Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Grand Committee

91A: After Clause 187, insert the following new Clause—
“Sanctions enforcement: monetary penalties
(1) In section 143 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 (interpretation), in subsection (4) (meaning of “financial sanctions legislation”), in paragraph (f)—(a) the words from “contains” to the end become sub-paragraph (i);(b) at the end of that sub-paragraph insert—“;(ii) makes supplemental provision (within the meaning of section 1(6) of that Act) in connection with any prohibition or requirement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i).”(2) The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is amended as follows.(3) In section 17 (enforcement), in subsection (9), in paragraph (a), after “(2)” insert “or makes supplemental provision in connection with any such prohibition or requirement”.(4) After section 17 insert—“17A Enforcement: monetary penalties(1) The provision that may be made by virtue of section 17(2) (enforcement of prohibitions or requirements) includes provision authorising a prescribed person to impose a monetary penalty on another person if satisfied, to the prescribed standard of proof, that the other person has breached a prohibition, or failed to comply with a requirement, that is imposed by or under regulations.(2) Regulations authorising the Treasury to impose a monetary penalty in respect of a breach or failure for which the Treasury could impose a monetary penalty under Part 8 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 may not be made unless the regulations also make provision of the kind mentioned in section 17(9) to disapply Part 8 of that Act in respect of that breach or failure.(3) Regulations authorising the imposition of a monetary penalty may make provision that, in determining for the purposes of the regulations whether a person has breached a prohibition, or failed to comply with a requirement, any requirement relating to the person’s knowledge or intention is to be ignored. (4) Regulations authorising the imposition of a monetary penalty must provide that—(a) a person is not liable to such a penalty in respect of conduct amounting to an offence if—(i) proceedings have been brought against the person for that offence in respect of that conduct and the proceedings are ongoing, or(ii) the person has been convicted of that offence in respect of that conduct, and(b) no proceedings may be brought against a person in respect of conduct amounting to an offence if the person has been given such a penalty under the regulations in respect of that conduct.(5) Where regulations authorising the imposition of a monetary penalty authorise a prescribed person to determine the amount of the penalty, the regulations must provide for a maximum penalty.(6) The maximum penalty may be a prescribed sum of any amount or may be calculated in accordance with the regulations.(7) In this section—“conduct” means an act or omission;“regulations” mean regulations under section 1.””Member’s explanatory statement
This clause makes it clear that Treasury can impose monetary penalties under the Policing and Crime Act 2017 for breaches of provisions that are supplemental to financial sanctions and that regulations made under section 1 of SAMLA 2018 can include provision conferring power to impose monetary penalties.

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

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 91A in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

The Government take the enforcement of their sanctions regimes seriously. Ensuring that we have a firm basis for enforcement action is especially important given the unprecedented sanctions measures that we have implemented in response to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine last year.

There are various methods to enforce UK sanctions, one of which is the imposition of civil monetary penalties, also known as CMPs, which are fines levied by the Government for breaches of sanctions. CMPs do not require a criminal prosecution and involve far less cost to the justice system than criminal prosecutions. To date, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which is known as OFSI and is part of His Majesty’s Treasury, has levied nine CMPs totalling more than £20 million since it was set up in 2016. The UK Government’s ability to impose CMPs is likely to factor in the calculations of those seeking to breach sanctions for financial gain.

This amendment is part of the Government’s work to strengthen enforcement across our UK sanctions regimes. The new clause will amend the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—SAMLA—to provide express provision in relation to the imposition of CMPs. New Section 17A of SAMLA clarifies and reinforces the broad enforcement powers contained in Section 17 of SAMLA, that:

“Regulations may make provision … for the enforcement of any prohibitions or requirements imposed by regulations”.


The amendment also strengthens the basis for CMPs to be imposed by the Treasury under the Policing and Crime Act 2017 for offences that are supplemental to financial sanctions. Again, this is a clarificatory amendment. While criminal and civil enforcement options are already in place, this measure provides clarity on the Treasury’s power to impose a CMP for such offences. The amendment also provides for the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to be disapplied where the Treasury has the power under both sanctions regulations and the Policing and Crime Act to impose CMPs in respect of prohibitions or requirements.

Of course, putting these powers on a firmer footing is worth while only if we invest the necessary resources to make use of them. In the recent Integrated Review Refresh, the Prime Minister announced a new £50 million economic deterrence initiative which will improve our sanctions implementation and enforcement. This will maximise the impact of our trade, transport and financial sanctions, including by cracking down on sanctions evasion. It will also be used to prepare the Government for future scenarios where the UK may need to deter or respond to hostile acts.

I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, there has been a change of Minister since we discussed this matter last week when we had a curtain-raiser on Amendment 85, which I moved in Grand Committee. It is always good to see the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in his place; indeed, he had to answer the debate initiated in this Room last week by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. He also had to answer the question about how sanctions can be used to deter autocrats and flag British values against the values of authoritarian regimes; we discussed that issue at some length. As one would expect, the noble Lord gave a competent and welcome reply.

I notice, however, that the Minister’s noble friend Lord Johnson is sitting alongside him—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will add some brief comments. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I would like to understand whether this is adequate in terms of the opportunity that we now have. We know that if we miss this opportunity now, the risk is that it will not come round again for a long time. As we have heard, the situation is desperate and there have been enormous failings. I ask the Minister who will monitor the success of this and, assuming that the amendment is agreed, whether we will have an opportunity in future to understand whether it is having the desired impact.

The point has been well made: looking at other countries and other collections of companies around the globe that are grappling with this issue, are we missing a trick? Is there more that we could do at this stage? Context is everything. We have heard about the gaps that exist and the fact that too many people are getting away with not fully complying with the sanctions. We as a country need to take that very seriously. I would appreciate the Minister’s response to those questions, for clarification.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short exchange. I will start by addressing some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who, as I have said many times—we seem to find ourselves in the same debates—is an indefatigable champion for human rights and has shone the light so often on abuses in China, Hong Kong and beyond. It is worth putting that on the record again. I am afraid that I cannot tell him what was raised in discussions between the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and representatives of the CCPIT. I do not have that record, but I will try to uncover an answer for him in due course; I know that my colleagues will have taken a note of his question.

The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, are right to point to the scale of this amendment. A new package is not being introduced; that is not what this amendment is about. That is not to say that changes are not required or that no more can be done with the tools that have been assembled by the Government, not least through SAMLA, but this amendment is just a tidying-up exercise; it is about removing ambiguity. It will not answer the calls that we have heard from speakers in this debate, but it is not designed to. We have the tools that we need. As I mentioned, we now have SAMLA and the ability to tailor a specific sanctions regime using secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right that we should focus on using those tools to the maximum effect. There are plenty of places, organisations and people who perhaps ought to be on the sharp end of that sanctions regime. I cannot go into detail—I do not think that any Minister can or would—about any potential future sanctions, not least because doing so and highlighting them now would reduce their impact, but we are always looking to update the—

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Will he look again at a proposal that a number of us have put before the House at various times for some degree of parliamentary oversight of the so-called Magnitsky sanctions? At the moment, they are opaque. Often, they seem very random and arbitrary: some are chosen and some are not. There may be good reasons for that. I recognise that we cannot sit in an open committee and discuss these things but, in camera, there is no reason at all why a Joint Committee of both Houses or one of our senior Select Committees, such as the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, which is charged with looking at issues of genocide, for instance, should not be able to look at the details of sanctions and how and why they are imposed. I do not expect a straightforward reply from the Minister now, but will he give an assurance that he will look again at the way in which this regime is determined?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. I cannot answer it, because it is not an area over which I have any direct responsibility, as he can probably tell. However, it would be beneficial somehow to design a mechanism which would allow greater oversight. I do not know what that would look like, because there are risks associated with it. If the targets of any particular sanctions regime became aware in advance, we know what would happen. It is not an easy problem to solve, but in principle what the noble Lord has just said makes a lot of sense. If there is a way of doing so and injecting a bit more transparency—but not too much, for all the obvious reasons—I would certainly support that.

It is also worth saying that sanctions are just one tool that we have. For example, in relation to Hong Kong, as noble Lords know, we opened the doors of this country to a very large number from Hong Kong who were looking for safety and a home, where their fundamental rights would be respected. We created a bespoke immigration channel and suspended the UK- Hong Kong extradition treaty indefinitely. We extended the arms embargo that has applied to mainland China since 1989 to include Hong Kong—and so on. This is one tool in our arsenal; it is not the only tool.

I make one further point in relation to something raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the distinction between freezing and seizing. While I cannot provide him with a detailed answer—that is going to have to come from another Minister—I can tell him that the Government are sympathetic to proposals to use frozen funds to assist in the reconstruction of Ukraine following the bombardment that it has received from Vladimir Putin. The Government are actively looking at options continually to improve transparency around those assets that are held by—

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Just for clarification, the Minister said that there was an intention to use frozen funds for the reconstruction of Ukraine. I fully support that idea, but is it legal without a seizure?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I have said that there are “proposals”. It is something that has been proposed, but I am not sure that I can use the word “intention”. If there is a way in which those frozen assets can be used to rebuild Ukraine, it is something that the UK Government will look very seriously at—but it is not something that the UK alone will be doing.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

To make the necessary legislation, the Government would need a Bill in which to do it, and this would seem to be the Bill that is tailor made to have those discussions. Could the Minister encourage colleagues to use this Bill as the medium by which the seizure process may be made legal?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, but I do not know what the legislative mechanism would look like to make that possible. I am afraid that it is something that I am going to have to—

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for giving way. I realise that he is in a somewhat difficult position, but I add my encouragement to him to discuss with colleagues the possible amendments that we have laid—

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

Yes, Amendment 85 would allow seizure of assets with a view, one hopes, eventually to being able to use them to reconstruct Ukraine in this case, but for other purposes as well. It would be an ideal way to pave the way for this to happen.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a similar point. It is not for me to determine the legislative or other route for achieving the possibility of using those frozen assets. It is something that I know that the Government are looking at and are sympathetic to, but I cannot go into any further details, because it is not an area where I have any particular expertise or authority. But I know that the Government are looking closely at the possibilities of doing so and recognise that there is a huge value in doing so, if we can.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I shall not intervene again on this, but I am extremely grateful to the Minister. To return to the point that the Minister’s noble friend Lady Altmann has just made, to those who took part in the debate on Amendment 85 last week, which would do some of things that he has just described, it was suggested that we might have a chance to meet the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, again before Report. It would be helpful if the Minister could at least in principle assure us that such a meeting will take place with those who participated in that debate last week. Other noble Lords and noble Baronesses, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, could be invited as well—those who are interested and are Members of the Committee—to see whether we can build on Amendment 85 to do some of the things that I was very pleased to hear the Minister just say that the Government are keen to do.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

As the noble Lord knows, I have not had an opportunity to consult my noble friend Lord Sharpe, but I am delighted to volunteer him for such a meeting—I am sure he will be very happy.

I will move on briefly to the question about who will monitor—I am so sorry; I cannot remember who made the point. The answer is that a government department is responsible for that, so if it is a financial sanction, HMT will be responsible for ensuring that it is working and successful, and if it is transport, it will be the Department for Transport, and so on.

This is a small but important change to ensure that we have a firm basis for enforcement action. It will provide greater clarity and reinforce those enforcement powers by making them explicit, removing ambiguity. The amendment should also demonstrate that the UK Government take their sanctions enforcement responsibilities seriously, and we will continue to intensify our enforcement of those sanctions. I hope that noble Lords will support it.

Amendment 91A agreed.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I will make some progress and give way in a moment.

This is why I am laying this order to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety and crack down on several other terror organisations. Subject to the will of Parliament, this order will make membership of any part of Hezbollah a criminal offence in the UK. It will give police the power to tackle those who fly its gun-emblazoned flag on our streets, inflaming community tensions. It will give us more power to disrupt the activity of an organisation who are committed to armed combat, who violently oppose the Israeli people, who destabilised a fragile middle east, who helped to prolong the brutal Syrian conflict, and whose attacks have reached into Europe. We will not hesitate to proscribe groups where they pose a terrorist threat.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I strongly support the decision that my right hon. Friend has taken. The statement that I have seen from the Opposition makes a distinction between the political and military wings of Hezbollah and demands proof that the so-called political wing falls foul of proscription criteria. Will he confirm that Hezbollah itself makes no such distinction, which is entirely plastic and artificial? They are one and the same.

[Sajid Javid]

I shall come to my hon. Friend’s important point in a moment. It is fair to say that Hezbollah itself laughs at that distinction—it mocks it. It does not understand why some countries continue to make this artificial distinction. My hon. Friend has raised an important point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. When he raised it before, he heard a clear “get on with it” message from the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box. I repeat that, and I am more than happy to offer to meet him and anyone relevant to discuss the matter.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Hon. Members will know from today’s papers that there has been yet another stabbing in London—this time in Kew in my constituency. I am pleased to say that the victim is now expected to make a full recovery and I thank the local police for their full and rapid response. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge, please, that increased crime in the capital is a source of huge anxiety? Will he reassure my constituents not only that getting to grips with it is a top Government priority, but that he is doing everything he can to work with both the Met and the Mayor of London on a co-ordinated and full response?

[Mr Hurd]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, because it is one of the biggest public safety challenges that we face as a city and as a country. I am meeting the Mayor later this evening to discuss this in person. My hon. Friend wants more resources: an additional £100 million of investment is going into the Met police this year and the proposed funding settlement will see an additional £172 million of public money going in to support the Met. That is alongside all the other work that we are doing on the Offensive Weapons Bill, stop-and-search and everything else that he wants to see. I cannot think of a higher priority for the Department at this moment.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

It is often said and has been said today, particularly by strong remainers, that we cannot possibly know why each of the 17.4 million or so people voted for Brexit. That is obvious, because there are any number of reasons why people voted leave, but we can be confident that few of them did so in the hope that we would end up with a deal like the one we are debating today. In a legalistic sense, the withdrawal agreement removes us from the EU, but for all intents and purposes its effect is to bind us to the rules of the EU while removing our ability to influence those rules.

I will not focus specifically on the transition period today, although it is certainly true that the EU is given vast, possibly unprecedented, powers over the UK during that time, and that is uncomfortable, but it could well be necessary. The issue is with what happens afterwards. It is also possible that, during the transition period, we will be able to agree a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU and, as a consequence, we may be able to avoid the backstop, but that seems incredibly unlikely. The backstop effectively keeps us in the customs union and it subjects us to EU rules, with no UK say at all in framing those rules.

We have heard today from numerous speakers that the backstop would divide Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK and would prevent us from striking meaningful new free trade agreements with other countries. The Attorney General gave a magnificent performance in Parliament a couple of days ago, in which he described the backstop in three words: undesirable, unattractive and unsatisfactory.

But the biggest concern about the backstop is that we cannot leave it without the permission of the EU, which is not disputed. The question, then, is what incentive there is for the EU to negotiate in good faith. What would stop the backstop becoming a trap, by becoming the long-term basis for the UK-EU relationship? Given that any EU country could veto our departure from the backstop, the likelihood of being stuck in the backstop is surely very high indeed. We would have to wait until each and every EU country had its fill before agreeing finally to let us out. Yes, we could leave the backstop, as we have heard again and again, if we could prove that the EU is not acting in good faith, but what on earth does that even mean in practical terms?

The withdrawal agreement has united leavers and remainers in an extraordinary manner. I shared a platform a few weeks ago with the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), my constituency neighbour, and it was the first time in two years that we have agreed on something relating to the EU.

We have known for some time that this deal has virtually no chance of making it through Parliament. We know that it jeopardises the Conservative party’s relationship with the DUP, which is critical to keeping the Government going. So it is odd that the Government continue so vehemently to flog what is so obviously a dead horse.

I do not agree that the choice is between this deal, no deal and no Brexit, and I do not agree with those people who gleefully hold up this deal as proof somehow that Brexit is impossible or a fantasy. All it really proves is that those in charge of conducting the negotiations have not succeeded. Mostly they have not succeeded because they are miserable about the referendum result and have treated the exercise as disaster management. They set out to look at all the risks of Brexit—of course there are risks in such a transition—but they have failed to look for the opportunities as well.

We are one of the biggest economies in the world. We are geographically well placed to continue playing a big role in world affairs. Our language is the global language. Our judiciary is trusted. Despite all the rubbish that is happening at the moment, our democracy remains the envy of the world. Our legal system provides more certainty and clarity than pretty much anywhere else in the world. And people want to live, work and raise families here.

Had we never joined the EU in the first place, does anyone honestly believe that it would not be biting off our hand to agree a comprehensive free trade agreement today? Of course it would. There is still time to pursue the option that Brussels was always expecting, and that makes the most sense for the world’s fifth largest economy: the foundation of a comprehensive free trade agreement based on mutual respect and mutual recognition.

There are many in this House who share my views about the deal but whose answer is to press for a second referendum, which would be madness. There was a consensus at the time of the referendum that the outcome would be honoured. Solemn promises from the Prime Minister were echoed on both sides of the House.

We all remember some people brashly saying that it did not matter how people voted because the EU would never let us out anyway. I remember those people being dismissed as if they were lunatics, but that did happen in Denmark, France and the Netherlands, and I think it happened twice in Ireland. I was one of the people who dismissed those concerns as conspiracy theories. How extraordinary and how depressing that there is now a real chance those people could have been right all along.

I understand that some people remain mortified by the outcome of the vote, and of course this place is filled with extremely clever people who could potentially find a clever way of stopping Brexit one way or another, but it would demonstrate a remarkable lack of wisdom. A failure to honour the referendum would surely cause an irreparable breakdown in the relationship between the people and the authorities. It would usher in a new era of extreme politics.

There is no reason why the UK should be immune to the trends that are plaguing almost every other country in Europe: in France, where Le Pen leads in the polls; in Germany, where the Alternative für Deutschland, founded in only 2013, is now the second biggest party; in Austria, where the Freedom party is part of the Government; and in Italy, Spain, Sweden, Greece and so on.

If the gut fear that so many people have, the feeling that the political elite simply cannot be trusted, is utterly and completely confirmed, where will those mainstream voters go? It is madness. It could possibly, potentially, perhaps be justified if something truly seismic had happened, but it has not. Millions of pounds have been poured into a campaign to undermine the referendum and make people fear every aspect of Brexit, but the polls have barely moved; they are still within the margin of error. I believe the Government are going to lose this vote next week, and I am afraid to say that I hope they lose it. Then, either this Prime Minister or, if she will not do it, another Prime Minister must take this deal back to the EU and change it.

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

It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who I know prizes the environment highly, although he did not mention it in his speech, perhaps because it might not have gone along with his argument today, as he is a leaver.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. She is right to say that I did not mention it, but I have given three lengthy speeches about why Brexit, if done properly, would be a boon—a great thing—for the environment.

[Catherine West]

I beg to disagree, but I will mention the environment later in my short speech, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman.

I wanted to start by talking about the language we have been using in recent days. The particular term that has caused a lot of concern in my constituency is “queue jumpers”, and I was pleased to hear that the Prime Minister apologised for that in the House the day before yesterday. We know that so many EU citizens in my constituency have been worried by that term. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I share the London Borough of Haringey, where 42,000 EU citizens are resident. They are friends, colleagues, NHS workers and neighbours, and they are a valued part of our diverse community. It is important that we in this House do not forget the importance of having that respectful debate, despite our differences of opinion and views.

Obviously, the economy has to be mentioned in relation to this deal, because many have warned about the danger of this deal. In particular, we know that the Governor of the Bank of England has said that all of the assessments identify significant negative outcomes for the economy, resulting in hard-working families facing food price hikes of 10%, businesses facing increased friction when trading and the country as a whole facing yet another recession. I find it difficult to believe that anybody could vote for a deal that could lead to another recession, given that we have not really recovered from the one in 2008, following the global financial crash.

Equally, we have no firm or clear commitments on participation in Europol and Eurojust, and several concerns about security arrangements, which have been highlighted by not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), but others. We know that human trafficking, international crime, drug smuggling, terrorism and illegal immigration are all issues that are tackled most effectively through deep and integrated international co-operation, which is, logically, done in particular with our closest neighbours.

On geopolitics, just a few weeks ago we marked the centenary of the armistice. It is not stretching things too far to bring that into this debate and say just how moving it was to see the German President lay a wreath at the Cenotaph. It was a reminder of the importance of internationalism, and the specific role the EU has played in maintaining peace across the continent and promoting that ideal worldwide. We speak about NATO, defence and security over and over again in this Chamber, but we all know that it is the people-to-people contact, the country-to-country contact, the Erasmus students and the internationalism that underpins that security and makes that relationship meaningful. At a time when the liberal order is once again under threat, with the rise of an expansionist Russia, a volatile American foreign policy and the far right once again on the march on the streets of Europe, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned, now is not the time to distance ourselves from our European friends.

It is abundantly clear that this deal cannot command a majority in this House, for the reasons I have set out, as well as others. Likewise, we all know that the destination of no deal will not be accepted by a majority of hon. Members. It is pleasing to see so many Members, regardless of which side of the EU referendum debate they are on, say today that no deal would be an act of vandalism. So where does that leave us? Like many Members from both sides of the House, I have continued to make the case for a second vote. The hon. Member for Richmond Park is quite right to say that we must respect the referendum result and must not be patronising about why people voted the way they did. In the same way, once the democracy switch is flicked, the only way to unflick it is to flick it off.

Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made a valuable contribution. If someone needs a hip replacement, they go to see the surgeon, and in consenting to the operation they know exactly what they are getting. A second meaningful vote for people would really help us Members of Parliament to make the decision. It would be completely different if we had a Parliament in which there was an overwhelming majority and it was clear as a bell, but given that the result was so close in June 2016 and that we are living through such unusual times in the House of Commons, it is important that the people assist us to make this crucial decision.

I welcome the fact that the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the shadow Brexit Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), have said that a second vote has not been taken off the table. I look forward to progress on that position.

On multiple occasions, the Prime Minister has refused to consider the option of a second referendum, on the basis that the decision was made in 2016, but nothing ever stands still in politics. As we go forward and see that each week we are losing £500 million from our economy, it is important to be a little more decisive and provide the opportunity, quite quickly, to have a second vote. We can then put the issue to bed and focus on other key issues, including the NHS, schools funding and universal credit—all the things that we know our constituents want us to get a wriggle on with.

I recognise the result of the referendum. As mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), I have serious concerns about the way Vote Leave ran the campaign. I should emphasise that the illegitimate use of social media, which the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is now looking into, along with the questionable use of political donations and the question marks over whether some of the funds used may have come from abroad, are all crucial to our democracy. Each time we have a democratic exercise, we learn more from it. It is crucial that if we ask the public a further question on this issue, we get it right, maintain a positive tone and ensure that we have the best standards of democracy. I look forward to hearing other contributions and hope that we eventually get that second vote.

Proscription of Hezbollah

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joan Ryan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which I take as 100% support for the motion.

I am the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, an organisation that has campaigned for many years on the issue that we are addressing. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, driven by anti-Semitic ideology, which seeks the destruction of Israel. It has wreaked death and destruction throughout the middle east, aiding and abetting the Assad regime’s butchery in Syria and helping to drive Iran’s expansionism throughout the region. It makes no distinction between its political and military wings, and nor should the British Government.

In 2010, the Obama Administration labelled Hezbollah

“the most technically capable terrorist group in the world”.

Over the past three decades, it has been implicated in a string of deadly attacks against Israeli, Jewish and western targets in the middle east and far beyond. Its operatives have been arrested for plotting or carrying out attacks across the globe, in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. The litany of death and violence widely attributed to Hezbollah includes the 1983 murder in Beirut of 241 American and 58 French peacekeepers; the 1986 wave of bombings against Jewish communal targets in Paris, in which 13 people died; the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, in which 29 people died; the 1994 bombing of the Argentine-Jewish mutual association, which led to the deaths of 85 people; the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in which 19 US servicemen lost their lives and nearly 500 people were injured; and the 2012 attack on a bus of Israeli tourists in the Bulgarian resort of Burgas, in which six people were murdered and for which two people finally went on trial last week.

Such terrorist acts are promoted, glorified and encouraged by the Hezbollah leadership. Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, has, for instance, praised suicide bombings—or “martyrdom operations”, as he prefers to describe them—as

“legitimate, honourable, legal, humanitarian and ethical actions”

saying that “those who love death” will triumph over those who fear it.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the 1,000 or so people who marched in London under the Hezbollah flag subscribe to the very agenda that she has described? There is no difference between the military and political wings of Hezbollah, as it continually acknowledges. The only recognition of a difference is in UK policy; it does not exist in reality. It is time for that policy to change.

[Joan Ryan]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for that intervention. He is completely right to say that there is no distinction and we need to be clear about that.

Hezbollah’s actions are driven by a deep-seated, intractable and vicious hatred of Jews. The House does not need to take my word for it; Hezbollah’s leaders have proudly boasted of their anti-Semitism:

“If they all gather in Israel,”

declared Nasrallah,

“it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

Nor is Nasrallah a lone voice. Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s deputy leader, has said that

“the history of Jews has proven that, regardless of the Zionist proposal, they are people who are evil in their ideas”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

We have heard in the past that proscribing Hezbollah might somehow destabilise Lebanon and the wider region, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that by engaging in this pretence and indulging a terrorist organisation we are destabilising the many moderates in Lebanon who are determined to marginalise the terrorists, marginalise the extremists and marginalise Hezbollah?

[Ian Austin]

The hon. Gentleman is right about that. It is a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North made when she opened the debate and that was made eloquently by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

It is unacceptable to see Hezbollah’s flag waved on the streets of Britain, and it is disgusting to hear the virulently racist abuse and racist chants that accompany it. So I agree with many of the comments that have been made today, but I want to focus on three particular issues.

First I want to talk about Hezbollah’s role in the middle east and its impact on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. We have debated that many times in this House, but we should be under absolutely no illusion about the difficult issues that will need to be confronted in the negotiations—borders, land swaps, the status of Jerusalem, settlements and so on. Let us be really honest about this; none of those issues remotely interest Hezbollah. It is not interested in the compromises that all sides will need to make to bring about a two-state solution. Its sole interest is the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah has made that absolutely clear. It declared in 1992 that the war is on

“until Israel ceases to exist and the last Jew in the world has been eliminated. Israel is completely evil and must be erased from the face of the Earth.”

That is why, when Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah’s response was not peace but the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and an avalanche of rocket attacks just six years later. It is why, today, Hezbollah, thanks to its Iranian paymasters, threatens Israel by pointing 120,000 to 140,000 rockets at the country.

In October, Hassan Nasrallah, in just one of the Hezbollah leader’s many threats, urged Jews to flee Israel before it is devastated by war. Last February, he warned that there would be “no red lines” in any future conflict between the terror group and Israel. In April, he boasted of his organisation’s preparedness for war, and in June he spoke of the “hundreds of thousands” of Shi’a fighters from across the middle east who would rush to Hezbollah’s side when it next takes the fight to the Jewish state.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great privilege to follow so many excellent contributions from all parts of the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for securing this extremely important debate and for her very powerful opening speech.

Hezbollah is a radical Shi’a Islamist terrorist organisation founded in Iran soon after the 1979 revolution. It is an anti-Semitic organisation that carries out acts of international terrorism. It should be proscribed in its entirety. Instead, the UK accepts the spurious distinction between Hezbollah’s political and military wings, banning the military wing but permitting the so-called political wing to operate. As hon. Members have pointed out, Hezbollah itself does not accept this distinction. In 2012, its deputy secretary General, Naim Qassem, said very explicitly:

“We don’t have a military wing and a political one; we don’t have Hezbollah on one hand and the resistance party on the other.”

The evidence that Hezbollah engages in terrorism and engenders hate is overwhelming. Hezbollah was behind the bombing of the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994, killing 85 people. It has murdered people—Jews, Christians, Muslims and others—in places such as Nigeria, Thailand, Bulgaria and Cyprus. It is complicit with the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Operating with Assad and Iran, it is part of the “axis of resistance” that seeks to confront Sunni power, western influence and Israel. It is a malign influence.

Hezbollah specifically promotes anti-Semitism. Al-Manar, Hezbollah TV, was the first media outlet to make the false claim that 4,000 Jews or Israelis did not go to work in the World Trade Centre on 9/11, allegedly on the basis of advice from Mossad. This lie has now become a widespread anti-Semitic libel. Hezbollah’s message incites violence. Esther Webman, who has studied Hezbollah’s anti-Semitic motifs, has concluded that Hezbollah’s brand of anti-Semitism is typical of contemporary violent Islamist groups. She describes it as

“combining traditional Islamic perceptions with Western anti-Semitic terminology and motifs to express its opposition to Zionism. Zionism, in turn, is equated not only with the State of Israel but also with imperialism and with Western arrogance.”

This issue has very serious implications for us in the UK. At the annual al-Quds march in London last June, Hezbollah’s green and yellow flag—the same flag displayed in military operations—was put on show. The purpose of the march and of al-Quds day itself is to agitate for violent resistance and the destruction of the state of Israel. At the centre of the flag, the largest Arabic word in green reads “Hezbollah”, out of which emerges a globe with an upraised arm grasping an assault rifle. The letter A of Allah is linked to the upraised arm grasping the assault rifle, signifying the ideological legitimisation of Hezbollah’s armed resistance as being divinely sanctioned. That message is clear, menacing and extremely powerful. The menacing chants at the march on the streets of London this year included the heinous cry:

“Zionists/ISIS are the same.

Only difference is the name.”

[Zac Goldsmith]

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech. It is also worth pointing out that the march was led by the director of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, who, during his speech, blamed the Grenfell Tower tragedy on the Zionists. As we all know, the word “Zionists” is a euphemism for Jews. The whole enterprise was just entirely bonkers, as well as being anti-Semitic.

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I will refer to the Grenfell Tower disaster in a moment.

All this is inciting violence, hatred and division on the streets of the UK. This is happening as anti-Semitic offences in this country reach record levels, as shown in the recent Community Security Trust report. There are many other disturbing recent examples of incitement to hatred, and I will now mention the important point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Tahra Ahmed, a volunteer running a network helping the survivors of the Grenfell fire tragedy has claimed that the 71 people who perished were

“burnt…in a Jewish sacrifice”.

That is horrendous—horrendous incitement to hatred.

On the march at that al-Quds event, some marchers held flags with small stickers attached to them stating:

“I support the political wing of Hezbollah”.

This was designed to give the marchers protection against any legal challenge—pretending that the political wing of Hezbollah is somehow a separate entity. This is a farce. The flags indicate military might, and their display incites hatred on our streets and division in our communities.

I recently went to see the Metropolitan police to express my great concern about expressions of hatred on our streets, specifically in relation to the al-Quds march, but also in relation to other recent events. I asked the police why they were not taking any action against this incitement to hatred. It was clear from the discussions that ensued that a key factor in the police’s failure to act was that Hezbollah’s political wing is not illegal, and neither is displaying the flag.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will make two points to my hon. Friend. First, when briefings are prepared, they tend to focus on the narrow issue of the debate, but let me be clear that we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. Secondly, with regard to peace going forward, we have to be careful about closing off diplomatic channels. For example, I was interested to read the comments made by former Prime Minister Tony Blair about Hamas only a few months ago. He was talking about the boycott of Hamas after the Palestinian elections of 2006 and said:

“In retrospect I think we should have, right at the very beginning, tried to pull”

Hamas

“into a dialogue and shifted their positions. I think that’s where I would be in retrospect.”

While I do not for a moment underplay the terrible violent acts, we should be careful about our maintenance of engagement in these difficult conflicts around the world.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of when not proscribing the whole of Hezbollah has in any way facilitated a move towards peace—just one example?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

To ask about what would have happened had the whole organisation been proscribed is clearly counterfactual. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is entirely hypothetical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

With all due respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. I visited Lebanon in June last year to meet the Government, the Lebanese armed forces and other agencies, including the United Nations, to discuss the future of Lebanon and the United Kingdom assistance to it. I disagree with that view about engaging with the Lebanese Government and what barriers could or could not be removed to that.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I have a simple question: does the Minister believe that the United States has any difficulty engaging in dialogue with Lebanon, given that it has taken the view, as the House has clearly done today, that both parts of Hezbollah are one and the same—that there is no division?

[Mr Wallace]

The United States finds it harder to engage with Lebanon than does the United Kingdom. I visited the United States embassy when I was in Beirut and spent time at the memorial to the US Marines killed there. The United States does not take these things lightly. It does what it can in Lebanon to secure it as a strong state. It has proscribed Hezbollah in its entirety for some time. As we heard from Opposition Members, that has not prevented Hezbollah from growing exponentially—it has not been a silver bullet and it has not stopped Hezbollah behaving as it has. That is why I made the point earlier that proscription is only one tool in dealing with terrorism, hatred and incitement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

On the hon. Lady’s first point, it is not acceptable if the police or CPS do not take action when there are offences that would allow them to do so. It is not always that they are not able; it may be a choice that they have made, either because of resources—we can debate that—or perhaps because they have found that, for the public good, they could do something about it later. I stood on the Falls Road for many months of my life watching paramilitary flags go past. When I was a soldier on those streets, we had the power to do something, but, perhaps for the good of the public order, the view was that we should not do anything about it. I do not know about the individual motives of the people on the march the hon. Lady mentions or of the police on that day, but it is not the case that they do not have the power to do something. This House has given them the powers, year on year, over many decades, to take action.

I think that we all feel, especially in this social media age, in which we are often inundated by hate and intimidation, whether on Twitter or in emails, that there is a broader debate about how we can deal with and prosecute hate and extremism in this country. Unfortunately, from my point of view it seems to be on an upward rather than downward curve among some groups of people in society.

Political parties of all colours need to send very strong messages to supporters, allies or over-excited individuals who seek to take our parties’ names and use them alongside hatred, anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobic comment. All that is unacceptable. We should not forget though that we need to encourage our police and CPS to take action and to set an example with regard to some of these plans. As I have said, the Government continue to exercise proscription power in a proportionate manner in accordance with the law, and we will continue to monitor groups and people of concern.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power to the Home Secretary to proscribe the organisation if she believes that it is concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that

“an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in an act of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

If the test is met, the Secretary of State must then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, she is also guided by the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities, the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom, the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas, the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her powers to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. For an individual to be proscribed, the police and Crown Prosecution Service must have evidence to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt that the context and manner for which the flag is displayed, for example, aroused reasonable suspicion that the individual is specifically a member, or a supporter, of that proscribed group and elements of a wider group.

Peaceful protest is a vital part of our democratic society. It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views, however uncomfortable or repugnant those can be to the majority of us, but they must do so within the law. There is of course a balance to be struck. Protesters’ rights need to be balanced with the rights of others to go about their business without fear of intimidation or serious disruption to the community. Rights to peaceful protest do not extend to violent or threatening behaviour, and the police have powers to deal with as many such acts, as I have said.

The management of protest is of course a matter left to the police. As I said earlier, the investigation and prosecution of all criminal offences is a matter for the CPS and the police. I will happily push to the organisations —the police and the CPS—the messages that I have heard from the House today to make sure that they step up their efforts in this area.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. The Government have their reasons—I cannot understand them, but they have their reasons—for not wanting to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety. Will he not accept that maintaining this pretence that there is a division between the two branches of Hezbollah reflects very badly on this place and very badly on the Government? It looks like weakness and it is embarrassing.

[Mr Wallace]

I hear what my hon. Friend is saying. There are lots of reasons, but perhaps I can offer the House one reason. Members may not agree with it, but it is one that I felt at first hand when I was in Lebanon on behalf of the Government. We believe that the best way to weaken Hezbollah in the region and further afield is to have a strong state of Lebanon. The stronger the state of Lebanon, which represents multi-faith groups, has a democracy and Speakers of Parliament and recognises the individual religious minorities in the country, the weaker Hezbollah will be. It is not in our interests to have a weak, fractured Lebanon.

We should not forget that Hezbollah’s birth and strengths started in the civil war of Lebanon, when Lebanese were killing Lebanese, Druze were killing Muslims, and Muslims were killing Christians. We think that the way to ensure that Hezbollah is contained and persuaded to follow the course of peace—I listened to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) who may or may not believe this and many of us may agree with him—is to have a strong state of Lebanon. That is in our interests.

The British Government assist with aid, help to train the Lebanese army, so that it can defend the state, and encourage Ministers of all faiths in that Government who believe in Lebanon, rather than in a non-military actor or an overburdened group of one minority or another. That is one logical reason why I believe we have to take some of these difficult decisions and find a balance.

When one visits Lebanon and meets the Ministers struggling to survive in a rough neighbourhood, trying to build a nation state and living with a shadow over their shoulder, as we have discussed, one realises that their best defence is a strong and capable state of Lebanon, with all its safeguards and its constitution. They would be worse off, the region would be worse off and we would be worse off if that state was weakened by a fractious civil war.

Police Funding: London

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Some stations and counters have very low levels of usage, so the case can be made for closing them. However, does the hon. Lady agree that if that process continues, which it almost certainly will, we will need to do something about the shocking levels of underservice by the 101 system? I have constituents who no longer bother to report crime because they do not get an answer when they call 101.

[Catherine West]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The debate is similar to the one about hospital closures: we want community-based services, but once hospitals are closed, it is easy to close those services without people noticing. The same rule applies to the 101 service.

Many people feel less safe in London. Figures from the Met suggest a 5% rise in crime overall between 2015-16 and 2016-17.

EU Nationals in the UK

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I was not expecting to see you in the Chair now, Mr Speaker; it is a treat, and a great honour for me.

We have debated an extremely important issue today: the legal status of EU nationals following the EU referendum just under a fortnight ago and the decision by the British people to leave the EU. The people we are talking about—the 3 million EU nationals—are our friends. They are our colleagues, the people we work with, the people whose children are at school with our children, and we recognise that they are people and they have lives and they do need to have certainty as soon as possible. But it is also clear that once we leave the EU there is a whole range of issues that will need to be addressed, one of which is the status of British nationals elsewhere in the EU and the status of EU nationals here.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Karen Bradley]

I am afraid I will not give way as I have very limited time and I do want to make sure there is time for the next debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, those are the consequences of the decision to leave the EU. It is not something we have shied away from; we were clear in advance of the referendum that it was an issue. The Prime Minister has also made it clear that decisions on issues relating to the UK’s exit from the EU will need to be made by a new Prime Minister.

Having listened to this debate today, there are three key points I want to make and on which we can all strongly agree. First, there is absolutely no question of EU nationals’ status or circumstances changing while the UK remains a member of the EU. I have heard Members’ contributions and the concerns of EU nationals about their status, including EU nationals in my constituency.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend has not been in the debate and I need to make sure there is time for the next debate.

Let me be clear: EU nationals can live, work and study here in the UK under the existing arrangements. They are able to be accompanied, or joined by, family members, and after five years’ lawful residence they automatically acquire and benefit from a permanent right of residence in the UK. Once they have resided here for six years, they are also eligible to apply for citizenship. I know all will agree that it is vital that we make this clear and provide reassurance in our constituency surgeries and wherever else we are asked this question. May I also ask that we do not use this for party political point scoring? We should not be frightening people. They have a right to remain, and after five years’ lawful residence they automatically acquire and benefit from a permanent right of residence in the UK.

We are an open and welcoming nation and we do not want to create an air of uncertainty, but this is complicated and wider than just the right to live here, and as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, it is about the rights acquired under the EU treaties. This is a complicated point and it will take time to address.

This brings me to my second point. Hate crime of any kind must be confronted and tackled. It has absolutely no place in our society. I have been appalled to hear about some of the incidents that have taken place in the last couple of weeks, and I am clear that nobody should be made to feel unwelcome in the country they call their home. I encourage all victims of hate crime to report it to the police, either at a police station, by phoning the 101 hotline or online through the True Vision website.

As I made clear in my statement to the House last week, we are taking steps to boost the reporting of hate crime and support victims, and we are providing a new fund for protective security measures at potentially vulnerable institutions and also offering additional funding to community organisations so they can tackle hate crime.

Our country is a strong multicultural and diverse nation. The rich coexistence of people of different backgrounds, faiths and ethnicities makes it the thriving and successful country it is. This is something we must treasure and strive to protect, and we must not allow those who seek to promote hatred and division in our communities to succeed.

Finally, I am pleased to note that we all agree that steps must be taken to guarantee the legal status of EU nationals, as the motion says, “with urgency”. This House feels strongly about this issue and that is testament to the invaluable contribution made by EU nationals to the UK economy and our communities. This is welcome and to be embraced now and in the future.

[Zac Goldsmith]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is making some strong points about the rise of racist incidents over the last few weeks, but it is important to emphasise that there is absolutely no prospect at all of any Government of any party repatriating European migrants who are living and working in this country. I beg the Government to provide the reassurance that millions of people are looking for—if not today, then soon. It really is a very simple point.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record and the Minister is welcome to reply if she wishes and not if she does not.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

May I first welcome the statement that the hon. Gentleman made? It is important that he has made that statement in this House, and that message should go out across the whole country.

We do look at staffing across not just airports, but sea ports and—obviously, in relation to St Pancras—railway stations as well. We are constantly looking at the appropriate staffing and at the measures in place to maintain security, which we of course review on an ongoing basis.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of increased funding for our intelligence services, which do a magnificent job, and also of the protection of our counter-terror funding. In the light of the appalling events in Paris and the heightened risk in London, may I echo the calls for sufficient funding to ensure comprehensive neighbourhood policing in London, which is a crucial tool in tackling home-grown terror?

[Mrs May]

Obviously, the funding that will be made available to individual police forces and the policing budget in general will be made known after the spending review and the allocation, which will be made a few weeks later. I assure my hon. Friend that in looking at all these matters, we of course look at the capabilities required by our police. In looking at counter-terrorism work, we look across the board at the capabilities that are required to ensure that we can maintain our national security.

Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. In a sense, this inquiry is like no other before it in terms of the subject matter it is dealing with, and it must obviously maintain the confidence of survivors. Information and communication will be an important issue for the inquiry panel, and I certainly intend that to be addressed by the chairman at an early stage.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her obvious commitment to getting this inquiry right. People are concerned that there has not been enough co-ordination between the different police investigations around the country—that comes up time and again. In her statement she mentioned Simon Bailey’s work in charge of Operation Hydrant. As she said, his job is to follow up any lead that the inquiry uncovers, and to be responsible for recording all referrals from the inquiry that relate to criminal abuse. Will she reassure the House that Simon Bailey’s job will involve ensuring proper co-ordination between those inquiries, and that there is not just a liaison with the inquiry but between the various police outfits that are already up and running?

[Mrs May]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. At an earlier stage, Chief Constable Simon Bailey raised with me his concern to ensure that investigations are properly joined up between police forces, and that information that might be helpful to an investigation in one force is not held by another force and not passed on. Part of his work in Operation Hydrant will be to co-ordinate all child sexual abuse investigations that concern people of public prominence or institutional settings, and he will also consider the responses from police forces to the inquiry to ensure that they are of suitable quality.

Historical Child Sex Abuse

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

We have heard two interesting speeches, one of them particularly emotional, which is understandable. Anyone who has worked, as I have, for some considerable time in this area will have great difficulty not getting emotional about it. One needs only to hear the stories.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) appeared to start from the 1970s, so I would refer him to a period before that. A film appeared on BBC2—it is still available—called “Hunting Britain’s Paedophiles”. It was produced by a man called Bob Long, who followed the Metropolitan police paedophile unit, tracking a gang that had run its own institution of dance studios and the like since 1959. Members of that gang were finally put away earlier this century. They used manuals and induced the kids, and the number of children involved over 40 or 50 years would have been vast. However, that was the start of a real rethink, resulting in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which brought grooming into the picture. At that stage, and still to a degree, this country was ahead of anywhere else in the world on that particular aspect of dealing with this problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was involved in that as a Minister, and many of us worked in the background. He talked about the high-profile cases. I am bothered that in concentrating on those cases, we may be missing thousands—and there will be thousands—of children elsewhere who have been abused over many years by gangs. We have got to be broad, and the advantage of dealing with the high-profile cases is that it makes it absolutely sure that it will appear in the media and in people’s minds, which has a positive effect.

Coming right back to the title of today’s debate, I find it interesting that so soon after the commencement of this historical child sex abuse inquiry, today’s debate is looking at progress. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary bravely anticipates an initial report before Christmas. In addition, the Home Office says that it does not expect a full report before the next election.

It is worth looking at the Northern Ireland Assembly, which set up a similar inquiry into child sexual abuse in Northern Ireland’s institutions. The population of Northern Ireland is much less than here, the number of institutions is much smaller and the terms of reference much narrower—perhaps, after recent accusations, too narrow. The inquiry commenced in January 2012. I have not followed its progress carefully but I understand that the first part, interviewing witnesses behind closed doors, will be complete by Christmas. Educated guesses are that the report for this much smaller inquiry will come out in 2016, 2017 or later.

We need to decide whether we want a speedy inquiry that comes forward with possibly predictable things that we already have and with no depth, or exactly the opposite, in which case the inquiry will go on for years. Our inquiry is much broader, potentially involving vast numbers of institutions and others. Many of these will wish to hide, and are capable of hiding, past sexual abuse. We will not catch them all; we will not get to the bottom of it all; but we might get enough from those we look at to bring about some dramatic changes to build on what has already happened.

I first became interested in legislation relating to protecting children from abuse and enabling the better prosecution of abusers, particularly child sex abusers, many years ago. My interest resulted from the shock of a day spent with the Metropolitan police paedophile unit, which would completely shake anyone, unless they had the tendencies. At that time, it was the leading unit in the country and probably still is, alongside the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. CEOP and the Met unit work in the same area of protection, but act differently: one can arrest, the other cannot.

At the time, the head of the Met unit was DCI Bob McLachlan—a very tough character. His unit was small, especially in comparison with the current Met unit, but it had a much broader geographical link, look and vista, including overseas, than one would expect for a Met unit.

Years ago, I asked Bob McLachlan how many active paedophiles he and his team thought there were in this country. He said that, in about the year 2000, he and his team had undertaken an exercise on just that subject, and had estimated that there were 230,000 active paedophiles—enough, he said, for there to be one in every street in the country. He also said that 20% of those paedophiles were women, and that half of them—that is, 10%—were women who actively took part in the abuse, sometimes of their own accord rather than being goaded. In those days it was hard to prosecute female abusers because juries would not believe that females were capable of abuse, but cases that have arisen over the last few years have proved that they are. Predominantly, they seem to act in institutions, but we should be very aware that that is not always the case. Given the huge progress of the internet and the “dark web”, there must have been a large increase in the number of paedophiles since 2000. Bob’s figure of 230,000 was a guesstimate.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a fascinating but also very depressing speech. Does he share my concern about sentencing? A high-profile figure in my community was found in possession of 50,000 of the most extreme images imaginable. He went to jail, but came out after nine months, and received no rehabilitation of any sort. It is inconceivable that he does not now pose a threat to children in my community, and there are probably 200 or 300 people like him on my patch alone.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Law Officers in the present Government have chased many of these individuals, and they have a list. However, what we need is an inquiry—conducted by the Attorney-General rather than the Home Office—into the sentences imposed, compared with those that are available.

My hon. Friend spoke of 50,000 indecent images. Judging by many cases that I have looked into, 50,000 is a drop in the ocean. Some of these individuals have hundreds of thousands of images, which may run into the millions. What they do with them is beyond me, but they have them, and we have changed the law so that we can now have access to them. They may not be accessible because they have been encrypted, but another recent change in the law, which I initiated, means that these individuals can be sent to jail for failing to allow the encryption to be broken.

I did not ask Bob, the policeman, for a definition of “paedophile”. Perhaps I should have, because there are various definitions. For the purposes of the inquiry, it needs to be recognised that the vast majority of child abuse, and child sex abuse, happens in families—including extended families—and not in institutions. The inquiry should not forget, and we should not forget, that there is more going on outside institutions than inside them. Having said that, however, I should add that, historically as well as today, predatory paedophiles—both male and female—can and do use institutions in which they are in a position of trust as their field of operations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am sorry to interrupt—I will make a speech shortly—but I have spoken to members of the Jigsaw team in my patch and other areas. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is monitoring afterwards, but talk to any member confidentially and they will say that they are not satisfied with the current regime. They feel that they have an impossible task because of the sheer number of people they have to monitor. There are incidents all the time relating to people who are supposed to be monitored by Jigsaw teams. A tiny number of police officers are monitoring a vast number of very dangerous people. It is not a satisfactory situation at all.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I completely agree. I have talked to some of the Jigsaw team, too. It is putting together a programme of suggestions that it will bring to the Home Office. Perhaps my hon. Friend can join me and we can use my subtle-ish methods of sliding legislative changes through, so that the Home Office will agree and we can put them through. That is why we have ten-minute rule Bills and private Members’ Bills. It is possible to put such changes through. It does make one vulnerable to accusations from the BBC—recently I put a piece of legislation through that was on the Floor of the House for just 17 minutes because everybody agreed on it, and I think everybody will on this area, too.

It is probable that the inquiry will rehash lessons already learned, but not always acted upon. The legislation that is in place has also not always been acted upon, partly because many of the non-specialist police officers do not know what is available.

I hope we will relax a little over the inquiry, and let it get on with the job. It is a big job that will take a long time, and we should leave the inquiry team alone for a while to get on with it. Having said that, I want to repeat my small inquiry to the Minister, who is half-listening on the Front Bench: that team is excellent, but it does not include a police officer or ex-police officer, and I can recommend one or two if I am asked—and I am willing to be asked.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for securing the debate, along with the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who cannot be here today for good reason. The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case, and I would not want him to be on my case under any circumstances because he is a formidable campaigner.

I do not want to go into too many of the specifics of the abuse allegations, as that would not be appropriate for today, but I do want to emphasise the scale of the allegations. The Westminster paedophile ring, which has now become a murder investigation; Jimmy Savile; children’s homes; the Church; Rochdale; the grooming scandals in Rotherham: it goes on and on and on. There is the Elm guest house, too, which is in my constituency, and the reason why I am here today—and it is also the reason why I became aware of these horrific events.

I also want to emphasise how important this inquiry is and why its nature, form, structure, remit and credibility matter so very much. We now know that there have been systematic cover-ups. Powerful people have done terrible things and they have been protected, and unsurprisingly many of the victims left behind are struggling today to believe that that same establishment is on their side. Frankly, it has not been for many, many years.

We need only consider the Elm guest house in Barnes, which was run by Haroon and Carole Kasir. It was raided more than 30 years ago, back in 1982. The couple were fined and given suspended sentences for running a disorderly house, but at the time there were already questions and allegations around the abuse of young children at the house. Allegedly—we are reliably told this—12 boys gave evidence in 1982 that they had been abused, yet all these allegations simply evaporated at the time, some 30 years ago. They are only resurfacing now.

When Mrs Kasir died a few years after the house was raided, in very odd circumstances, a child protection campaigner from the National Association Of Young People In Care called for a criminal investigation into events at Elm guest house. He said he had been told by Mrs Kasir that boys had been brought in from a local children’s home—Grafton Close, also in Richmond—for sex, and that she had photographs of establishment figures at her hotel. One of them apparently showed a former Cabinet Minister in a sauna with a naked boy. She had logbooks, names, times, dates, pictures of her customers and so on. All that evidence simply disappeared after the raids and no longer exists. That is astonishing.

The Met has since confirmed that Cyril Smith visited the place—the hon. Member for Rochdale has made this point—and at least three other men named in documents as visitors to the Elm guest house were later convicted of multiple sexual offences against children. It is impossible to believe there was not a cover up. This is not sloppiness; there has to be more to it than that.

Then this week it emerged that a former news editor of one of my local papers, the Surrey Comet, had been prevented from making inquiries into the Elm guest house in 1984 after he was issued with a D notice by the Government. It goes on and on and on.

We all know about the famous Dickens dossier, a long list of names of abusers that was handed into the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, in 1983. That dossier, too, has vanished. The Wanless review was established to look into its whereabouts. It has been inconclusive on many levels, but it refers to a letter that Leon Brittan, then Home Secretary, wrote in reply to Mr Dickens on 20 March 1984. It states that a dossier of letters provided by Mr Dickens was passed to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that,

“in the view of the DPP, two”

of these cases

“could form the basis for enquiries by the police and have been passed to the appropriate authorities.”

There is no evidence of those letters now. How is that even possible? How is it possible for those trails to evaporate in that way?

Things have moved on, and today the Met is investigating allegations that at least three young boys were murdered by this depraved network of VIP and MP paedophiles. Operation Midland is the name of the investigation. On the back of that, a retired magistrate, Vishambar Mehrotra, the father of eight-year-old Vishal, who disappeared in 1981 and whose body was found a year later in West Sussex, has come forward to say that at the time of his son’s disappearance he was contacted by a male prostitute who told him that his son had probably been killed by VIP paedophiles linked to Elm guest house. He recorded that conversation and took it to the police, but nothing happened. Again, the evidence just evaporated.

Linked to that, two former Scotland Yard detectives who had investigated allegations of the murder of young boys more than 30 years ago have recently said on record that they were instructed to stop their investigations at the time. This all sounds unbelievable, but who now among us or outside this place would want to suggest that there have been no conspiracies? Who would just dismiss this stuff as fantasy? A few years ago, we probably all would have done so, but not nowadays.

[Ian Lucas]

When the Waterhouse inquiry, a judicial inquiry, took place, allegations were made relating to politicians and paedophile networks in north Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it extraordinary that none of the information to which he is referring appears to have been considered by that inquiry?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I have only the patchiest knowledge of the case that the hon. Gentleman has just described, so I cannot really comment on it, but we could sit here for hours swapping examples of important evidence that has disappeared and of leads that have not been followed up.

When we see some of the stories that we now know to be true, it is not hard to understand why there are pockets of conspiracy. I am not convinced that there is a grand, overarching conspiracy, but there are without a doubt lots of pockets of conspiracy and cover-up, and that has been happening over the past few decades. We know, for example, that a former deputy director of MI6, Sir Peter Hayman, was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. That is not disputed. We know that he was investigated in 1978 for having grotesque images in his possession. We also know that absolutely nothing happened with that evidence.

Thanks to the new Operation Cayacos, we also know about the convicted paedophile, Peter Righton, whom the hon. Member for Rochdale has mentioned in many contexts. He was once regarded as a leading child protection specialist in this country, but he ran a sophisticated network of abusers. When he was raided in 1992, 25 years-worth of correspondence between him and other paedophiles was found, but again the leads just dried up. I could provide endless similar examples—I suspect that many other Members could do the same—but I hope that I have already made my point. I will not dwell on the examples any further.

This is why the inquiry is so important, and why we must bend over backwards to ensure that it is credible even to those who are most suspicious of it, particularly the survivors who have direct experience of cover-ups and are unwilling to blanket-trust the establishment and the authorities to be on their side.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only been in the Chamber for a few minutes. The debate has been going on for some considerable time. The normal convention is that Members should be in the Chamber to hear more of the debate—rather than just a few minutes of the current speech—before they intervene. The hon. Gentleman is returning to the House and he should know the courtesies of the House well. He should not need to be reminded of them.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is welcome to intervene on me whenever the appropriate time comes.

I want to give the House some specific information relating to the inquiry that we are talking about. I also have some questions and suggestions for the Home Secretary and for the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is here in her place. First, we need to know that the Home Office has instructed all Ministries and Government agencies—including the security services, the NHS, police forces, local authorities and schools—not to destroy any documents that are even remotely connected to child sex abuse. I might be wrong, but I believe that if this were a statutory inquiry, that would already have been done. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that important point.

The Home Secretary has been firm about the security services needing to hand over evidence, but she has not explained how that has or will be done. This may not even be necessary, but it is worth considering empowering the inquiry to compel the security services to hand over information in the event that that becomes necessary. The selection of the inquiry chair has been discussed, but it is crucial. I accept that whoever the chair is they will be the chair of a panel and the panel as a whole will have a role to play. I would like to understand better exactly how the chair will be selected, how MPs are going to be consulted on that and how survivors are going to be consulted. I very much hope the panel will have a role in the chair’s selection.

There are fears, some of which have been expressed today, that the police lack adequate resources to carry out the necessary investigations, particularly now that this has moved into a murder inquiry. I know that the police inquiries have already moved up quite a few notches since this inquiry was announced, and I do not think that is a coincidence. I believe that police numbers on Operation Fernbridge and associated investigations have grown from seven to 40 in the past few months, which is very good news. I hope that trend continues and that the police are given all the resources they need to get to the bottom of this, once and for all.

Historically, however, the police have been part of the story, just as MPs, celebrities and everyone else has been, and it is imperative that people coming forward have absolute confidence that they will be heard and that leads will be correctly followed up. So, following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), it must be made clear how the inquiry that will be looking at the processes—the cover-ups—will handle allegations and ensure that they are picked up properly by the appropriate police force.

[Julian Smith]

I have had experience in my constituency recently of working with a victim and the police were asking the victim I was trying to help for details of the conversations she had had with me. We still face a major issue with some elements in the police of interference and of a lack of understanding of the relationship between an MP and others, independent of the work that they are doing.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My hon. Friend makes the point well and puts it on the record.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I want to intervene on the intervention, because I have been in the same situation as that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), and it was part of the police process of gathering evidence. I saw it in a positive way because the lady may not have told the police what she told me and I gave a full statement which added to what they already had. I saw it positively, not negatively.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am going to bring my remarks to a close. We have a chance now to put these appalling wrongs right. That is partially thanks to intervention by people in this House and people outside it. Survivors have played a crucial role, but so, too, did the intervention in this House by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). That was crucial in shifting this process forward, as was the exposé of Cyril Smith by the hon. Member for Rochdale. Above all, I wish to pay tribute to the extraordinary work by the investigative journalists at Exaro, particularly David Hencke. That organisation has led the campaign on so many fronts. The mainstream press, who have been so slow to pick up on what is really happening in this scandal, have become heavily dependent, and rightly so, on Exaro. I sometimes feel that because it is online and does not have the magazine on people’s desks, it is somehow invisible to people who are not paying attention. But Exaro is crucial; David Hencke has encyclopaedic knowledge of something that I do not ever want to have encyclopaedic knowledge of, and he is an extraordinary figure.

There can no longer be any doubt that powerful people have done terrible things and that they have been protected by the establishment. We know that some of the key figures are alive today, and the measure of success for the police investigations is that those people face justice before they die. This process really needs to happen now. Justice must be done and it must be seen to be done. It is no good waiting years and years for some of these people to fade away and be punished in their absence—that is not good enough. The measure of success for this inquiry is that we and the wider public understand how these conspiracies and cover-ups have been able to happen. Only by understanding how they form will we have any hope of preventing them from forming again.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My hon. Friend has touched on the key point. The key point we have to learn, which we have been learning, using and considering in the changes to legislation, is that we must be proactive. We have to get the individuals before they get the children.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Let me end by putting it on the record that I am grateful to the current Home Secretary for having had the courage to initiate this process. She is often described as having been bullied and hectored by a bunch of MPs, but, as someone who has done a lot of lobbying on the subject in the four and a half years that I have been here, I can say that it was not difficult to get her to act. She gets the importance of the issue. I do not doubt her absolute commitment and believe that she will leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of the matter.