Wagner Group: Sanctions Regime

Debate between James Cartlidge and David Lammy

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on reports that the UK Government assisted Wagner Group head Yevgeny Prigozhin in circumventing the UK sanctions regime.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)]

The war in Ukraine, as we all agree, is a barbaric, illegal incursion into a sovereign nation by another. It has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, mass displacement and an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe.

We will always stand up for our friends and allies, and we are proud to have led the world’s response, in partnership with our allies, in supporting Ukraine in its fight against Putin’s aggression. We will deliver tanks to roll back any Russian advance, we continue providing aid to help Ukrainians as they defend their homeland, and we have unveiled the most stringent sanctions on any country at any time in our history. We want to use economic sanctions to starve Putin’s war machine and put direct pressure on every individual involved in the decision to go to war and continue to make war on Ukraine.

In response to the question that has been asked today, I should say that it is a long-standing custom that the Government do not comment publicly on individual cases. It would not be appropriate to break that custom, even in a case as serious as this one, in which there is obviously public interest. However, I want to outline the general approach taken to date by the Treasury’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in cases in which persons designated under sanctions seek licences for legal fees, and how that has been followed, and the strong constitutional reasons for that.

Within the sanctions regime broadly, because everyone has a right to legal representation, it is possible for frozen assets to be used to pay for that legal representation. OFSI grants licences to allow sanctioned people to cover their own legal fees, provided that the costs are reasonable. To be absolutely clear, decisions on the issuance of licences for legal fees are largely taken by OFSI officials in line with standard practice. The principles and guidance for assessing these applications are long-standing and have been published for a number of years. Applications are assessed solely on a costs basis.

As the UK is a country with checks and balances, it is right that the relevant court, rather than the Government, should decide the outcome of a case on the substantive merits. However, I can confirm that in the light of recent cases, and related to this question, the Treasury is now considering whether this approach is the right one and whether changes can be made without the Treasury assuming unacceptable legal risk, while ensuring that we adhere to the rule of law. In advance of that, I know that the entire House shares the same goal: to support Ukraine and see all those behind the invasion punished for their complicity. The Government will continue to take a hard line on all those responsible.

[Mr Lammy]

I think the whole House will be shocked at the evasiveness that we have just seen from the Minister, given the seriousness of this case.

For years, the Labour party has been calling for the Government to clean up the London laundromat effectively and stop London homes being used as bitcoins for kleptocrats. For months, the Opposition have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Foreign Office in co-ordinating sanctions against Putin and his inner circle. But yesterday we found out that the Treasury, which was then under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, issued special licences that allowed Yevgeny Prigozhin to circumvent sanctions issued before Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The Government appear to have granted a waiver for a warlord that enabled him to launch a legal attack on a British journalist. This is a perfect example of a SLAPP—a strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to silence critics through financial intimidation.

Prigozhin is one of the most dangerous and notorious members of Putin’s inner circle. The Wagner Group, which he leads, is responsible for appalling atrocities in Ukraine and around the world. If the now Prime Minister’s Treasury had any hand in alleviating pressure on Prigozhin, I am sure every hon. Member would agree that that would be absolutely unconscionable. I ask the Minister to answer these questions for the benefit of the whole House. Did a Minister authorise the granting of a licence or exemption to Prigozhin? When did Ministers become aware of this incident and what actions have they taken? Will the Minister commit today to an independent investigation of this controversy? Will he commit to urgently review the law regarding SLAPP suits so that oligarchs and warmongers cannot bully and harass journalists and critics? When will the Government introduce restrictions on the provision of legal services to Russia, as the European Union already has?

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman: he takes us back to when I stood opposite him in our Ministry of Justice days.

I am not being evasive: I am standing in front of the House of Commons to answer the question. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister, and he is right that my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. I shall explain the process. I am not going to comment on the individual case, but without prejudice to it and talking about the general situation that pertains to how OFSI considers such cases, there is a delegated framework whereby decisions on legal fees for persons designated under all the sanctions regimes are routinely taken by senior civil servants. I want to be clear on that. We are not aware of any case of legal fee decisions under any of the sanctions regimes being taken by a Minister. I want to be clear with the House on that.

The point about SLAPPs is really important. I was at the Ministry of Justice when it was a live issue. It was first raised in a Backbench Business Committee debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), in conjunction with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and I responded to that debate for the Ministry of Justice. Let me set out what we are doing. We have been clear as a Government that SLAPPs represent a clear abuse of the legal system, as they rely on threatening tactics to silence free speech advocates who act in the public interest. That is why it is often called lawfare. We ran a call for evidence on strategic lawsuits against public participation and libel reform from March to May 2022 in light of reports that Russia and its allies might be funding litigation against free speech in the UK. We published our response to the call for evidence on 20 July 2022, having closely analysed 120 responses from media, legal and civil society professionals, and we are committed to tackling SLAPPs.

I can confirm that targeted anti-SLAPP reforms will include a statutory definition of SLAPPs, an early dismissal process and costs protection for SLAPPs cases. The Government have committed to primary legislation to make those reforms a reality as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Cartlidge and David Lammy

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point and has significant experience as a lawyer himself. I can confirm that there is extra resource for the CPS in the spending review, and the Home Office and our Department work closely together on that question and will be looking at what more we can do to improve those processes.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

On 5 October, the Secretary of State said it would take up to 12 months to get the backlog down to pre-pandemic levels. Yet we know now, according to the Ministry of Justice’s own analysis, that the backlog may not return to those levels until 2025. Just this morning, he said it could take up to eight years. Was he mistaken when he said it would only take a year, or has it taken him a little longer to get on top of the Department?

[James Cartlidge]

On the contrary, I can confirm that what my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor actually said was that cases would start to stabilise. They are stabilising now, at around a 60,000 backlog, but we accept that that is still significant. I think what matters to our constituents, though, is not the size of the number of cases outstanding—though that is important—but how long their case is going to take. On timeliness, we are seeing a very significant improvement, because we are working at full capacity. In July, the Crown courts in this country sat more days and disposed of more cases in a single month than at any time since November 2018. We are making significant progress, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the additional investment in the spending review, which will ensure we can go even further.

[Mr Lammy]

I am glad to see the Minister come to the aid of the Secretary of State, but he has not answered whether it is a year, eight years or 2025. The Secretary of State told Sky News today that he did not recognise that there was a workforce crisis in the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor has got to get real. The workforce is beyond crisis: it is in end times. Criminal solicitors and barristers are leaving in droves, cases are up right across the country, they are stalled right across the country and nobody is available to take them. The Criminal Bar Association is threatening to strike. How does the Lord Chancellor expect to reduce the backlog if there is no one available to take on the cases? Holiday time is over. It is time to act, or let the system collapse.

[James Cartlidge]

It is quite extraordinary: 43 minutes ago in Bill Committee, the Labour party voted to keep clogging up our courts with immigration and asylum cases with almost no chance of success. Quite extraordinary. Those cases take up 180 days of court time. That means a High Court judge, and that is precious resource. That is why we are taking that measure. It just proves that when it comes to the backlog in the courts, Labour says one thing and does another.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Debate between James Cartlidge and David Lammy

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed today. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). He asked if he should be welcoming me to my place; I am grateful to him for that. I also welcome him. I know that he performed his role for many years, from 2010 to 2016, but it is good to see him back in his place. I look forward to debating with him.

This is my first opportunity to speak in the role of Courts Minister, so I want to take a moment to put on record my enormous gratitude to all those on the frontline in our court system, including our judiciary, practitioners, all court staff and clerks. They have all put in one hell of a shift during the pandemic to keep justice going in this country. It makes me proud to be British.

The one thing that I would stress, having visited the courts and seen how they have had to adapt, is just how much social distancing rules disrupted the judiciary. The 2-metre social distancing particularly affected juries in the Crown court. It has been very difficult. For that reason, a significant backlog has accumulated and we have been open about that. The key thing is that we have been active in bringing forward positive measures to address that backlog. We provided £250 million of funding during the pandemic, which enabled us to lift the limit on sitting days in the Crown court, and rapidly to roll out technology to keep justice going online during lockdown, which was incredibly important. Of course, we also brought forward our famous Nightingale courts, which have done an amazing job in helping us, particularly with bail cases.

This Bill plays its part in those positive steps to address the backlog. The common thread is streamlining justice: digitising in-person processes where appropriate; removing Cart judicial reviews, which use disproportionate resource; and enabling more triable either-way cases to be sent from the Crown court to the magistrates so that Crown courts have more capacity for dealing with very serious criminal trials, potentially including rape and murder. The Bill will build on the lessons of the pandemic. It streamlines our justice system by digitising a range of procedures so that we bear down on the backlog and at the same time improve the day-to-day experience of our constituents in the court system.

We have had a wide-ranging debate. Inevitably, the focus has been on the measures on judicial review. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, made a wonderful speech, not least when he extolled the glories of English liberty. He said that the judicial review reforms are measured and focused, and I do not think that he would be described as an enemy of the judiciary or someone who supports revolutionary measures. These are sensible, proportionate measures.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), with whom I look forward to debating further, said that these measures weaken quashing orders. I take completely the opposite view. The measures strengthen quashing orders and thereby strengthen judicial review. The best way to prove that is to refer to an important and very real case study, which many hon. Members will remember, particularly those, like me, who served in the last Parliament and represent rural constituencies.

Members may recall the problems caused in 2019 when Natural England decided to revoke general licences for shotguns—shotguns that enabled farmers, landowners and gamekeepers to shoot pest birds. That happened in response to a threatened judicial review. The decision created immediate widespread chaos for licence holders, who were left without the necessary legal certainty as to how they could protect their livestock. I know this because I was on the receiving end of emails about the issue from my constituents, as many other hon. and right hon. Members will have been.

The uncertainty continued for a period of seven weeks, until Natural England was able to issue new licences. It is not for me to speculate about how the judicial review might have proceeded if it had gone right through the court. However, we can refer to the advice that might have been given to Natural England. Had the remedies included in clause 1 of this Bill been available at the time, we can suppose that Natural England might have been more willing to contest a judicial review in the knowledge that, even if the existing licence scheme were found by the court to be unlawful, the court had the ability to act prospectively—that is, to protect past reliance on old licences, which, after all, was made in good faith; farmers using those shotguns would have done so in the belief that they were acting lawfully.

In my view, we should always seek to avoid, where possible and without good reason, acting retrospectively when the person concerned could not possibly have known what the case would be in the future. A remedy of suspension could also have been used, because of course it took three months to bring forward the new licences. If the suspension had been for that sort of period of time, we could have avoided detriment. That is the point. Those who brought the case would still have got their “victory in court”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked about earlier, but the key point is that we would have spared our constituents detriment. That is why these measures are positive. That is why they support a very important principle of judicial review that has not been mentioned, which is better public administration of the law in the best interests of our constituents. As the National Farmers Union said at the time, “People have been left without a legal means to control problem birds. Their inability to protect livestock, crops, wildlife and livelihoods in ways which the law has until now allowed has left them concerned and angry.” Now we would have a way to help them in practice.

Turning to Cart judicial reviews, again there was lots of passionate argument on this very important point of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) made one of the most fundamental points about parliamentary sovereignty where we have to question whether it was the intention of this place to legislate so that appeals would go beyond what is effectively the superior court of appeal within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. We think that was not the case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) made an absolutely brilliant, barnstorming speech. On Friday she took apart Labour’s case for fire and rehire and today she has taken apart its case on Cart JR. She asked the very important question of why immigration should be the exception when so many other jurisdictions of law do not have, with no offence to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), three bites at the cherry. This is a very important point. The idea of having a superior court like the upper tribunal is absolutely consistent with the principles of article 13 of the European convention of human rights, so three bites at the cherry should not be needed to be consistent with that article of human rights. That is a fundamental point and we respect it with our reforms to judicial review.

Turning to the right hon. Member for Tottenham, he said that he was young and naive when he supported remarkably similar measures back in 2004. I think it would be remiss of us not to have two bites at the cherry with regard to Labour’s Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc. ) Act 2004. He may have been young and naive but the Prime Minister was Tony Blair, and he was not young and naive. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government led by Tony Blair thought they should bring forward a Bill like that—because it was some radical assault on the judiciary?

Let us remind ourselves of what that Act did. It contained a provision to remove judicial review from immigration and asylum appeals. That probably sounds a bit familiar. What was the justification? I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) is listening. The justification, as revealed by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee at that time, because he was the Minister concerned, was that only 3.6% of cases were successful. That was the argument that Labour used in 2003 and 2004: does it ring any bells? What was the method? The method was an ouster clause, but not any ordinary ouster clause—not a tightly drawn ouster clause like the one in this Bill—but an ouster clause drafted so widely that in Committee the then Constitutional Affairs Minister admitted that it was the mother of all ouster clauses. Who was the Constitutional Affairs Minister? It was the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Lammy]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his oration, because he was getting into his groove, but I would just say to him that it was dropped—it was never enacted, so poor it was.