexibility to issue general licences to humanitarian organisations in order to cut bureaucracy and make it much easier for them to continue operating in the most difficult of circumstances.

The Bill will be published in due course, and the response to the consultation will come out soon. I urge the House to appreciate that as we look across the world and see the dangers of terrorism and misconduct of all sorts, having an effective sanctions regime is absolutely crucial to our foreign policy and to making the world a better place. Replicating a sanctions policy once we have left the EU is absolutely essential. If we did not do that, the world would be a poorer place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Exiting the European Union and Sanctions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hannah Bardell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend to a cause that is gathering strength among Members on both sides of the House. Everybody understands that a truly global Britain must be properly supported and financed. We have a world-class network of 278 embassies and legations across the world. We have the best foreign service in the world, but it needs proper financing and support.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

T4. The Foreign Secretary has spoken in the past about his ardent opposition to female genital mutilation. Will he therefore have a word with the Home Secretary, who is yet to respond to me and my constituent Lola Ilesanmi? She is threatened with deportation and her child faces mutilation. I raised her case with the Prime Minister but have yet to receive an answer.

[Boris Johnson]

I think I heard the hon. Lady raise this matter before. The case of her constituent is, indeed, very troubling. I am sure that the Home Secretary will have picked up what the hon. Lady has said today.