Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Chris Bryant

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

[Chris Bryant]

I agree; I do not think that there is a single Member of this House who does not have profound respect for the people of Russia and for the country of Russia, and for what it has given to us culturally and in so many other ways over the centuries. But what a pain it is to us to see a country that was reaching out for liberty suddenly find itself crushed under the heel again. It is a country that should be one of the great advancing economies of today, but it is in stagnation, with barely 1% growth. That is why all of us, from all parts of this House, have campaigned to take a robust attitude to Russia.

Finally, the Russian ambassador tweeted the other day that he wants to meet the all-party group for Russia, which I chair. He is not answering his phone—I am not sure whether he is busy on something else—but we will have him next Wednesday afternoon at 2.30 pm if anyone wants to hear his view of things.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I was pleased to add my name to new clause 6, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on bringing it forward. I will not repeat the powerful arguments that have been made for transparency today—they were also well made on Second Reading—other than to say that progress has been made in the overseas territories. Central registers have been introduced, but that is not sufficient for the reasons that have been given. We need that transparency to shine a light on what is happening. I suspect that there has been relatively little interrogation of the central registers by law enforcement authorities. There also needs to be a step up in law enforcement action as well as in these measures.

Two principal concerns were adduced to explain why we should at least hesitate before we compel the overseas territories to act. The first is the potential economic damage to the overseas territories. I argued strongly on Second Reading that that should not be an impediment to act. It can never be an argument that, where something wrong is being done, we fail to act simply because there might be some economic consequences. We do, however, have a duty to ensure that those economic consequences are addressed and that we help to mitigate them.

In accepting the new clause, there is a strong responsibility on this House, and now on the Government, to ensure that there is no damage to the economies of the overseas territories for taking action, especially as they may now be taking it more rapidly than they wished to, particularly when we consider, for instance, the impact of the hurricane damage on the British Virgin Islands. That concern should not prevent action, but it should be taken seriously.

The second concern is the constitutional objection: is it right for us to intervene? That is a serious argument. Again, on Second Reading, I argued that if the harm that is being done is so great that it can no longer be ignored, there is a justification to act, and there clearly is a power to do so. These are not just domestic matters for the overseas territories in which we have decided to intervene; they have a global impact. It is therefore very important for the Governments of the overseas territories to understand the reasons why this House has felt it so important to move. If they can act voluntarily, ahead of any action being taken legislatively, that would be very welcome.

Rural Phone and Broadband Connectivity

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree. That is a good example of why access to broadband is no longer a luxury but a necessity, particularly when people such as farmers are required to file information in that way.

Three and a half years ago, I held a summit in conjunction with West Sussex county council. The then Culture Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), attended and we had a good meeting to discuss how to improve the situation. Following that, the Government announced their programme to extend broadband access across the country and West Sussex county council announced its Better Connected programme. With £6 million-worth of central Government support, which was matched by the county council, the programme will fulfil the Government’s ambition to ensure that 95% of the county has access to superfast broadband and the whole county has broadband coverage by 2017.

I welcome the Government’s support and commitment. I recognise what they have done to make improvements, but we have to look ahead and test whether what is being done will be sufficient to ensure access for those in rural areas who will not benefit from the programme. The Rural West Sussex Partnership, which is a branch of the local enterprise partnership, Coast to Capital, has suggested that in fact the coverage delivered by the programme will not be 95%, but could be 90% or even as little as 85%. Even if 95% coverage were to be achieved, there would still be the matter of the 5% of people who did not have access to superfast broadband. They are often the people who do not have access to mobile phone coverage, either, and are therefore effectively disconnected.

I know of the strong interest taken by my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who met me recently to discuss these issues. I was grateful to him for the interest that he showed and for listening to the concerns that I set out. I have a few observations which I hope he will not mind my repeating to the House.

First, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there is a problematic lack of competition in the sector. That is one of the reasons why we are not seeing the necessary roll-out, an effective roll-out or sufficient customer service. There was a problem in the initial contracts awarded by BDUK because, although there were originally two bidders, one—Fujitsu—dropped out. We ended up, therefore, with one bidder for the contract, BT. So there is an effective monopoly and that is unsatisfactory. That is not the Government’s fault; it is simply the reality.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We need greater competition because that would deliver results faster for everybody. However, I query his last comment. With 44 small tenders, it was remarkably difficult for anybody to presume that they might gain more than one, other than BT. My worry is that the way the tender process was set up created the monopoly in the first place.

[Nick Herbert]

I am not sure whether that is the case, but we can look ahead at how we can inject more competition into the sector to ensure the competitive pressures needed to improve customer service. I would look again, as hon. Members have suggested, at BT’s relationship with Openreach and see whether there is a case for splitting them, injecting more competition there and potentially breaking up Openreach. We need more competition in this sector.

Secondly, we should not be fixated on the fibre-based solution, which will never be realistic in the hardest-to-reach rural areas. In those areas, wireless technology or access to 4G or faster mobile data signals will become the solution. I do not believe that satellite will be the solution. We therefore need to ensure that the kind of solutions being advanced in public-private partnership recognise that different solutions will be necessary in rural areas.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Chris Bryant

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I accept that distinction from my hon. Friend. The couple would not necessarily be turned away from the register office, but that individual would have been able to object to performing that service, whereas we would not accept such an objection in relation, for instance, to race.

[Chris Bryant]

I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to accept the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), because there are plenty of local authorities where the register office has only one registrar. If that person turns the couple away, they have been turned away from the register office.

[Nick Herbert]

That is an interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to speak.

In conclusion, we should not dismiss concerns about the reasonable expression of views with which the majority may disagree. Public attitudes to homosexuality have changed extraordinarily rapidly in this country. Not everybody approves of homosexuality, still less of same-sex marriages, but, as we have seen across the western world, the majority of the public now approve of homosexuality. That, in my view, has been a welcome change, and it seems increasingly clear that a majority are in favour of same-sex marriage. That trend is reflected across the western world. Since the vote on Second Reading of the Bill in February, two nations have passed same-sex marriage legislation, New Zealand and France, and last week two more states in the United States of America passed such legislation.

Attitudes are changing fast, but there are people who do not agree. It should be possible for them to disagree reasonably, but not in a way that is hateful or goes beyond the bounds of the proper exercise of free speech. That is the balance that we need to strike. My hon. Friends should remember that if a child in school is gay, just to hear that their teacher disapproves of homosexuality is, believe me, tough enough to hear. Their teacher is free to say to them that being gay is wrong or that homosexual conduct is wrong and the House is asking for a licence to enable that teacher to say that, but do not underestimate how difficult that will be for the child to hear. We must take care that in providing these protections for the exercise of conscience, we do not do a great injustice and allow the continuation of language and attitudes that have caused a great deal of unhappiness for a long time.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Chris Bryant

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

This Government are determined to swap bureaucratic control of the police for local democratic accountability, replacing police authorities with directly elected commissioners. In the past there has been too much central interference with decisions that should have been taken locally and by professionals, yet too often the centre has been weak where it needed to be strong, such as in ensuring the fight against serious and organised crime or better co-ordination between forces. Our aim is to reverse this position, giving greater freedom to professionals to do their job and sweeping away central interference and bureaucracy, while refocusing the Home Office on key priorities and threats.

But we cannot just take away central direction and leave the police to get on with it. Like any public service, the police must answer to someone. Politicians do not and should not run the police, but they should and they must hold the police to account on behalf of the public whom the police serve. Officers must be accountable for their actions and forces must be accountable for their performance. Both parties in the coalition were committed in their manifestos at the last election, in differing ways, to enhancing the democratic accountability of policing. The coalition agreement pledged the introduction of directly elected individuals, subject to strict checks and balances, by locally elected representatives.

The Bill seeks to establish clear and democratically accountable leadership for police governance, but amendments in another place would remove those provisions. The Lords amendments do not try to increase the local accountability of the police. They do not even try to ensure that there are adequate checks and balances in place. The amendments simply say that the status quo should be preserved and that the chair of a police authority should be called a police and crime commissioner. This rebranding of the status quo will not suffice.

The whole purpose of the Government’s reform and its strength is that local councillors will still be involved in the governance of policing, but an elected individual, with a mandate from the people, will take the executive decisions.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister is preaching a great sermon on how everything will be transformed by the creation of commissioners, but my concern is that what he means by the word “local” is not at all what is going to be brought about. The South Wales police force area covering Swansea and Cardiff—two cities that have never particularly loved each other—and large chunks of the valleys, which have a very different policing agenda from those two cities, could not possibly be constituted as a single political unit by anybody who was starting afresh. So my worry is that there will be less political accountability to local people and more accountability to one individual, who will probably be more likely to represent somebody in Cardiff and Swansea than somebody in the valleys.

[Nick Herbert]

Although I think there is a serious debate to be had, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman for a number of reasons, principally that he may be making an argument for smaller forces—that is not a proposal that the Government are making, or one that, I suspect, the Opposition would support. Also, if a single chief constable can be in charge of that whole force and be responsible for the operation of the force across the varied area that the hon. Gentleman describes, why should not a single individual be capable of holding that chief constable to account? In London we have seen the Mayor taking responsibility for policing over a very much greater population, including a diverse population with a large number of local authority components.

[Chris Bryant]

What I have found in the past few years in South Wales police is that although it is true that the chief constable is not particularly accountable, what has made the police accountable is the local PACT—Police and Communities Together—meetings, where members of the public get to know they can get in touch with their local beat police officer. It is that transformation of the police that will render policing far more effective, rather than the somewhat bureaucratic system that the Minister is setting up.

[Nick Herbert]

We are hardly setting up a bureaucratic system. It is one that involves direct democratic accountability. The two things that the hon. Gentleman describes are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to maintain neighbourhood policing and local accountability while still introducing direct democratic accountability and governance, for the reasons that I set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Herbert]

I am just going to make a little more progress. Let me deal with costs, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The shadow Home Secretary says that the reform will cost “well over £100 million”. No, it will not. She reaches that figure by counting in the running costs of police authorities—money that, apparently, should not be spent. So, this is Labour's latest policy: not just no elections for those who hold the police to account, but no one to hold them to account at all—because, apparently, police authorities would go as well.

The only additional cost of the Government’s reforms is the cost of elections. That will normally be £50 million every four years, £12.5 million a year on average, or 0.1% of what is spent on police forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

No, I do not accept what the Opposition have constantly been saying, which is that the overall cost of this reform is over £100 million. That is based on a figure that the Association of Police Authorities has been using, where it appears that it has been counting two elections into the cost. I go back to the point that I have made: the only additional, ongoing cost in relation to this reform is the cost of holding elections. It is a very bad argument to suggest that a democratic reform should not go ahead simply because elections will cost money, and it is not an argument that Labour Members were willing to use in the past when they supported all sorts of proposals for elections, including in relation to the Mayor of London.

I now give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has been very patient.

[Chris Bryant]

I have never supported the politicising of the police, and I will not do so under the Minister’s plans. My anxiety is that when a politician comes along, they usually do not just want a little office in the corner; they want lots of other people to service that office. I suspect that the cost that he is allowing for now will be hideously understated by the time we have had these people in place for four years. However, the bit that I completely do not understand is why we have to have elections next November. Surely, if we were trying to save money and one believed in having these elections, they should be at the same time as the other local elections six months later.

[Nick Herbert]

I will come to that issue. However, I will say to the hon. Gentleman now that if the elections were delayed for a further six months to take them to May 2013, incoming police and crime commissioners would be unable to participate in the budget that would already have been set for that year. They would be unable to take the key decisions—[Interruption.] It will still be the case, even though the elections will be delayed by six months, that incoming police and crime commissioners will be able to set the budget and the plan for the following year, as originally intended. I do not accept that there would be no difference as a result of a delay until the following year.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am going to move on.

I want to come back to the issue of London’s Mayor, which was much discussed in the other place, as it has been here. I want to credit the Opposition for the creation of the office of Mayor, which, as I have said before, has been a popular reform. As we debate these issues, the Mayor has been playing a key role in the decision over who will next lead the Metropolitan police. He has given Londoners an important voice in policing. How many Londoners would prefer their police force to answer to an invisible committee? Now the Opposition are criticising the Mayor’s role in policing—well, they invented it. Of course the Opposition do not like the current Mayor. They may not like what he does, but that is not a reason to dislike the office or to object to the same principle of greater democratic accountability being introduced in the rest of the country.

Let us be clear: the Mayor does not run the police in London; he holds them to account, and that is the principle that we are advancing. The British model of impartial policing must be retained, and it will be retained. Our aim is not to abandon the tripartite arrangement of police governance between the Home Office, local representatives and forces, but to rebalance it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I will give way quickly to the hon. Gentleman, who can also have a final intervention.

[Chris Bryant]

If what the Minister says is true, how could Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, say that the phone hacking allegations were just codswallop, and that the police should not investigate because the story was dreamt up by the Labour party?

[Nick Herbert]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I was reading a note and was not properly listening to what he said. Will he say it again?

[Chris Bryant]

Do concentrate! If all of what the Minister says is true—that the police and their operational independence should not be politicised—how can it be right for the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to say that the phone hacking allegations at the News of the World were codswallop, and that the police should not investigate any further because it was a story got up by the Labour party?

[Nick Herbert]

Surely the hon. Gentleman misses the key point. First, the Mayor should not seek to direct an investigation any more than the Home Secretary should. Secondly, the Mayor will be held accountable for all issues, which is what Londoners expect. The point is that, before the Mayor, accountability was invisible. We seek to introduce that greater accountability elsewhere. The issue is not whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Mayor was right or wrong. There is now a figure who can be held accountable for the performance of the Met.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you really want me to dilate at any point.

I was merely trying to say that, on the matter of money, which is the point at hand, there is a question about how any commissioner would be able to make sure that in advance of future elections there was enough money to be able to pay for the process of explaining to the electorate the supplementary voting system, which will not have been used in many other parts of the country. I would be grateful if the Minister were able to expand on how he will achieve that, on the precise powers that will be available to the Electoral Commission and on when he will bring forward supplementary powers in relation to that.

Having chanced my arm as far as I think you will allow, Mr Speaker, I surrender to the rest of the debate.

[Nick Herbert]

In the three minutes that are now available to me, I will have to try to explain why my hon. Friend’s approach is interesting but wrong in relation to how the precept is dealt with.

I explained in Committee the process following a veto, and the Home Secretary will set that out in regulations. They will require, as the amendment would, that the police and crime commissioner considers the panel’s recommendations and then proposes an amended precept, which must take the panel’s recommendations into account.

This is where the Bill diverges from the proposed changes, however. Under the regulations that we propose, we say that, if the amended precept is “excessive” under the definition in the Localism Bill, the police and crime commissioner will set the precept but a referendum will be triggered. The panel will not be able to prevent that, but it will be able to propose an alternative precept with accompanying reasons that will have to be published. The public will then have to decide—having both sides of the story.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Herbert of South Downs and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

And I should say that the people of the Rhondda remember Churchill’s period in relation to the Tonypandy riots. However, the Lord Chancellor has responsibility for marriage law, and he will know that the law forbids civil weddings from including religious readings or music, even though many people who are not able to get married in church or who do not want to do so would like to have such readings. The Government say that they will allow that for civil partnerships, but not for civil weddings. Can we not have a little more equality for heterosexuals?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I am answering this question because I am the only one in the village. [Laughter.] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that his question was transferred. The Equality Act 2010 removed the express prohibition on civil partnership registrations taking place on religious premises. In response to that amendment of the law, the Government are committed to talking to those with a key interest in how to take this forward. That will include consideration of whether civil partnerships should be allowed to include religious readings, music and symbols, and the implications for marriage will have to be considered as part of that.