Psychoactive Substances Act 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Again, I wish I had been present for the debates that took place. I certainly take on board what the noble Lord said. I have not got an answer for him today, but I will look into the question that he asked.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Government’s 2017 drugs strategy states on page 4:

“While use of new psychoactive substances among the general population is low … they continue to appear rapidly on the market, and use among certain groups is problematic, particularly among the homeless population and in prisons”.


What exactly is “problematic” meant to convey in this context that could not have been conveyed in more specific, clearer language? If the problem is among the homeless and in prisons, would a solution not be more social housing and affordable housing to rent and buy in the first instance, and a review of the lessons that should be learned from an excessive reduction in the number of prison officers over the past seven years in the second instance?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I guess that “problematic” means causing a problem to society. It is a particular problem with homeless people because such drugs are very cheap—ditto in prisons—and some psychoactive substances are not easy to detect, particularly spice. I forget the end of what the noble Lord said. Ah! It was about prison officers. Certainly, from some of the documentaries we have seen on television, it needs to become harder to get drugs into prison and there are more and more ingenious methods of secreting them into prison.

Refugees

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too add my congratulations to those already expressed to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham on securing this debate and on the report of the inquiry, of which he and my noble friends Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lord Dubs were members.

As the report says, very little time has been given to considering what happens to refugees once they have been granted protection by the UK Government. Accordingly, the inquiry set out to ascertain to what extent refugees are welcomed into the UK. As has been said, the evidence to the inquiry indicated that a two-tier system has developed for refugees. Those who arrive through a resettlement route are provided with accommodation and receive support in accessing services and finding employment; for those who have gone through the asylum system, there is no such support.

Significantly, the inquiry report states that that has not always been the case, as between 2008 and 2011 the Government funded a programme to help newly recognised refugees through what is known as the move-on period, offering a year of support. However, the programme was ended in September 2011 and instead, after receiving a positive decision on their application, newly recognised refugees are now given just 28 days before the financial support is cut off and they have to leave their accommodation.

The inquiry found that, allied with the lack of support in accessing the social security system—asylum seekers are unable to work for at least 12 months—and the housing market, the shortness of the 28-day move-on period leaves many newly recognised refugees homeless and destitute. On top of that, there are delays in receiving the documents needed to register for social security support, and wrong or incomplete advice is given at jobcentres. In addition, with no payments being received for at least six weeks after an application is submitted under the national rollout of universal credit, the 28-day move-on period will not be long enough even for those refugees who receive all their documentation promptly.

The inquiry report recommended that the move-on period should be extended to at least 50 days and that a national refugee integration strategy, overseen by a Minister for refugees, should address the issues which newly recognised refugees face during the move-on period and which are highlighted in the report.

The inquiry report also concluded that there was a regrettable lack of a government cross-departmental strategy setting out how all refugees can be successfully integrated into the UK, not least covering the area of support in learning English, the lack of which can have an adverse impact on people accessing other areas of support, securing employment and taking a full part in community activities. The inquiry report made recommendations to address this issue, including an increase in funding for classes in English for speakers of other languages.

The report also drew attention to particular issues and barriers faced by some groups of refugees—not least women and children—such as exploitation and violence, greater delays in accessing support due to the non-allocation of a national insurance number, the shortage of available childcare and a lack of both education and experience of an educational environment. Again, the inquiry report includes recommendations to address these concerns.

Other issues raised in the report, and in respect of which recommendations are made, cover the causes of the difficulties for some refugees in being reunited with family members and the negative impact that this can have on their prospects for integration, as well as their state of mind. In addition, there is the impact that some aspects of the asylum system and the process itself can have on their future prospects of successfully integrating.

The inquiry report was published in April, so I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some idea of the Government’s thinking on its analysis of the experience of new refugees in the UK and the recommendations made to address the issues identified.

As has been said, the report draws attention to good work that is being done in welcoming refugees. However, as it says:

“Refugees want to integrate. They want to contribute their skills, qualifications, experiences and knowledge. They want to be with their families. They want to be safe”.


It is surely in everyone’s interests that all reasonable steps are taken to enable those goals and objectives to be achieved for those who have been granted protection by the United Kingdom.

Immigration Act 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question.

I have previously asked—without success—for the Government to provide the figures on the number of further unaccompanied children that local authorities have said they have the capacity to take in the current financial year, 2017-18, under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016, on the basis that government funding at the current level per child will be continued for further unaccompanied children coming here under the Dubs amendment in the current financial year. If I am again to be unsuccessful in getting an answer to that question, is it because, in the Government’s view, that question is now irrelevant because it appears in the response to the UQ that the Government have now put a cap of 480 on the number of children who can come here under the Dubs amendment? This is surely the same figure applicable at the time of the PNQ on 27 April 2017, in the light of the addition of the further 130 children as a result of a government administrative error, when the Government also said,

“we have not closed the Dubs scheme”.—[Official Report, 27/4/17; col. 1444.]

Surely, in the light of the response to the UQ, which appears to apply a cap of 480, that claim made on 27 April no longer stands up, and if I am right in saying that, frankly, that is a disgrace.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, regarding the cap, the specified number was set out in legislation. It was initially 350, which was based on the consultation we carried out with local authorities. I have apologised before at this Dispatch Box—I apologise again—in that there was an administrative error and the figure then rose to 480. That figure is based on the number of children that local authorities can accommodate. It is right that we have not closed the Dubs scheme, which remains open. There are numbers to be filled and therefore the Dubs scheme is not closed.

Security in the UK

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and thoughtful debate and I thank the Government for providing the opportunity to raise some areas of potential, if not necessarily always actual, concern. It was the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I think, who urged the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, to answer the questions raised in this debate by giving us her personal views. If the noble Baroness does that and her personal views differ from those of the Government, this may be one of her last appearances at the Dispatch Box even at a time when Cabinet Ministers do not always seem to be expressing a common policy line.

Inevitably, in a debate on this issue the Government will be limited to a greater or lesser degree in the amount of detail they feel able to give in response to issues raised. From the Opposition’s point of view, the inevitable lack of such detail makes it difficult to challenge and hold any Government to account, but I hope there are Ministers, however few, who know exactly what our security and intelligence services are doing and in what way, and that there are checks and balances so that Ministers are not simply dependent on what they are told.

That is not a criticism of anybody; it is simply what ought to be the case in a democracy where there is accountability through elected leaders. There is, of course, the joint Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Government can hardly be expected to answer for it. In any case, it cannot be answerable to the people of this country for the effectiveness of the role it undertakes in the way that a Government and Ministers can for their actions and decisions. However, it would be helpful if the Government could provide an assurance that even if the number of Ministers in the know is small, they are satisfied that they have sufficient control over and knowledge of what our security and intelligence services are doing to be able to say that there can be no significant or potentially controversial activity that our security and intelligence services had undertaken of which they were not aware.

There has been much discussion recently about public sector pay. I assume our security and intelligence service personnel have also had their pay capped for the last seven years in the same way as other public employees, including the police. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that or otherwise. If that is the case, what impact has that had first on morale, secondly on recruitment and retention rates, and thirdly on the number of posts vacant? Has this vacancy figure increased or decreased over the last few years?

The Government have said that more resources have been put into intelligence and security services. Will they confirm what that increase has been in each of the last three years? Will the Minister also say who determines where existing and additional resources will be directed? Is it ultimately a ministerial decision in the sense that it at least requires ministerial agreement, or is the issue of priorities and where resources are directed one that is left entirely for the intelligence and security services to decide?

Governments often talk about the need to get value for money. I assume the same applies to our security and intelligence services. If that assumption is correct, what are the criteria against which a judgment is made on whether our security and intelligence services maximise value for money in respect of their resources? Equally, and perhaps more importantly, how do we know the extent to which a lack of resources may be impeding the effectiveness of our security and intelligence services with potentially serious consequences?

In the current climate, our security and intelligence services have never maintained that they can or will be able to stop every attempted act of terrorism from succeeding. They have always said in the current situation that it is a case of when rather than if, but have also quite rightly drawn attention to the number of occasions on which they have been successful in nipping a significant number of likely such acts in the bud. The significant number of successful prosecutions for terrorist or terrorist-related offences is of course a matter of hard fact. From that we should take considerable comfort and for that we should all be extremely grateful for the work they do.

In recent months, we have had four high-profile terrorist incidents in which varying numbers of lives have tragically been lost. In some of these instances it has been reported that the perpetrators have been known to the security and intelligence services. There can of course be different interpretations of the relevance of that situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said. As I understand it, the Government have asked the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, to look into issues surrounding these recent attacks. What doubt or concern led the Government to ask David Anderson to undertake this exercise? What exactly are his terms of reference? When will the report, and to what extent will his findings, be made public?

The Government intend to establish a counterterrorism commission. What existing government concerns or issues is the commission meant to address which are not being addressed at present or not being addressed adequately? In addition, what activities currently undertaken by other bodies or individuals will in future be undertaken by the counterterrorism commission, and to what extent will its work be new and not undertaken at present? What kind of budget will the commission have?

The Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has said—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to it—that existing statutory powers are sufficient to address current threats from a legal powers point of view, although he has indicated that sentencing levels should be reviewed. On both these issues, is the Government’s view the same as that of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, if not, what is the hard evidence that further legislation would make our security and intelligence services more effective in combating terrorism and related acts? Were any of the four recent incidents in London and Manchester not prevented because of insufficient legal powers as opposed, for example, to insufficient resources to cope fully with current workloads or just plain bad luck? Is this one of the questions on which David Anderson has been asked to report?

One area where there has been a reduction in resources is in our police, whose numbers have been cut over the past seven years. The Government’s argument has been that, since crime rates have fallen, this has not caused a problem. Crimes of violence, however, are on the rise; the level of hate crime has increased; cybercrime, which affects individuals and large corporations alike, has gone through the roof, and there is now heightened concern over acts of terrorism both here and in mainland Europe.

Our security, police and intelligence services play a key role in combating acts of terrorism; so, too, do the public, as other noble Lords have already said, not least my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. One way in which the role of the public is vital is through drawing the attention of the police to those whose actions and words suggest they might be open to being persuaded or encouraged to contemplate such acts. Yet cuts have been made in community neighbourhood policing—the very police personnel who have built up the closest contact and relationship with the communities they serve and who are most likely to have the confidence of those communities. That confidence is so vital to picking up and being given information and can not only reduce the level of long-term crime but help in combating acts of terrorism and hate crime and in preventing people going down that road. My noble friend Lord Bach spoke powerfully on the impact of cuts on neighbourhood policing and on policing in general. The effectiveness of the Prevent strategy can only have been weakened by the cuts to community neighbourhood policing.

Concerns have been expressed about the approach to the Prevent strategy as opposed to its concept or purpose. Terrorism is not confined to those who claim to act in the murderous and thuggish way they do in the name of a particular faith or religion. As has already been said, Jo Cox MP was murdered by a right-wing extremist, and the perpetrator of the attack at the Finsbury Park mosque certainly was not claiming to be doing it in the name of Islam, any more than do those behind the recent increased levels of hate crime against Muslims and against women Members of Parliament. Yet for many Muslims the Prevent strategy seems to be aimed primarily at them, and with it the inference that Muslims as a whole are both the source of terrorism and supporters of terrorism. That does nothing to enhance trust and confidence, and nothing to encourage the flow of information which is so vital in preventing and combating acts of terrorism, acts which do not distinguish between faiths when it comes to those who are killed or maimed as a result. Indeed, the hard facts show that those who commit acts of terrorism or hate crime are more than likely to already have criminal records. That suggests either that they are easily led by those with extreme political views, or that they simply choose to adopt a violent approach to those groups they decide they do not like: that is the key factor behind the acts they commit, rather than any credible adherence to any faith or religion. They do not deserve the cover for their actions which they claim a faith or religion provides, and no faith or religion deserves them.

Cybercrime has become an issue of real concern, both when individuals, often vulnerable individuals, are the victims, and also when major companies and organisations, including Governments, are the targets. The acts appear to be committed by individuals who see it as a game, by individuals and organisations which are in it for illicit financial gain or competitive advantage, or by those who act for or with the full knowledge of nation states against other nation states. We appear to be in a situation where our major public utilities, our banking and financial services system and our health service, for example, are potentially at risk of being brought nearly to their knees by such attacks. Presumably, the threat is also there in respect of neutralising or reducing the capability and effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

I appreciate, of course, that there will be real limits to what the Government will want to disclose, but how are decisions made on the resources that need to be made available to protect us from cyberattacks in a situation where the speed of technological advance is rapid, and where keeping ahead of the game is vital? Is the provision of resources to combat the threat of cyberattacks, particularly by or with the blessing of other nation states, affected by financial constraints, or do we provide whatever resources are needed to combat those threats? Lower down the line, have our police forces been given the resources, skills and capabilities needed to combat the rapid increase in the types of cybercrime with which they increasingly have to deal? Are decisions on how such resources are allocated determined by individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners when they draw up budgets, or are such matters determined on a national basis, and, if so, by whom? The effectiveness of the National Crime Agency in combating cybercrime, which recognises no individual police force boundaries, can be hampered only if individual police forces do not regard putting more resources into combating this particular type of crime as a priority when forced to make such choices through being stretched, which is how more than one commissioner or chief constable has recently described their current situation.

There is also the role of service providers, as well as government, in preventing the internet and cyberspace being used to spread extremism and hatred, or as a vehicle for planning acts of terrorism. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, spoke about this and, in particular, about what can and cannot realistically be achieved. The decision to withdraw from the European Union, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, referred, could affect co-operation with other European nations through European agencies—the European arrest warrant, for example—which are key parts of the armoury in the constant battle to combat serious crime, including terrorism. What undertakings are the Government prepared to give today at the Dispatch Box that, whatever else emerges at the end of the negotiations on our withdrawal from the European Union, our existing membership of the European agencies and procedures involved in combating crime, including terrorism, will continue to no lesser extent than they do today?

In 2015, the Government announced proposals to introduce a new extremism Bill, but no such Bill ever materialised. In 2016, a counterextremism and safeguarding Bill was announced, but no detailed proposals ever emerged. That may well have been no bad thing. There has been a cross-government review of the Government’s counterterrorism strategy, known as Contest. There have been reviews of the Prevent strategy. We now have a review by Mr David Anderson. There is now going to be a commission for countering extremism. With this Government, there is quite a lot of talk about what they intend to do to counter the threats of extremism and terrorism, whether through Bills or reviews, but all too often not enough action to address the problems our police, security and intelligence services actually face. Indeed, some government actions have made the situation worse, not least through the reductions in community neighbourhood policing. There is also the reality that additional resources found for counterterrorism activities, particularly on the police side, can be at the expense of resources able to be directed at other significant areas of crime.

During the election, following a terror attack in London, the Prime Minister said that, “Enough is enough”. That is true: we have had enough talk. We now have to provide the resources needed to address the major increase in the number of investigations our hard-pressed security, intelligence and police forces have to handle, and end a situation where chief constables, commissioners and PCCs are uncertain whether they are still going to be asked to accept further cuts in real terms—further “efficiency savings”, as they are often called—when they are already using the euphemism that their forces and budgets are being “stretched”.

Immigration Centre Detainees: Pay

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is important to recognise that immigration detainees have lawfully had their right to work in the UK, if indeed they ever had one, curtailed by virtue of an immigration decision or by the decision to detain them. Therefore, their position regarding pay rights is not the same as for people who are not subject to immigration detention.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, a freedom of information request to the Home Office in 2014 apparently found that in May that year hundreds of detainees had been paid £45,438 for 44,832 hours of work. If that work were not done by detainees in the immigration centre “volunteering”, as the Government seem to describe it, presumably it would have to be done in total or in part by paid staff of Serco or whoever is running the centre. If the figures I have cited for one month are correct, that suggests that the saving from using detainees at £1 per hour, compared to paying employed staff on the minimum wage, would be in the region of £300,000 a month. Who gets the benefit of this apparently considerable financial saving each month? Is it the Government or the firm running the immigration centre who reap that financial benefit?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is important to recognise that the work undertaken is entirely voluntary. It is not to supplement the work of the contractors. Contractually, the IRC providers must make a minimum number of opportunities available for detainees to participate voluntarily in this paid activity. As I explained to the noble Baroness, detainees’ position regarding pay rights is not the same as for those who are not in detention.

Police: Senior Posts

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, ahead of the election, we consulted police leaders on direct entry to chief constable rank, and the proposal on direct entry to the broader chief officer ranks featured in the Conservative manifesto. I found the meeting that I had with the noble Lords extremely useful. One thing that we all agreed on was the importance of leadership, with the skills and training required for senior police officers. Current legislation already allows direct entry at the ranks of assistant and deputy chief constable and of commander to deputy commissioner of the Met Police if a person has completed the police national assessment centre and the strategic command course. It is essential that people have not only the leadership but the skills going in.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, got an answer to the specific question that he asked, but that is not always unusual. He has quite rightly drawn attention to the universal praise expressed for our police for their response to recent terrorist attacks. However, such praise does not help pay the ever-increasing daily bills which face our brave police officers in their everyday lives. Bearing in mind that the Government had no difficulty at extremely short notice in finding that an additional £1 billion was available to bolster their own political position in Parliament, can the Minister tell us what the Government’s policy is this morning on bolstering police pay between now and 2019, and the extent to which it differs from that laid down in 2015 by the then Chancellor, George Osborne?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this country has seen some unprecedented events during the past three months in terms of the terrorist attacks and the terrible incident at Grenfell Tower. The police and emergency services not only have stepped up to the plate but have been under a lot of pressure in that time, both mental and physical. In the light of the recent attacks, we are engaging with the police about the demands that they face, to ensure that they continue to have the resources that they need to keep us safe.

Child Refugees

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am very pleased to be able to do that. My noble friend is absolutely right that the most vulnerable are still in the regions. Last year, the former Prime Minister made an announcement to double the amount of assistance going to the region to £2.4 billion—double the amount that it had been previously. My noble friend makes exactly the right point that we should be sending help to the regions where it is most needed.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

First, I think it would have been better if the Government had come with an Oral Statement to the House on this issue rather than putting it in a Written Statement just before we are about to cease sitting, as this is an issue of considerable interest to the House. We discussed this in the House on 9 February, after the Government said a Written Statement in the Commons:

“Local authorities told us they have capacity for around 400 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children until the end of this financial year”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/17; col. 10WS.]


That would have been 2016-17. I asked the Minister:

“What capacity have local authorities told the Government they have for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the 1917-18 financial year on the basis that the current level of government funding is continued?”.—[Official Report, 9/2/17; col. 1861.]


I did not get a direct reply to that question. The Minister said that the Government were in constant touch with local authorities. Can she give us the figure? What capacity have local authorities told the Government that they have for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the next financial year, 2017-18, on the basis that the current level of government funding is continued?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as my honourable friend in the other place outlined in the Written Ministerial Statement yesterday, the capacity for Section 67 children is 480. As for future commitments, obviously we are hours from Prorogation and I cannot make any future declarations at the Dispatch Box, much as I would want to. Those figures will be forthcoming should we be successful in the general election.

Terrorism: Domestic Extremism

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think such blanket presumptions are unhelpful at this stage. The vast majority of Muslims in this country share our values and our aspirations as parents and members of society. Prevent, the programme that this and previous Governments have run, has helped support people and protect them from those who would wish to poison their minds.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Government announced at the beginning of this month that a 100-strong task force of counterterrorism experts was to be established the following week by the Home Office and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to examine intelligence from around the country to assess the danger posed by radicalisation behind bars, with the new unit being,

“the nerve centre for all counter-terrorism and counter-extremist work across the prison estate and probation service”.

Where have the 100 members of the new counter- terrorism task force come from, and which areas of work within which departments or organisations are now currently operating with fewer staff as a result of the creation of this new task force of counterterrorism experts?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is a question on which I am going to have to get back to the noble Lord. I simply do not know, and I am not going to pretend that I know, the detailed answer to the question, so I will have to get back to him.

Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

First, I start by making a reference to the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. We certainly support the objectives of the amendment; it is a matter that we, as well as the two noble Lords, have raised in Committee, Unless I have misunderstood its intention, the amendment says that action should be taken within a certain period of time, which I think is described as within six months of the day on which the Bill is passed.

When the matter was discussed in Committee, the Minister referred to the fact that the Government had announced at the London anti-corruption summit last year that the Government’s intention was to create a register of overseas company beneficial ownership information where the company owned UK property. On behalf of the Government, the Minister also said that the Government intended to publish a call for evidence that would set out the policy proposals in full in the coming weeks, and would also introduce legislation to implement the register as soon as parliamentary time allowed.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, the call for evidence on a register showing who owns and controls overseas legal entities that own UK property or participate in UK Government procurement has now been issued; it has come from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. But I imagine that the key concern, from what the noble Lord said, is about how long it may take for anything to happen with regard to setting up the register. I assume that the Minister will probably not be in a position to say very much about that. She could, of course, tell us what the intentions would have been of this Government—but they will not be around for very much longer. There will be a new Government after the election, and it will be an issue for that Government to decide what priority they are going to give to it.

Certainly, the omens do not necessarily seem very good, since there seems to be a general view that much of the legislative time that any Government have after the next election will be taken up with the issue of the implications of our withdrawal from Europe. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to say what the intentions would have been of this Government when she comes to respond to the specific point raised in the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, about putting a time limit on when something is actually going to happen and not leaving it as something that may well drift well into the future.

I thank the Minister for moving government Amendment 8, which is clearly—at least in part—a response to Amendment 14, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and to which my name is attached. I do not intend to reiterate the arguments and points made by the noble Baroness, with which I fully concur. I will concentrate my comments on government Amendment 8. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has already said, this does not go as far as Amendment 14, since it contains no reference to the Government having to bring forward an Order in Council by the end of 2019—or, indeed, by any other time—and then taking all reasonable steps to ensure its implementation, requiring any overseas territories listed in Amendment 14 that have not introduced a publicly accessible register by the end of 2019 to do so. The government amendment provides for a report to be prepared before 1 July 2019 with an assessment of the effectiveness of the arrangements in place between the UK Government and the Government of any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any relevant overseas territory for the sharing of beneficial ownership information, having regard to such international standards as appear to the relevant Minister to be relevant.

Will the Minister give more information on the criteria against which the Government will assess the effectiveness of the current arrangements? I ask that in the context of what the view would have been of this Government on that issue. We are presumably all seeking to reduce the incidence of money laundering and corruption in particular, as well as the avoidance of paying tax, either by illegal means or through elaborate schemes that have not been cleared by the tax authorities. Will the level of such reduction achieved, or not achieved, in these areas be a key part of the assessment of the effectiveness of the arrangements in place, and will that be reported on in specific terms in the report to be placed before Parliament, to which reference is made in the government amendment?

Further, is it this Government’s intention that there should be a debate on the report in both Houses of Parliament in government time? What does the reference to,

“having regard to such international standards as appear to the relevant Minister to be relevant”,

actually mean? What do the Government consider the relevant international standards are at present, and how would those standards at the end of 2018 be determined? Are international standards internationally binding agreements, and is an international standard what is being achieved by the country with the best record of effectiveness and transparency in this area or by the one with the worst? I believe that the Minister said that the regard to international standards would be to the highest standards, but I would be grateful if she would confirm that when she responds.

A concern that has been expressed during the course of our discussions on this issue has been the potential or actual use of overseas territories and Crown dependencies by corrupt individuals, organisations or people in positions of real power in other countries to cream off money for themselves that was intended to be used for the benefit of a nation as a whole, or a significant part of a nation. An advantage of a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership is that people and organisations in such countries would have access to such a register, which would help them identify where, and by whom, corruption and money laundering may be taking place and thus be better able to expose what is going on—the prospect of which would, in itself, also act as a potentially significant deterrent.

The Government’s amendment refers to an exchange of information between the Government of the UK and the Government of each relevant territory. How will this government amendment address the issue of the use of overseas territories and Crown dependencies for corruption and money laundering purposes by individuals, organisations or people in positions of real power in countries outside the United Kingdom? Does the amendment mean that the UK Government would seek information on beneficial ownership from a relevant Crown dependency or overseas territory in respect of individuals, organisations or people in positions of power in countries other than the United Kingdom? Where a credible request for such information comes from individuals, organisations or Governments within those other countries, is it the intention of this Government that the information on beneficial ownership obtained would be passed on unless there were overriding reasons why to do so would jeopardise life or security?

There is a basic difference between ourselves and the Government. The Government believe that a process of persuasion will lead to publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in line with what is to be UK practice—albeit I note the trenchant comments of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, about the lack of verification of the register in the UK. However, the Government do not want to set any time limit for when the voluntary approach has to have delivered, following which legislative action would be taken. We are not convinced that this approach will deliver the required outcome, particularly in light of the Government’s change of stance from the days of the previous Prime Minister, so the commitment now appears to be to expect overseas territories and Crown dependencies to follow suit only if publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership become the international standard.

In other words, it appears as though the United Kingdom will not be taking the lead as far as the overseas territories and Crown dependencies are concerned. This Government expect them only to “follow suit”. Can the Minister at least indicate that, while there are no time limits in the government amendment within which the voluntary approach to the introduction of publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership should be implemented, the Government will nevertheless not resile from taking legislative action to achieve that objective at some undefined point in the future if that were shown to be necessary?

We are now in a situation where this Parliament is about to end, pending the general election in June. As has been said, the Bill has received widespread support, in both this House and the Commons, where the areas of difference of view have been over what the Bill does not include rather than over what it does. In this situation, a judgment has to be made. The Government have been persuaded to move further with Amendment 8, providing for a report to Parliament to be prepared by the middle of 2019. This will enable the issue to be kept alive, and for the case for, and objective of, publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in both overseas territories and Crown dependencies to continue to be pursued. This is assuming that the Government of the day do not come to the conclusion themselves that firm action needs to be taken to deliver that objective in the light of the progress—or lack of it—being made by the voluntary approach and the effectiveness—or lack of it—of the arrangements in place for the sharing of beneficial ownership information. The amendment does represent progress, albeit not as much as we would have liked.

Nobody wants to see this Bill, or even significant parts of it, actually bite the dust. We do not believe that, an election having now been called, government MPs are going to do anything other than support their own Government’s Amendment 8 at the expense of Amendment 14—assuming that that amendment could still have been carried in this House in the light of the Government’s amendment. For the reasons I have given, we will support Amendment 8. It does not go as far as we would wish—that position is reflected in Amendment 14—but it does represent progress and we thank the Minister for her work in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, when the noble Lord responds to the debate, will he tell the House whether he thinks “I haven’t a clue” is purported compliance.

[Lord Rosser]

In light of the last comment from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, one can only hope that the points he made will not leave the Minister stumped. I hope it gets better.

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for tabling these amendments, since they enable me to raise a concern that I expressed in Committee about the Government’s intention to create a new office for professional body anti-money laundering supervision through a statutory instrument, without any apparent reference to such a body in the Bill that we are currently discussing—which is why the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, had to raise her question. Nobody has a clue what the Government intend because they have not chosen to put anything in the Bill to enable us to have a discussion about it. It was only in a government document issued around the time of the Bill that the Government declared their intention to set up this body.

A briefing that no doubt we have all received from the Solicitors Regulation Authority refers to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, as “proposing” the creation of an office for professional body anti-money laundering supervision—which could, perhaps wrongly, be interpreted as meaning that the Solicitors Regulation Authority was unaware that that is what the Government were already proposing, albeit keeping rather quiet about it as far as proper parliamentary scrutiny is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has said in setting out the case for her amendment. She has already made reference to recent further examples of serious concern over the approach to whistleblowing and whistleblowers—she referred specifically to the situation at Barclays Bank in the light of apparent actions by its chief executive in seeking to unmask a whistleblower. There are meant to be strict regulations in the financial services industry for encouraging and protecting whistleblowers, but it does not look as though they are very effective.

It is difficult to believe that the apparent attitude at the top of Barclays Bank is an exceptional one-off, as opposed to being indicative of a rather more widespread culture, to which the noble Baroness referred, in the financial services sector. The reality is that whistleblowers will not come forward if they think that the reaction of the people at the top will be to try to find out who they are rather than investigate the issue to which they have drawn attention. Neither will people come forward if they think that being identified as a whistleblower will jeopardise their future employment prospects in the financial services sector, which is alleged to be the reality in that sector in particular. I hope that the Government in response will be able to offer something more than claims that existing arrangements and procedures address the concerns raised by this amendment, when it is clear that it is not the case.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward this amendment, which would introduce new regulations so that the FCA could undertake the administration of arrangements to facilitate whistleblowing in the financial sector.

The FCA is already a prescribed person in relation to the financial sector. It actively promotes the whistleblowing framework to employees and employers in the sector so that prospective whistleblowers know where to turn and firms have appropriate internal whistleblowing policies in place. Other prescribed persons related to financial services include the Bank of England, the Serious Fraud Office, the Financial Reporting Council and the Prudential Regulation Authority. To each of them, whistleblowers will be one of several sources of information and intelligence about potential malpractice in support of their regulatory activities.

The Government believe that the right body to investigate the concerns of a whistleblower is the body that regulates the issue about which concerns are raised—I know I have said that before. That body is in the best position to see the disclosure in context; for example, to judge the seriousness of the allegations, to make connections with any related investigations under way and to consider whether some regulatory action is appropriate to prevent occurrence.

The amendment that the noble Baroness proposes would introduce a power to award compensation to any worker voluntarily providing information on wrongdoing to organisations in the financial sector. As I set out in Committee, we do not think that money is the main motivator for genuine whistleblowers. I do not think the noble Baroness thinks so either, but she expressed views on how a financial incentive system to encourage whistleblowing works well in the US. I can advise noble Lords that the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority whistleblowing management teams visited the US in late 2013. At the time, there was limited empirical evidence of incentives leading to an increase in the number or quality of disclosures received by regulators. Introducing incentives would require a complex and costly governance structure.

Incentives could also undermine effective internal whistleblowing mechanisms, a requirement the FCA introduced in September 2016 for banks, insurers and deposit takers. If the FCA were to incentivise whistleblowers to report to the regulator, it could discourage them from reporting internally within their firms. It would risk delivering mixed messages by encouraging firms to set up costly systems which it then undermines by incentivising whistleblowers to disclose directly to the FCA. However, the FCA is considering reviewing the case for incentivisation again in financial year 2017-18. I would be happy to provide an update following that review.

The amendment also contains a provision with regard to retaliatory action against whistleblowers. I reiterate and reassure noble Lords that such a provision is unnecessary. Workers who have evidence that their employer has provided a negative reference, have been unfairly dismissed or have otherwise suffered detriment for making a public interest disclosure already have a route to seek compensation against their employer through an employment tribunal.

Some concerns were raised that we have seen a decline in the number of whistleblowing cases for the second year in a row, from 1,340 in 2014-15, to 1,014 in 2015-16 and 900 in 2016-17. The FCA does not have a target for the numbers of whistleblowing reports. Its aim is simply to ensure that those who prefer to report to an independent body know about its role and that, if they need to take the often difficult step of reporting on an employer, they and their information will be treated sensitively and professionally. New rules came into force in September 2016 that require banks, building societies and insurers to have internal whistleblowing arrangements in place and to appoint an internal champion. We understand many firms began to implement these measures earlier than the commencement date, so we believe that this has affected the numbers going directly to the FCA. This is a positive message as many complaints are resolved earlier and without regulatory intervention, or lead to self-reports by firms themselves.

I want to address one point made by the noble Baroness: how we became aware of the issue regarding the investigation of the whistleblower’s identity by the CEO of Barclays and what action the FCA is taking. I recognise the concern that the noble Baroness raised about the Barclays example and I agree that behaviour of the kind she described does not serve the reputation of the industry nor the interests of the country. We must do all we can to prevent this type of behaviour. As the noble Baroness said, I realise that time is short but this issue is not going away. I ask whether she would be amenable to withdrawing her amendment, fully aware that I will hear more about the subject after the general election, should the outcome return a Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

[Lord Rosser]

I am not sure whether I should come in now but I just take this opportunity to thank the Minister and her ministerial colleagues in the Bill team for their willingness to meet and engage in what have been constructive and helpful discussions on not only provisions that are in the Bill but also provisions that are not, since it is with the latter that most differences of view or approach have centred. I also thank my Front-Bench colleagues for their hard work, not least—although he is not in his place—my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who has not been exactly short of commitments in respect of other Bills as well. Finally, I thank the staff in our own office, not least Grace Wright, for their help and advice in navigating our way through this Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I echo those thanks to the Minister and the Bill team. As several people have said—most frequently the noble Lord, Lord Rosser —it is what is not in the Bill that has exercised us most. I can see an enormous amount of material for Private Members’ Bill in the next Session if we do not have government Bills that we can tack our—“demands” would be the wrong word—concerns on to. But the Minister has done an absolutely sterling job and I hope she gets five minutes to have a bit of a rest before she sets out campaigning. We have the luxury of knowing that we will be back to pursue these interests.

Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

Fraud and money laundering cost billions, fund terror and misery and make us a low-justice country for big business—and could even be used against us in seeking trade agreements. There is urgency. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 166, which is also in this group. It would require the Secretary of State to issue a public consultation on new criminal offences for corporate criminal liability and for economic crime within six months of the day on which the Bill becomes an Act, and for the Secretary of State then to bring forward legislative proposals in response to the consultation within 12 months of the day on which the Bill becomes an Act.

The Bill makes it a corporate offence to fail to prevent tax evasion and adopts a similar approach to prosecution of bribery offences. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, said, gaps remain in the law as regards the practical possibility of prosecuting companies for important economic crimes such as fraud, false accounting and money laundering, let alone the severe harms caused to individuals, including those overseas.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, again indicated, the issue was raised at Second Reading, when the Government said that,

“it would be wrong to rush into legislation in this area”,

of corporate liability for economic crime, and that there was,

“a need to establish whether changes to the law are justified”.

The Government said that they launched a public call for evidence—the closing date for which has now passed—and that if the responses,

“justify changes to the law, a consultation on a firm proposal would follow”.

Accordingly, the Government declined to comment on a timetable for reform,

“should that be the way forward”.—[Official Report, 9/3/17; col. 1518.]

The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre recorded just over 300 allegations of human rights abuses made against 127 UK-linked companies between 2004 and 2014. Although there is clear evidence that some companies were potentially serial offenders, it seems that there have been no corporate criminal prosecutions. Nearly half the allegations were made against extractive companies.

If there is a consultation following the call for evidence—and that may well be a big if—will the Government also consult on the need, or otherwise, to change the law on corporate criminal liability on human rights violations as well as economic crime? When an individual injures or kills another person, a criminal prosecution is initiated, but when a company is involved in causing similar harm—not least overseas—the ability to prosecute companies successfully is much reduced to the point of it being almost a deterrent to proceeding at all.

Overall, the corporate criminal law needs to provide that companies can be held liable for committing offences and not just for omitting to prevent them. No UK financial institution has faced criminal charges as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, and there appear to have been some recent serious issues which have resulted in no prosecution against companies as opposed to an ability to resolve the matter through financial payment.

There is also the issue that it appears from a relatively recent case that, under corporate liability laws, it is not illegal for companies to mislead their auditors. As has been said, current laws seriously disadvantage small and medium-sized businesses compared with larger businesses. SMEs, where directors are more involved, are much more easily prosecuted under the existing corporate liability regime, since current UK corporate liability laws rely on a “directing mind” test that requires prosecutors to prove that senior board-level executives intended the misconduct to occur. The Crown Prosecution Service, for example, stated that because of corporate liability laws it could not mount a successful prosecution against the companies involved in the phone-hacking scandal.

When do the Government intend to commit themselves to address this issue of the deficiencies within the current corporate criminal liability laws? They could do so today by accepting one of the amendments in this group. They could do so today by accepting my amendment, with its timetable for a public consultation and then legislation. If that is more than the Government are prepared to do, they could today at least announce that there will definitely be a public consultation on a firm proposal on the issue, following the call for evidence, and say when that public consultation is likely to commence.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests, principally as a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I wish to speak particularly on Amendment 161. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, is right that the mood of the public has changed dramatically and significantly against those who practise tax evasion—and to some extent tax avoidance, which I think she mentioned, although we are focusing here on tax evasion—so having such a clause in the Bill is very welcome.

Turning my mind back to 20 or 30 years ago when I was a tax practitioner, in many respects it would have been remarkable to think that this clause might appear in a Bill. Indeed, many of your Lordships may have noticed in Sunday’s and today’s national papers a two-page advertisement by a large Swiss bank protesting that it does not in any way condone tax evasion. It is quite extraordinary to see that—and most welcome—and it has no doubt come about in part because of the pressure to change public opinion brought to bear by the Government and Members of this House.

However, in respect of Amendment 161, I agree that the damage caused by economic crime is very serious. I welcome the Government’s consultation on corporate criminal liability for economic crime, but this is an extremely complex legal area that could significantly impact on the UK’s financial sector, in which I work, and in particular on the UK’s SME financial sector, which has a lot on its plate at the moment. Therefore, I hope that the Government will bring forward a consultation on possible options for reform following the conclusion of the call for evidence, which I think has just ended or will close shortly. We should wait until that is completed before a decision is made on introducing new legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to return today to our debate in Committee, beginning with the very important issue of corporate criminal liability. Through this Bill the Government are building on the efforts of the last Labour Government, when they created the Bribery Act, by creating new corporate offences of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. These are significant proposals and I look forward to debating them further shortly. The amendments in this group relate to corporate criminal liability for other types of economic crime—that is, other than bribery and the facilitation of tax evasion. This issue has, of course, arisen a number of times in both Houses during the passage of the Bill, and these amendments have allowed us to have an insightful and constructive debate.

As noble Lords have said, the damage caused by economic crime perpetrated on behalf of or in the name of companies—to individuals, businesses, the wider economy and the reputation of the United Kingdom as a place to do business—is a very serious matter. As this House will be aware, the Bribery Act is widely respected as both a sound enforcement tool and a measure that incentivises bribery prevention as part of good corporate governance. As I have said, this Bill makes similar provision in regard to the facilitation of tax evasion. That provision has followed a process of full and lengthy public consultation, as did the implementation of the Bribery Act. As my noble friend Lord Leigh alluded to, these are very complex legal and policy issues with the potential for significant impact on companies operating in the UK.

I hope noble Lords will agree that this level of detailed consideration of both the existing legal framework and any proposals to extend it was crucial. That is why the Government announced, at the time of last year’s London Anti-Corruption Summit, that we would consult on the creation of new forms of criminal liability. The Government’s public call for evidence on corporate criminal liability for economic crime was published on 13 January. It openly requested evidence for and against the case for reform, and sought views on a number of possible options, such as the Bribery Act’s “failure to prevent” model, as an alternative to the current common law rules. The consultation closed only last week, on Friday 31 March. The Ministry of Justice is now assessing the responses received, but, as noble Lords will appreciate, it is too early to confirm the outcome. Should the responses received justify changes to the law, the Government would then consult on a firm proposal, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, articulated. I hope that reassures him that we are continuing to explore this issue as his amendment proposes. I trust noble Lords will agree that it would be wrong to rush into legislation, or to commit to doing so in the future, prior to giving the matter the appropriate consideration, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson said.

Amendment 161 provides for the novel approach that we could add additional offences to the legislation by regulations. I commend the noble Baroness on her ingenuity—I was promised she would show it—but, as I have said, these are complex issues with potentially significant implications for companies across the country. The Government do not, therefore, believe that it would be appropriate to extend the failure to prevent offences via secondary legislation, which would not allow for the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny of proposals such as this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the timing of the failure to prevent measures and why the Government do not act now. She said we cannot afford to delay and made a point about the upcoming Brexit legislation. I remind noble Lords that the Bribery Act offence has been on the statute book for a number of years, allowing us to assess its effectiveness. We are now legislating on tax evasion and already looking closely and openly at the question of extending it to wider economic crimes. The Government are not delaying, we are acting—and we are doing so in a sensible and considered way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, asked about the standard of proof for the failure to prevent economic crime. Her Amendment 163 allows for the defence of reasonable procedures to be satisfied by the civil standard—that is, the balance of probabilities. I can confirm, as she wanted, that it mirrors the approach in the Government’s proposed offence of corporate failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether HMG will legislate to create corporate liability for failure to prevent serious harm or human rights abuse. I wrote to the noble Lord about this—it is obviously seared in his brain or, probably, was passed straight to his outbox. All businesses are expected to comply with the legislation that comes under the jurisdiction of the UK, including that which relates to human rights. While the Government have no ability to regulate UK businesses operating in overseas jurisdictions, we encourage them to honour the principles of internationally recognised human rights wherever they operate. More broadly, in 2013, we were the first country in the world to produce a national action plan in response to the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights.

Large UK-domiciled businesses must also comply with laws that require them to report certain human rights issues, including the Companies Act and our world-leading Modern Slavery Act, which requires them to produce annual statements on what they have done to ensure that such issues do not occur in their business and supply chains.

I hope I have fully answered noble Lords’ questions and that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, will feel free to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I suspect I am on a mission that is not going to succeed, but it is unfortunate that a number of key decisions are likely not to be taken by the Government until this Bill becomes an Act. The Minister said that the closing date of the public call for evidence in relation to corporate criminal liability has just gone, but do the Government expect to give any indication before Report as to whether or not they will be moving to consultation on a firm proposal or, alternatively, are they likely to indicate before Third Reading whether they will be moving to consultation on a further proposal?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I may look into that and let the noble Lord know because I am reluctant to make sweeping promises at the Dispatch Box without knowing exactly what the timescales will be. I will let him know, certainly before Report, what the expected timescales are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I rise as a signatory to Amendment 167, which I fully support.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, highlighted, the recent “global laundromat” revelations make the need for our amendment rather pressing. As she said, it is exactly a year since the Panama papers were published and we have yet another leak. Must we wait for the next one before we follow through on the commitment made by our former Prime Minister David Cameron?

In general, of course, I add my support to the overall measures in the Bill. I know that they will go a long way to addressing corruption. I think that almost all Members of Parliament and Peers who have spoken have supported its measures, which should give the Government comfort. I also agree that the Government deserve enormous praise for the work they have done both here in the UK and internationally to tackle corruption, tax evasion and avoidance. Since David Cameron put the issue at the centre of his 2013 G8 summit, the Government have shown global leadership on an issue that blights so many countries. I very much support the progress made on this agenda, particularly at the anti-corruption summit in May last year, and the work taken forward by the OECD to tackle corporate tax avoidance. It is also worth noting that the former Prime Minister committed himself to seek to persuade the overseas territories to introduce transparency. That is the element I want to take forward today.

We all welcome the progress that has been made by the overseas territories. I am pleased that they have now agreed on the importance of having registers of beneficial ownership and I look forward to them being in place very soon. However, we must also recognise that the UK’s Crown dependencies have made real progress on this in recent years. My understanding is that they will all have central registers of beneficial ownership. While these will not be publicly accessible yet, central registers are much easier to interrogate, and crucially they will be much easier to make public in due course. This contrasts with some of the overseas territories that have not yet put in place central registers. The British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands are, as I understand it, instead implementing—or wishing to implement—a complex system of linked registers. Is my noble friend the Minister content with this? Exactly how would linked registers work in such places? If, for instance, the UK Government made a request, would the Government in the jurisdiction concerned then make a separate request to whoever administers that bit of the register? Is the Minister satisfied that these linked registers will give the UK Government the ability to request information quickly, and does she have any concerns about how they will work, and whether they will make making requests for information easier or harder for the UK Government?

Also, to what extent and with what vigour are the UK Government making representations to the overseas territories about introducing central registers, so that they will be easier to make public when public registers become the new global standard? Naturally, such registers are a good first step for law enforcement agencies to be able to access information quickly. But the Government have already accepted that in order to properly tackle corruption, this information must be open to public scrutiny. Journalists, NGOs and the public must be able to examine the information, not just for us in the UK but also for those developing countries which suffer most from corruption and need access to the information the most. People in developing countries cannot currently benefit from the huge plethora of information-sharing agreements that we have around the world.

I admit that I am a bit confused by the Government’s recent comments on this issue. I was of the impression that it was our strong desire to see public registers of beneficial ownership. I need hardly remind noble Lords again of David Cameron calling them the “gold standard” at last year’s very welcome anti-corruption summit in London. Yet, I noted the Minister’s comments in the other place that we do not expect our overseas territories to have public registers until and unless they become a global standard. My concern is that if we wait for this to happen, it could be an excuse for no progress to be made for many years. Can the Minister assure me that this will not be the case and say how we can guarantee faster movement? I understand that in some cases, there has even been a failure to respond positively to UK inquiries on the subject.

We should remember that the historic relationship with the overseas territories has benefits for all of us. It is fair to ask those jurisdictions that while their economy and defence depend on the stability and integrity of the UK, they should also be expected to follow the same rules of business and investment that we follow here. This is not about destroying a country’s economic business model or anything like that. That is why this amendment has given an extra two years to make registers public. It is about working with them and making sure that they are following the rules in taking clean money and not gaining from illicit finance. The UK’s global reputation is also very much at stake.

I know that there are concerns in this House about interfering in the affairs of overseas territories, but I remind noble Lords that we have done this before, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said, on issues of equivalent moral importance. I confess that if the Government now think that we should not insist on these registers being made public, why on earth did they suggest it in the first place, and why did Ministers expend so much energy over such a period of time on it? Surely we should not give up at this point. David Cameron was right. We should keep trying as hard as we can and should give all the assistance we possibly can to the overseas territory Governments to achieve this.

Finally, can the Minister give an assurance that all overseas territories will at least have central registers of beneficial ownership by that June deadline? If not, when will all of them have them? The complex arrangements for linked registers seem overly problematic and will make publishing registers more difficult in future. What specific progress has been made in persuading the overseas territories to adopt those public registers? Simply saying that they will adopt them if other countries do it is not enough, and neither is not mentioning transparency while the private registers are being put in place.

As we look towards the UK’s role in a post-Brexit world, we must continue to lead in this important area of anti-corruption and transparency.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 167, and I will also bring my Amendments 168 and 169 into play, not least because, unless I have misunderstood the situation, my noble friend Lord Eatwell will certainly wish to speak about one of my amendments in this group, if not all three of them.

I fully support Amendment 167 and will touch on some of the arguments in support of it when referring to Amendments 168 and 169. Amendment 169 would provide a duty on the Secretary of State to hold a consultation on the establishment of a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of UK property by companies registered outside the United Kingdom within six months of the commencement of Section 1 of this legislation. It would also require the Secretary of State to bring forward legislative proposals to set up such a register within 12 months of the commencement of the section.

--- Later in debate ---

I am sorry that I have taken so long. I hope that I have given as fulsome an explanation as noble Lords expected.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify a couple of points. First, in the light of what she has said and what has been said in this debate about competitive disadvantage, are the Government arguing that accepting Amendment 167 would place the overseas territories at a competitive disadvantage and that that is a key reason for the Government opposing the amendment? Secondly, in view of what the Government have said about wanting to work with the overseas territories in particular, is the reality that if either the overseas territories or the Crown dependencies do not agree to public registers of beneficial ownership, then that will not happen in relation to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Can the noble Lord repeat his last point?

[Lord Rosser]

Certainly. My question relates to what the Government have said about working with the overseas territories. Does that mean that if either the overseas territories or the Crown dependencies decline to agree to public registers of beneficial ownership, then that will not happen in relation to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies? Is that the Government’s position?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, they are all committed to working towards the same end. It would be perverse if, having signed up to this arrangement, they then decided that they were not going to work with the Government. If they suddenly stalled on working with the Government, the Government would encourage them to do so in strong terms.

[Lord Rosser]

I did not realise they had signed up to public registers. Since the Government say they want to work with the overseas territories in particular, I am simply asking what would happen if either the overseas territories or Crown dependencies declined to agree to have public registers of beneficial ownership. Is the Government’s position that it would therefore not happen as far as the overseas territories and Crown dependencies are concerned?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government are fully committed to working with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to achieve the ultimate end of public registers. I have now forgotten what the noble Lord asked me on Amendment 167.

[Lord Rosser]

I was simply saying that, in the light of what has been said in this debate by a number of noble Lords about the overseas territories being placed at a competitive disadvantage if the amendment was accepted, are the Government arguing that to accept Amendment 167 would place the overseas territories at a competitive disadvantage and that that is a key reason for them opposing the amendment? Or is the reason for the Government’s opposition to the amendment a dislike of what they would describe as imposing something on the overseas territories rather than working with them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord’s latter suggestion is correct: we do not want to impose on the overseas territories but want to work consensually with them to achieve the aims that we seek. The overseas territories may face competitive disadvantage in the short term, but in the long term, the transparent and open way in which the territories intend to work, and we with them, will be to their advantage.