Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The short answer is that, if I were my noble friend, I would write to me, and I will pass it on to the appropriate Minister and ensure that it is properly looked at. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, if noble Lords write to me on individual cases, I will ensure that, if neither I nor the appropriate Minister in the Ministry of Defence is dealing with it, it goes to the appropriate Minister to ensure that there is a proper response.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome this Statement and am pleased that the right thing has been done for a significant number of these brave men who supported us in Afghanistan. However, I cannot help but reflect that, had the previous Government had their way, some of them may not have been in a position to take advantage of this because they would have been in Rwanda.

On this specific issue about evidence of employment, on 12 December 2023, in the context of a repeat of a UQ from the other place, I asked the following question, which I will read in short, in the interest of time:

“My Lords, in responding to a question about specific individuals in the other place, the Armed Forces Minister told the House that His Majesty’s Government ‘do not have the employment records of the Afghan special forces’”—


that was a quotation from the Commons Official Report. I went on to say:

“Today, I was informed by a very reliable source that, until at least August 2021, our embassy in Kabul held nominal records for members of CF333 and ATF444, for the purposes of … pay”. —[Official Report, 12/12/23; col. 1817.]

In response, the then Minister undertook to search for these records that he said he had no knowledge existed. When were these records recovered? If these are not the records that have caused this dramatic development in the ability of these reviews to produce the sort of results that we have, where in this Government were the records that justify the refusal of the relocation of these brave men until they were discovered? When were they discovered, and why were they kept back? There could not have been any part of the Government that did not know that they needed to be brought forward to a review that was announced two months later.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his interesting question. On the basis of the information I have and the briefings we have had, I can tell him that the information became available after the start of the review on 1 February 2024. In the context of the weeks and months after that review, that was when the evidence of direct employment records became available. There was a failure of different government systems in different government departments to share information —the digital records were not shared, and different government departments were not talking to each other. I do not have the exact date for when that was discovered, but it was after 1 February. If further information should be made available to my noble friend in consequence of his question, I will write to him and place a copy in the Library.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister and his colleagues for their approach to the Bill and for his remarks at the beginning, which were very welcome. We all have an interest in trying to ensure that the Bill works, so I thank the Minister for his comments about that—and I can reciprocate with regard to how the Government have approached this in trying to enhance and improve the Bill. I appreciate what the Minister said about the amendments in this group, and all the various amendments that have been introduced, as we have heard, in a positive way, in seeking to improve the Bill.

I do not intend to speak at great length about the various amendments. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, for his support of my Amendment 4 and by saying that I very much agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said on his Amendment 63. Essentially, what we are saying here is that the Bill has a lot within it that we appreciate, accept and think are important steps forward—but alongside that, most of us want to see the Bill having some teeth and the Government explaining to us how the various details are laid out, how the measures will be enforced and how we will see the change of culture that we have just heard about.

I will speak specifically to my Amendment 4. Noble Lords will see that, in essence, we are probing what the Government’s intentions are. Clause 1 has four objectives for the registrar. The amendment in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lady Blake seeks to understand whether anything could be gained by inserting a new objective 5. No doubt the Minister will say that objective 4 means the same, which may be why the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not needed. We are suggesting that there needs to be a more proactive statement in the Bill about what the Government are seeking in terms of the information that the registrar collects and how it is then assessed to see whether it should be shared more widely, particularly with the various enforcement bodies.

The objective I am proposing—I will not read it all out—includes in paragraph (b)

“sharing information about any issues of concern regarding companies with relevant public bodies and law enforcement agencies.”

Why would the Government not put that in the Bill? I suspect they will say that objective 4 deals with that, but I think there is a difference between acting proactively and what the Government have in objective 4, which is

“to minimise the extent to which companies and others … carry out unlawful activities”.

I suggest that is not quite strong enough. It is not about minimising the extent; it is about wherever information comes to light with the registrar that something untoward is happening. Surely there should be an obligation on the registrar to share that with the relevant law enforcement bodies. Minimising the extent is not sufficient; we do not do that with any other law—we do not minimise the extent to which violence takes place, for example. That may be the aim, but overall the intention of the law is to stop it. So I suggest that objective 4 could be strengthened.

On Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, the noble Lord can and did speak for himself, but in his proposed new subsection (1B)(b) he is getting at that very point in stating that the registrar must

“share any evidence of unlawful activity it identifies with the relevant law enforcement agency”.

That is exactly the same point I am trying to address in my amendment. It is not about minimising the extent to which it takes place; it is saying that the information should always be shared. Can the Minister outline the Government’s thinking? Is their objective with the registrar that all information that may be of concern should be shared with the relevant law enforcement agencies?

Without wishing to be pedantic about this, can I ask: what is the relevant law enforcement agency with which the registrar should share the information? There is the Serious Fraud Office; there is the City of London Police; there are local police forces; there is HMRC and all sorts of other enforcement bodies. The Government will have given thought to this, but can the Minister explain to the Committee where that information should go and who is responsible for enforcing it? Is there any report back to the registrar? Once the information has been shared, is it then just a matter for the law enforcement body, or does the registrar have an obligation to see where that has got to and what has happened to it? We all know that an issue that frustrates people is not knowing what happens when things are reported and where they have got to. Alongside that, given the significant numbers that the Minister quoted of those that have to register, what are the resource implications for those other bodies in taking that up?

My final point may seem a bit obscure. I am not a great expert on this, but I know from one limited case that I had some experience of that one of the problems was a lack of forensic accountants and the ability to understand what was going on within various company accounts. I was told it was a skill area that is never really talked about. I wonder whether the Government, given their intentions, have given any thought to how they ensure that the necessary skill base is there within police forces and the Serious Fraud Office for crimes that are referred to them to be properly understood and investigated. I am sure that some people are experts in company law and all this, but the problem is that when people say “Follow the money”, sometimes it is pretty difficult to do that. I wonder whether the Minister might say something about how he sees that.

In general, we welcome the Bill and the government amendments before us. I think the amendments that the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Agnew, have tabled make some very important points. I hope that my Amendment 4 also helps the Government explain to the Committee what their intentions are. If the Bill is to mean anything, it has to be properly enforced.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I had not intended to speak on this group, but my noble friend Lord Coaker has drawn my attention to the active verbs in the subsections of Clause 1. I am at a loss to understand why they are used. Why is objective 3

“to minimise the risk of records kept by the registrar creating a false or misleading impression to members of the public”

and not “to prevent companies and others carrying out unlawful activities or facilitating the carrying out of unlawful activities”? It seems odd that the objective is not the complete protection of people who may be duped or defrauded or have their money stolen from them by the devices created here. I appreciate that one cannot guarantee perfection, but it seems to me that by legislating in this fashion we recognise that there will be an element of that, since the objective we set the registrar is only to minimise, not to prevent it altogether.