Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL]

Lord Beith Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. As I said during—

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)]

This is not the moment for a speech.

A privilege amendment was made.

Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022

Lord Beith Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, the instrument before us was laid on Tuesday 19 July 2022, under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments published its 12th report of the 2022-23 Session on Friday 14 October. The committee reported the instrument for two reasons: one for defective drafting and another relating to one of the sanctions regimes to which the amendment applies—the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021. I will address each of these briefly in turn.

First, the JCSI raised concerns about the absence of definitions on sanctions in the new information provisions. It is not satisfied that the drafting of the new regulation clearly achieves the stated policy to limit the functions in question to those imposed under the relevant instrument. We are considering the most appropriate way to address the committee on that point.

The second aspect flagged to us by the committee relates to the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021, which was originally laid in December 2021 to replace the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The replacement regulations were made to reflect the 2020 Burundi elections and the peaceful transfer of power. As noble Lords may recall, the 2021 regulations were debated but they were not approved by resolutions of both Houses within 28 days, and therefore ceased to have effect on 23 January 2022. This was in accordance with Section 55(3) of SAMLA. Having carefully considered the consequences, the FCDO concluded that the 2019 regulations have not been revoked by the 2021 regulations and therefore remain in force. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments accepted this conclusion.

The UK Government continue to monitor developments in Burundi and to keep the sanctions regime under review; we are currently considering a 2022 regulation. We thank the committee for its detailed feedback and continued engagement on the FCDO’s sanctions legislation, which we continue to bring forward at pace. I also take this opportunity to thank those across your Lordships’ House for the continued support for amendments brought forward by His Majesty’s Government to update the sanctions regime throughout this Session.

Sanctions form a key pillar of our foreign policy. It is essential that our sanctions regimes are maintained and updated appropriately, so that we can respond at pace to the activities of malign actors around the world. Indeed, we have recently shown the strength and utility of our sanctions in our response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s crimes against the Ukrainian people.

The legislative instrument that we are debating today updates all our sanctions regimes, including those we are required to implement due to our UN obligations, as well as our autonomous UK regimes. These regulations ensure that crypto asset businesses fall within the scope of financial sanctions reporting requirements, strengthening our ability to respond to emerging threats and evolving global standards.

Specifically, the regulations require crypto asset exchanges and custodian wallet providers to report to the Treasury if they encounter any designated persons in the course of business or if they are holding any frozen assets on behalf of customers who are designated. Crypto asset businesses are also required to report any suspected breaches of financial sanctions.

The regulations also include new powers for public authorities to share financial sanctions information with the Treasury. This change ensures a wide range of persons and organisations, from regulators to local authorities, have a dedicated information-sharing gateway. They will no longer have to rely on gateways that are not sanctions-specific or on the Treasury’s powers to compel information from partners.

We hope that this will give organisations confidence to share information so that the Government can better pursue breaches and uphold the integrity of UK sanctions. These changes are possible thanks to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which amended the sanctions Act in March this year.

The regulations also make changes to our various sanctions regimes to update definitions and clarify intentions. These amendments ensure that the definition of “designated person” is consistent across regulations. They include a correction of the reporting obligations relating to the transfer of funds to a ring-fenced account. They clarify that, within the Libya sanctions regime, it is not a breach of sanctions to credit a frozen account with interest and specify that Treasury licences would be available for the purpose of satisfying prior obligations. They also correct acronyms which were entered incorrectly into the initial regulations or were missing, and update the name of the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia.

These regulations will ensure that our sanctions continue to hold to account corrupt officials, abusers of human rights, and malign actors across the world, and that our UN sanctions regimes remain accurate. To conclude, these amendments mean that our sanctions regimes take account of the most modern financial services and prevent loopholes being exploited in the future. I welcome this opportunity to hear views on these regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to intervene in this debate on the point which the Minister helpfully set out in his opening remarks, one of the two issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. This instrument amends the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 but, according to the legislation.gov.uk website—the definitive source—those regulations were revoked by the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021. Commercial websites on UK legislation also refer to the 2019 regulations having been revoked. That would make today’s proceedings a little odd, because we would be amending something that was no longer law.

However, this is not the case. As the department explained in its memorandum to the Joint Committee, although the revoking SI was debated in 2021, it was not approved by both Houses of Parliament within the required 28 days. Therefore, under the terms of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, as a “made affirmative” instrument, it expired. The Joint Committee agrees with the department’s view that the original regulations have not been revoked and can therefore be amended tonight.

I raise this matter because it is important that affected citizens and businesses, and their lawyers, can establish with clarity what the law is or was at a relevant time. In this instance, the only sources to which you could have turned to find out—not only government but commercial sites—had got it wrong. I raise it as a warning of the pitfalls of complex legislation by statutory instrument—of which we have a lot coming down the track—and the need to be absolutely clear about what is and is not law in force. The committee has written to the hard-working team at the National Archives to ensure that the matter is put right there. The committee’s advisers should be commended for identifying it. It is important that we get these things right.

Not on behalf of the committee in any way, perhaps I could also raise the question that the Minister touched on: what is the Government’s current view of the relevance, purpose and desirability of sanctions against Burundi?

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise if this is Burundi-specific. I would like to address to the Minister a particular point that has been drawn to my attention. He spoke about the economic crime Act and loopholes. Some people from overseas register a company, open a bank account through lawyers and then, when everything is in place, there is a transfer of shares to a party, which rather defeats the object of the exercise. I am sure that the Minister does not wish to go into detail about this today. However, would he care to reflect and pass on to his officials that, in the spirit of the economic crime Act, they might wish to address that situation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today. I will do my best to address the issues that were raised by noble Lords.

Crypto asset exchange providers and custodian wallet providers have been added to the definition of relevant firms in all UK sanctions regulations, and relevant firms must report certain information to the Treasury when encountering a designated person in the course of their business or where they become aware of a breach of financial sanctions regulations. Reporting obligations themselves have not changed.

The instrument that we are debating today strengthens our sanctions in two ways: first, the measure further supports the UK’s technical implementation of recommendation 15 of the Financial Action Task Force standards. It is the international standard-setting body for all anti-money laundering, counterterrorist financing and counterproliferation financing. Recommendation 15 requires the Government to ensure that certain financial sanctions reporting obligations are applied not only to financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses and professions but to virtual assets service providers. These regulations bring crypto asset exchange providers and custodians wallet providers into the scope of those obligations.

The second area in which this strengthens our regime relates to enforcement. The instrument seeks to address the risk of crypto assets being used to breach or circumvent financial sanctions. The definition of “relevant firm” now covers firms that either record holdings of or enable the transfer of crypto assets and are therefore most likely to hold relevant information.

I will address some of the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I felt she made an interesting point about the possibility of the FCA and the NCA sharing the proceeds of fines to build up their capacity, and I will certainly convey that suggestion to my colleague in the other place. I believe the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has doubled in capacity this year, and we have seen that mirrored through the infrastructure we have to counter these forms of crime in the UK.

The noble Baroness gave a very effective plug for her Private Member’s Bill to protect whistleblowers. I will not pretend that I know chapter and verse of her Bill, but it certainly sounds sensible and worthy of serious consideration. I will also pass that to colleagues and do my best to ensure that it is treated with the seriousness it no doubt deserves.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked a couple of questions about Burundi. As he acknowledged, the view—I think it is a consensus—is that the 2019 Burundi sanctions regulations remain in place. On the second point, the issue about guidance online has been brought to the attention of the FCDO. Colleagues in the FCDO are now working with those websites to ensure that the right guidance is available, so I think the point he made has already been registered in the Foreign Office by the relevant department.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, repeated the question put to colleagues in the other place by Stephen Doughty in relation to two firms in particular. Although I do not have the answer for him now, I know that a letter is winging its way across to Stephen Doughty—I am told it will reach him this evening—and addresses the points he raised. I hope that is satisfactory. I will make sure that the noble Lord receives a copy of the letter.

The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, made a number of interesting points. I flag to him that a new combating kleptocracy cell has been set up this year in the National Crime Agency. I hope it will be able to fulfil some of the roles and functions he outlined in his contribution.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

I asked the Minister a general question about Burundi, to which the appropriate section of these regulations relates specifically. Bearing in mind that most countries reduced or ended their sanctions on Burundi earlier this year, what is the current Foreign Office position?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My concern in answering this question is that I never know where the line is drawn. We are not supposed to talk about individual or upcoming sanctions. My understanding is that this has been largely an academic issue—I really hope I am not crossing any lines here—and that, regardless of whether the regulations had been revoked, and we understand that they have not, it would have had no material impact on any company or individual. It is unfortunate and an error, but it has not had any real-world impact. I hope that addresses his question.

Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices (EUC Report)

Lord Beith Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I speak as a member of the Constitution Committee. I welcome the fact that our report is being debated and that it is being debated alongside two excellent reports, which have been equally well presented.

The point made by both committees is that treaties now extend far more into the daily lives of people than many did in the past, particularly when their primary concern in the past was either tariffs or international boundaries of countries other than our own. People who do not know their Ponsonby rule from their CRaG will find their daily lives affected on issues that have been mentioned, such as standards and environmental rules of the kind that appear in many trade agreements.

That is one part of the background. Of course, there are lobby groups that know perfectly well what is involved and are very active when trade negotiations are going on. We are about to lose a much higher degree of systematic parliamentary engagement with and accountability for treaty-making in the areas for which the EU had responsibility, notably trade. The European Parliament carried out that scrutiny vigorously, with a degree of engagement and information not to be found in Westminster’s scrutiny of treaties. That will go, and when it has gone, we will not be able to control our laws in the sense of those other than the Executive controlling our laws. They will be subject to much less democratic control than they were before.

Clearly, treaty-making is a function of the Executive, but they must be an accountable Executive, subject to oversight continuously through the process. One thing that happens when Executives are subject to scrutiny is that the question is asked during the process: will Parliament wear this? Is this something that we can get through or will it be opposed? Will we have to rely on loyalty and the fact that people do not want a general election at the moment to ensure that we get it through? It is at that level that our treaty scrutiny has tended to be, I am afraid.

Governments worry that demanding effective parliamentary scrutiny prevents the Executive doing their job, but that clearly was not the case with the European Commission, which had to accept detailed scrutiny by the European Parliament. It comes strangely from those who thought that the Commission was too powerful to ignore the fact that when we want to create a system here, there is no reason we should not have that level of accountability.

We have argued in our report for a Westminster alternative. Indeed, the process has been going on because existing and newly created committees have started to assume that role. There are some things which a trade scrutiny committee can do itself; there are others which might be better done by a committee which specialises in a particular field. But the committee structure of the two Houses of Parliament really needs to engage with this task.

There is some government recognition in their response of the need for improvement, but the rejection of the presumption of transparency is a mistake. It is not that everything by law would have to be transparent; the working assumption would be that there was transparency, backed, where necessary, by confidential discussion with the committee—which, again, featured in the European Parliament, which must be just as likely to be subject to the pressures around leaking that we worry about here.

If noble Lords want to know what the Government really think, they should look at page 8 of their response, where they make this very generous offer:

“If a third country’s domestic procedures mean it will publish a draft treaty at an earlier stage, then the Government will also look to do similar to ensure that the UK Parliament is not receiving less information than the Parliaments of negotiating partners.


In other words, we might get some information if some other country decides to release it and we then have to. The pointer has to be shifted towards real transparency, with full recognition of the need, which any negotiating body has, for a degree of confidentiality. I think the system in Parliament is capable of accomplishing that and we should give it the opportunity to do so, when these things have such a profound effect on the lives of the people we serve.

Intelligence and Security Committee Report

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, as I said, the Prime Minister is acting within the orders laid down. This is not a formality. The Prime Minister’s approval for the publication is vital. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, it is a statutory requirement within the JSA 2013. A report such as this is reviewed by the relevant senior officials within government before going to the Prime Minister for final approval.

As I said in the repeat of the Urgent Question, the committee is well informed of the process. I shall not comment further on the process, apart from to say that the Prime Minister is considering the report.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, in 10 years on the Intelligence and Security Committee I became familiar with the extreme care that the agencies and the Cabinet Office take when seeking redaction of anything whose publication might imperil national security. Does the Prime Minister want to substitute his own inexperienced judgment at this stage for the judgment of those agencies and the Cabinet Office? Has he some other reason for delaying the report—perhaps something to do with his complicated relationship with President Trump—or does he simply not want anything that might embarrass him to be published at this stage, in which case that is not a provision that the Act makes?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I respect that the noble Lord speaks with insight and experience on this matter, but I am sure that insight and experience lends itself to the fact that the Prime Minister needs to consider the report submitted to him. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, this is a formality. It is enshrined in legislation and he is doing just that. Any other thing is mere speculation.

Hong Kong

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure my noble friend that we continue to impress on both the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities, in the bilateral engagement that we have had, the importance of the principles of the agreement that guaranteed autonomy for Hong Kong. It is something that should be held; it has held thus far. Despite historic pressures, “one country, two systems” has largely held together. It is important that it continues to do so, for the agreement runs until 2047. We hope the rights enshrined in that agreement will also be upheld thereafter.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, what does it say about mainland China’s attitude to the two systems that Hong Kong has a Chief Executive who seems to believe she does not have the autonomy to withdraw the offending Bill entirely and does not even think she has the autonomy to resign?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Chief Executive can speak for herself. From our perspective, the important thing is to ensure that the principles of the Sino-British agreement are upheld and—as I have said and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out—that the rights and obligations under “one country, two systems” are upheld for all citizens.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Beith Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)]

Judging by how the territories have behaved in the past, it seems pretty clear that we would not need to. They would comply, as they are currently doing, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, with all their international requirements—indeed, going further than what is required. I would respectfully suggest that we should be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

We should surely consider very carefully when what seems like a very necessary measure to tackle a great evil confronts a constitutional objection; this is not the way in which such a measure ought to be introduced. There are also qualifications I might make about the potential effectiveness of the public open registers to be imposed on these territories in dealing with the evil being addressed. But there is no question that those who are advancing the case are doing so because they see an urgent need to tackle this evil and see this as likely to help.

However when it comes to a constitutional objection, we have to think carefully. There are two constitutional issues at play: one is that the elected House has made a clear decision, following debates in both Houses, that we should proceed along this road. We have to accept that, as the Government have done. But we cannot do so without reflecting on the impact this will have, and in particular on the constitutional status of the territories concerned. They are, of course, a wide variety of territories, defined in Schedule 6 to the Nationality Act. That includes not just the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda but the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Pitcairn Islands, with about 50 inhabitants. It is not entirely clear how the Minister with responsibility—the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, of course—will deal with the situation as it will affect some of those territories.

That variety also illustrates that there is a range of democratic and other development in this list of territories which includes many at different stages. The territories that have attracted most attention are those which, by and large, have well-embedded constitutional arrangements, introduced by this country, of which a major component is legislative autonomy. The question that we now have to answer is: what do we do about the legislative autonomy that we purport to have given to people, if outside the parameters set when we gave that autonomy we then seek to legislate for them? That question remains unanswered in this process.

When Britain decided what its policy towards former colonies would be, it did not take the French approach. The French approach, in relation to a number of territories, including neighbours of the territories we are talking about today, was to treat them as integral parts of France and give them representation in the National Assembly. We are having this argument and nobody from any of the overseas dependent territories is able to take part in the debate; it is all being done by people who, for different reasons, are aware of them, friendly towards them or simply, in my case, see it as a constitutional issue for them.

We did not take that approach. Are we now saying that the idea of developing them as separate democracies through legislative autonomy is not one that we will pursue any more? We will have to give them some kind of assurance if they are to understand what their constitutional relationship is. Britain is not just a franchise brand that we offer and take away at a moment’s notice. It is a country which has promoted the democratic development of its former colonies and we have to ask whether we can really do that if we insist on legislating for them in areas for which we have given legislative autonomy.

There was a question from the Labour Front Bench a moment ago about what would happen if there was an international standard and one of the territories declined to implement it which, as has been pointed out, has not been their practice up to now. They have implemented all the international standards. However, it is a perfectly legitimate question and the answer is that this is an area in which we have not given legislative autonomy to those territories. We have retained UK responsibility to deal with their international relations and their compliance with international treaties. We would indeed impose, in those circumstances, exactly within the parameters of legislative autonomy that has been given.

I pay tribute to the efforts devoted to this subject by the Minister, which I think are partly motivated by the fact that he has to deal with the consequences. He is the person who is responsible for our relations with these territories. But how can we reassert the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and those territories to which it has given legislative autonomy in the context presented by the decision that the House of Commons has taken?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I am a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Gibraltar, which, apart from one brief mention by the Minister, has not been so far commented on. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I wondered, as between the United Kingdom and many of the overseas territories, where the mote and the beam lay. I will not pursue that any further, but I think that it may be where the noble Lord may not appreciate that it is.

Gibraltar is entirely compliant with all the current requirements. It is bringing a public register into its law early next year. It is unnecessary, unhelpful and inappropriate that Gibraltar should be held under the clause proposed in Amendment 22. It is not an appropriate way in which to deal, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, have already said, with a country that has had its own constitution since 2006 and is entirely compliant. It is sad to find that countries such as Gibraltar should be under a proposed regime that would interfere with its constitution, as has already been set out.

It is obvious that what should have happened—it seems to me that the Minister was making it very clear—is that there should be encouragement to those countries that are not yet sufficiently compliant. However, that does not apply to any of the countries that have so far been referred to. It is very sad indeed that the way in which the other place has behaved on this matter brings us to this unhappy situation, pointed out so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I see the beguiling simplicity of the noble Baroness’s amendment, and after the powerful speech she made in moving it and the graphic examples she gave, I find myself carried along on an emotional tide. But the House needs to be aware of some of the unintended consequences that may flow from this if we are inclined to accept it.

The amendment refers to the Companies House regulatory scheme as being the standard to which we should aspire. Companies House is a recipient of information; its interrogation is pretty limited. Noble Lords may be inclined to look in detail at the amendment and say, “Yes, but this is a higher standard because we are dealing with the section on persons with significant control”. As is shown in the register of your Lordships’ House, I am a person with significant control of a company, and I have never been asked anything at all about my entry. I hope—I intend—that it is accurate, but nobody at Companies House has ever approached me to say, “Is this correct?”; it is just accepted. There is therefore a danger that the seductive idea of a public register means that it is somehow better verified than the situation we now have. That is my first concern about the amendment.

The second relates to a point made by other noble Lords. If you raise the standards or increase exposure and transparency in one area, you merely drive business to another corner of the world. My noble friend Lord Naseby referred to Singapore and Hong Kong but there are other places a great deal less attractive to which business might be driven. As I understand it, each of the overseas territories has already established a proper register of beneficial owners of companies which can be interrogated at all times by our law enforcement agencies. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley referred to the fact that the efficacy of that regime is to be tested in a review which will be put before Parliament in the next couple of years. Really, the question at issue is whether there should be public access to that register. Those are the words that make the difference, but in my view in the present situation that will have little practical effect. At present, our law enforcers can interrogate the register. If the public are also able to access it, the result might be that it will drive people to areas of the world where we cannot have even a vestigial chance of enforcing the proper levels of law.

Like my noble friend Lord Flight, I absolutely understand the purpose behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, but in my view the best should not be the enemy of the good.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I am not wholly persuaded by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, although I am entirely persuaded by her argument that we have to address the grotesque abuses which, for example, came to light in the Panama papers and which involve, among other things, use of the secrecy of jurisdictions and the weakness of law enforcement.

We have to remind ourselves that the primary purpose of the work begun under the UK coalition Government in this area was that law enforcement and tax authorities should be able to gain access to reliable registers in real time. That objective is increasingly being satisfied in relation to the Crown dependencies, which are not the subject of this amendment, and in a number of the overseas territories. That is the primary objective. A strong case can be made for having public, open registers but it has to be recognised that that policy is not accepted in a great many substantial jurisdictions and that business will flow to some of those jurisdictions, including perfectly legitimate business that has nothing to do with the nefarious objectives described by the noble Baroness.

The only way to make a reality of open registers is through some form of international agreement, which would of course also change the constitutional position in relation to the overseas territories because the UK has responsibility for their external relations. However, from a practical point of view, the campaign for greater transparency seems to need to concentrate on securing some kind of international agreement which will drag all but the few most disreputable jurisdictions into agreement.

As it stands, the amendment risks undermining a process which seeks rather more to respect the constitutional development of our overseas territories. Unlike France and indeed even the Netherlands, the United Kingdom does not treat overseas territories as part of the home country—it does not treat them like local authorities in our country. Occasionally, overseas territories have asked to be treated in that way and have been vigorously denied that alternative. We seek to carry out constitutional and democratic development in overseas territories and to encourage a high degree of legislative autonomy that retains certain responsibilities, particularly for compliance with international agreements. I think that I prefer that model. If we can better achieve the objectives which the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has rightly set out without reverting to a more colonial model of dealing with overseas territories, that will be a preferable route.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Beith Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

My Lords, I support Amendment 76, to which my name is attached. It would amend Clause 45, which lays out the “Parliamentary procedure for regulations”. The amendment gives substance to the recommendation in the eighth report of the Constitution Select Committee which, at the end of paragraph 6, said:

“If it is the Government’s intention that it would, in practice, liaise with the devolved administrations prior to the exercise of this power, such a requirement could be written into the Bill”.


The Government have argued that this power reflects a reciprocity with that which enables Welsh or Scottish Ministers to amend Acts of Parliament. However, reciprocity can be said to operate only where one is comparing similar powers; this is not the case here. Welsh and Scottish legislation can authorise devolved Ministers to amend UK legislation only within devolved competence, whereas UK legislation can authorise UK Ministers to amend enactments of the devolved legislatures irrespective of devolved competence.

I believe this to be a common-sense amendment, one that seeks the consent of the devolved nations before amending any Act passed by the Scottish Parliament and any legislation passed by the Assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland. Dare I say it, consultation with the devolved nations may save the Government from further embarrassments such as the fiasco with the DUP that we witnessed, open-mouthed, just last week.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I add to my noble friend’s wise reference to the Constitution Committee the fact that the committee also pointed out that there is ample precedent for the sort of amendment that is being discussed here. For example, certain statutory instruments made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the Public Bodies Act 2011 have comparable provisions, and there seems no reason why the committee’s advice should not be taken in this case.

[Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment is a useful reminder that the Brexit process needs to reflect the devolved nature of the United Kingdom. I take this opportunity of looking at this amendment to make certain observations more broadly and, indeed, to go back to the previous group where the Minister referred to a UK property register. He will be aware—and if he is not aware, he will no doubt be told by those sitting beside him—that the United Kingdom property register covers the whole United Kingdom via three separate registers. Indeed, two of those registers come from jurisdictions which voted by a majority to remain in the EU. Plainly the Minister does not intend to give ammunition to those who wish to withdraw from the UK. This Bill, and this part, are aimed at enabling withdrawal from the EU. That is one objective. There is a body of people who will find ground for complaint in more or less anything that in some way does not take account of the separate nature of various bits of the United Kingdom. With that small warning, I commend this amendment, and leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification, which is very helpful.

[Lord Beith]

My Lords, I am bound, which will be no surprise to my noble friend or to the Labour Front Bench, to express some reservation about conclusions that might be drawn from this amendment but which were perhaps not intended in the way in which it is framed. In doing so, I am speaking purely about the Crown dependencies and not about the overseas territories. My interest in the Crown dependencies is minor, and recorded in the register, but my real interest is having been involved in the production of reports which helped to set the framework for the relationship between the Crown dependencies and the United Kingdom. My thanks go particularly to my noble friend Lord McNally, when he was the Minister responsible, for implementing those reports.

It is partly a matter of tone and partly a matter of phraseology, but our relationship with the Crown dependencies recognises that these are democratic jurisdictions that are fully open to media scrutiny—not just local media, but national and international media as well. They have both legislative and administrative autonomy to a significant degree. In the case of their legislative autonomy, it is recognised by this Parliament that it is for the authorities in the Crown dependencies to pass their own legislation. However, the process by which they secure Royal Assent for it, involving the Privy Council, is one that gives Ministers a full opportunity to raise any issues they might need to raise that touch on UK Ministers’ responsibility for the international relations of Crown dependencies. That responsibility is exercised by Ministers who will look at legislation in that light.

What we discouraged at the time I was chairman of the Justice Committee is Ministers merely marking the homework of Crown dependencies, and saying, “If we were legislating in this way about dogs, or whatever, we would not phrase the legislation like this”—a wholly time-wasting and pointless exercise. But where a UK responsibility arises, as it does in the case of international treaties, for example, it is entirely appropriate that Ministers seek to ensure that there is proper compliance on the part of dependencies. Of course, the autonomy that dependencies enjoy also applies to the administration and enforcement of law; that administration is something for which they are democratically accountable and is open to any scrutiny and international criticism that media and non-governmental organisations can produce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Does the noble Lord not acknowledge that not all overseas territories are compliant in terms of public registers, which this Government have said is a necessary prerequisite, or thing to have, to ensure increased public confidence? Does he not think that that is something we should expect from all our territories?

[Lord Beith]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. At the beginning of my remarks, I said that I was referring specifically to the Crown dependencies and not to the overseas territories, on which a different speech might have to be made. I would also have to say that registers of ownership are only as good as the quality of the information contained in them. The decision of Crown dependencies not to have publicly open registers but to have registers fully open to law enforcement and tax authorities, so long as those registers are of a high quality, is what is most important. It can reasonably be argued—and was argued with a noble Lord with responsibilities in this area during our previous debate—that the registers now in existence in the dependencies are actually better enforced than that of Companies House.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord aware that, for the first time, the European Union has published a list of those countries that are countries “of note” in respect of money laundering? It is sad to say that, of those, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man appear, which is a matter of concern.

[Lord Beith]

The noble Lord bears out my point. The process of challenging anything found to be unsatisfactory is one to which the dependencies are open. That may come from European Union sources or non-governmental organisations, but these are open and democratic societies, in which those challenges can be made. The UK Government have responsibilities and have the means of exercising them already at their disposal.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, these exchanges show some of the dilemma of dealing with this issue. I ask a fairly simple question when I look at these things. Why should a financial services organisation decide to base itself on some microdot in the Caribbean to provide its services? Once you ask that question, you begin to wonder whether it is to avoid the kind of rigour and inspection that they get in more well-established centres. As I said in my earlier intervention, I worked for three years with the Crown dependencies, ably aided by the Minister, in his then capacity as a Whip. I made two points. One, which I mentioned earlier, was my advice to them to make sure they answered the various questions put to them with full candour and transparency. I pay tribute to the Justice Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend, who put forward a range of suggestions. Another point was that the British Government should get their act in better order. Sometimes, the job was to make sure that, when getting this dealt with, Whitehall departments were sufficiently accessible and aware of the particular status of the Crown dependencies.

During those three years of experience, I was impressed by the qualities of the Civil Service and the representatives of the Crown dependencies in dealing with these issues. That does not take away the fact that they, and we, have to face the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, it is our reputation that is at stake. I had nothing to do with the overseas territories, but there is a qualitative difference which needs to be looked at between their standards of supervision of financial services and those of the Crown dependencies. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the Isle of Man and Jersey. I hope they are both addressing what it is that has landed them on that list. That is something for their processes, because this is damaging to them, although there may be other jurisdictions within the EU which could not bear too close examination.

This is in our national interest. It is not us playing the neo-colonial or trying to order them about. We are defending our national interest when jurisdictions are seen as British Overseas Territories. When I had to learn that very peculiar lesson, the first thing I was told was that we joined them; they did not join us. The difference in constitutional relationship is because they were part of the Duchy of Normandy that conquered us. Nevertheless, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have to understand that their meeting the highest standards is going to be a legitimate interest of the British Parliament and British Government, in defence of Britain’s reputation.

Palestine and Israel

Lord Beith Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (b), at the end of the Question to add,

‘, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution.’

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on bringing this debate to the House. I also pay tribute to the extraordinary and very moving speech by the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), which, as I think we all appreciated, was a very difficult speech to make.

As the House will note, the amendment has wide, cross-party support. Its purpose is very simple. It is based on the belief that the recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel will add to the pressure for a negotiated two-state solution, and may help to bring that prospect a little closer to fruition.

The “Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” was promulgated at the end of April 2003 under the auspices of the Quartet—the UN, EU, US and Russia. Though, palpably, much of the progress presaged by the road map has been confounded by events, crucially, by the road map the Government of Israel were signed up to there being a separate and independent state of Palestine. One part of the road map anticipated that Quartet members, which include the UK, could

“promote international recognition of a Palestinian state, including possible UN membership”

as a transitional measure, well before any final status agreement. The Government of Israel disagree. They claim that recognition of Palestine as a state should be at the conclusion of any successful peace negotiations. But such an approach would give the Government of Israel a veto, even over whether such a state should exist.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve by his amendment, but how does he think the passing of the motion would encourage either Hamas or the Israelis to change their approach to negotiation, which has been so unfruitful so far?

[Mr Straw]

It is the Palestinian Authority that is part of the negotiations, not Hamas. I believe that the fact of the Israelis’ intemperate reaction to the very prospect of the House passing this resolution is proof that it will make a difference. The only thing that the Israeli Government understand, under the present demeanour of Binyamin Netanyahu, is pressure. What the House will be doing this evening will be to add to the pressure on the Government of Israel. That is why they are so worried about this resolution passing. Were it just a gesture, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) implied, they would not be bothered at all. They are very worried indeed because they know that it will have an effect.

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I do not have a faith, but I represent the constituency of Slough which, according to a recent survey, is the most religiously observant place in the country. I respect faith because when I am campaigning for human rights and justice, I am often standing beside people who are there because they are motivated by their religious belief. Because I am motivated by human rights, I am glad that this debate uses the language of international human rights instruments that connects freedom of religion with freedom of conscience.

In the United Kingdom, we believe that we are a human rights society, and we talk a lot about the responsibilities that human rights bring with them. In my view, one of those responsibilities is ensuring that other people enjoy the same rights that we do. That is at the heart of this debate. In her excellent introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) pointed out that one of the most difficult things about human rights is the point at which people’s human rights conflict. That is a challenge for all of us, and our debate about human rights in Britain has been insufficiently aware of the need to think through issues of conflicts of rights. Unless we do that, we will fail to guarantee everyone’s human rights effectively.

We think of the UK as a country of religious freedoms, but I have been concerned about the way in which people who seek to exercise their freedom of religion have sometimes suggested that that gives them the right to deny other people’s rights—most obviously when people seeking to run a bed and breakfast have felt that their Christian faith gives them the right to refuse to let a room to people who are homosexual. Many people who think they support the right to freedom of religion too often want that right to be a privilege for their religion, rather than someone else’s. That happens around the world. In some countries, it is manifested in the dress laws. In Saudi Arabia, people like me have to cover up. In France, my Sikh constituents are not expected to wear their turbans in public places and my Muslim constituents would not be allowed to wear the niqab or the hijab. I find both those approaches equally unacceptable.

We have heard in this debate that the issue is much more serious than matters of dress. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about the Ahmadi massacre. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) talked about the evil organ harvesting of Falun Gong. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the complete failure of freedom of conscience and belief in North Korea, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) talked about the issues facing Christians and Muslims in Africa. All these forms of discrimination are ones that I have taken up on behalf of constituents.

At the moment, I am particularly concerned by the elections in India. Narendra Modi is likely to be elected, but in 2002 he did nothing to prevent a pogrom of Muslims in Gujarat. But in 1984 his opposition, the Congress party, was equally responsible for the Delhi massacre of Sikhs. That is why I make the point about the importance of not privileging one religion, and the need to recognise the human right to freedom of conscience and belief. It is also why I was glad to join the Ahmadi Muslims in Slough last week at their 10th peace conference. I was equally glad to parade with the Sikhs in Slough during their Vaisakhi celebrations at the weekend. Those are all expressions of the beliefs and joys of faith. As British politicians, we do not have the right to tell other countries how they are run, but we have an absolute responsibility to ensure that countries that claim to be democratic uphold basic standards of international human rights. I believe we have a duty to point out where countries fail to do that.

Our country does not always get it right. I was very pleased to support Hardeep Singh, someone living very close to my constituency, in his libel case against a so-called Sikh saint. In the judgment on the case, the judge quoted the decision of Munby:

“Religion … is not the business of government or of the secular courts. So the starting point of the law is an essentially agnostic view of religious beliefs and a tolerant indulgence to religious and cultural diversity.”

I believe we should engender that

“tolerant indulgence to religious and cultural diversity”

all around the world.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I hope the hon. Lady is not arguing that it is impossible to have complete religious freedom in states in which a particular religion has a kind of legal status that it has built up historically. That was the case in, for example, Lutheran Scandinavian countries, which are exemplars of practising freedom of religion and supporting it throughout the world.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The right hon. Gentleman is in many ways right. We have a state religion in this country, too. Our Queen is the defender of the faith in the Church of England. We have a model that shows it is possible. Pakistan would claim to be a Muslim country, but it should be able to tolerate those who call themselves Muslims but whom mainstream Muslims do not accept are Muslims, and it should be able to tolerate Christians who want the right to practise their belief. It seems to me that this debate is fundamentally a debate about human rights. It is fundamentally a debate about our responsibility to protect the rights of others, including those with whom we fundamentally disagree. That is the message we should be giving to such states to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

We have failed to educate people in Britain about the nature of a human right. We have failed to tell people that the responsibilities that come with human rights are the responsibilities to protect the rights of others. We have allowed our red top newspapers to lie about there being a human right to pornography in prison or a human right to Kentucky Fried Chicken for a burglar stuck on a roof. All those are lies. The truth is that after the second world war, the world came together and devised instruments, such as the United Nations declaration, the European convention on human rights and the asylum convention, which all relate to our duty to protect the human rights of other people. One of the fundamental rights is the right to respect for one’s beliefs, even when they are wrong.

That is the message that should come from this debate. We should take the responsibility ourselves, after this debate, to challenge the ignorance about all human rights that I am afraid too many Members have winked at for too long. Unless we challenge that, we are making space for the kind of evil denial of the human right to freedom of thought and religion that we are debating today.