Sanctions

Baroness Hodge of Barking Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am looking to run this statement for about an hour. Short questions and speedy answers would help us all.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the progress that she is making. I ask just two questions. First, it is still unclear to me and, I think, to most members of the public whether members of the Duma can be sanctioned by this Government. Will the Foreign Secretary clarify that point for us? Secondly, it is not just Russia; jurisdictions such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are also complicit in supporting Putin in his endeavours. Is she taking any action to sanction members of those jurisdictions?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Members of the Duma can and will be sanctioned. We are working through the list of members in the same way as we are working through our hit list of oligarchs. I will look into the issues surrounding Kazakhstan and other nations. We are already sanctioning Belarus, and we will shortly impose more sanctions on it for its complicity in this abhorrent invasion.

Countering Russian Aggression and Tackling Illicit Finance

Baroness Hodge of Barking Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is so right. These properties are pricing out young people and challenging working people. Often, the lights are off and no one knows who owns them. If that is not an urgent issue, I do not know what is. I was staggered when the Prime Minister said that it did not merit action until the next Session.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

It is not just about urgent action. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that legislation on publishing the beneficial ownership of UK properties owned by entities abroad was promised by the Government in 2016, there was consultation on a draft Bill—I think a Bill is sitting in Government, ready to go—and it was promised again in the 2019 manifesto and at G7 meetings but has yet to appear? Is that not an utter scandal?

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is right. In six years, there has been promise after promise—we have had more promises from the Dispatch Box today—and we are still waiting. It is not worthy of our great democracy. The public deserve better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We note, do we not, individuals who are the target of sanctions in Europe and who have been the target of sanctions in the United States since 2018? And we wait and we wait and we wait. And we wonder why this Government are so slow to act.

Today, we call on the whole House to come together to end the tidal flow of dirty Russian money flooding into our country by: ending our openness to fraud and money laundering with an economic crime Bill that should be brought forward this month; fixing our inadequate regulation of political donations by reversing the Conservative’s Elections Bill that is setting us back; strengthening our lax mechanisms of corporate governance; enabling our national agencies to clamp down on economic crime; and blocking the threat of foreign interference in our politics. We need transparency with an overseas entities Bill and the reform of Companies House to shut down the shell companies that obscure the origins of wealth and hide corruption, and reveal who owns land from abroad. Finally, this House must come together and recognise the urgency of implementing the Russia report, which was published in July 2020—nearly two years ago.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I welcome the commitments he has made on the sort of action a Labour Government would immediately put in place. There is one area he has not covered, which I think is of great importance: the role played by the financial services sector and the enablers here in London in supporting money laundering and illicit finance. Whether lawyers, accountants, the banks or other advisers, they are often complicit in this activity. Does he agree that the economic crime Bill also needs clauses that tackle the role of enablers in enabling illicit finance?

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Over two thirds of our economy is the service sector. The consultants, lawyers and accountants are absolutely a part of the process of dirty money and the laundromat. We must act to deal with them. [Interruption.] Of course not all of them, but there are facilitators and we expect to see the appropriate clauses in the economic crime Bill.

Defeating Putinism starts with leadership that represents our values. If we are to be taken seriously on the world stage when we talk about democracy, we cannot be watering it down at home with unfair reforms such as voter ID and loose rules about overseas donations. If we are to be credible champions of international law, our leaders must practise the laws they set at home. The best way to defend the rule of law is to follow it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will talk about what we want to crack down on, but, as he will recognise, such things need to be legally robust.

To go back to the examples that I was giving before that intervention, the UK is a world leader in corporate transparency. It is the first country in the G20 to implement a central public register of company beneficial owners, showing who ultimately owns and controls UK companies. However, we are determined to go further to crack down on dirty money and financial exploitation, and we are enhancing the already strong regulation, supervision and legislative powers that are at our disposal.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

More in sorrow than in anger, I raise the issue of Russian money and its role within the Conservative party. Fedotov, Temerko, Chernukhin, Mikheev, Knaster and New Century Media are all Russians or Russian companies who have close links to the Conservative party and have given money to Conservative MPs, Conservative constituencies or the Conservative central office. The figure I have is greater than the one that Labour Front Benchers have been using; I think it has been at least £3.6 million over the past decade.

I urge the Minister—I really do say this more in sorrow than in anger—to go back to her colleagues, sort this out and get that money out. I would not give it back to Russia; I would give it to organisations such as Transparency International, which does a fantastic job helping us to fight corruption. Until the Conservative party does so, it will have no credibility at all in the argument on fighting corruption.

[Amanda Milling]

Let me be clear. The Conservative party does not accept foreign donations—after all, they are illegal. All donations to the party are received in good faith, after appropriate due diligence, from permissible sources. Donations are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission and published by it, and they comply fully with the law.

Kazakhstan: Anti-corruption Sanctions

Baroness Hodge of Barking Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate and the Minister for joining us. I also thank a host of civil society experts who have helped me—too many to name—but I give special thanks to Professor John Heathershaw of Exeter University, Adam Hug of the Foreign Policy Centre and Sue Hawley of Spotlight on Corruption.

Earlier this week, the Foreign Secretary announced welcome moves to toughen up the sanctions regime against Russia, but we should not be waiting for a potential military crisis before we act against illicit finance at home and corruption overseas. We should act and use the powers we have now.

Today, I want to shine a light on foreign corruption in another state, not simply because that is important in itself, but because I want to highlight the UK’s role in facilitating shameful wrongdoing. Put simply, Britain enables kleptocracy. My ask of the Government is twofold. First, they should act proactively by sanctioning wrongdoers in Kazakhstan. Secondly, now that they have committed to tabling an economic crime Bill in the next Session, they must ensure the Bill’s provisions are fit for purpose, tough, effective and appropriate so that Britain can show by what we do that we are seriously committed to fighting the scourge of dirty money.

It is 30 years since Kazakhstan, a multi-ethnic, resource-rich central Asian state, emerged from the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In those years, Kazakhstan has, by some indicators, been a success. Its GDP growth has outstripped that of many of its neighbours, including Russia. Living standards are higher and until the 2010s Kazakhstan appeared to enjoy political stability.  

But there is another side to the Kazakhstan story. The country is ruled by a kleptocratic elite that has grown rich off the back of money stolen from its people. Until 2019, its autocratic dictator was Nursultan Nazarbayev.  In Kazakhstan, just 162 people own 55% of the wealth—mostly members of Nazarbayev’s family or close associates. The country has a poor human rights record and little media freedom.  

As early as 2006, Jonathan Winer, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Law Enforcement in the Clinton Administration, said:

“I can’t think of a leader in the free world as notoriously corrupt as Nazarbayev… We’ve know about his corruption for at least 15 years”.  

 Yet in Britain, we turned a blind eye, ignored the corruption and helped the Kazakh regime launder and spend its dirty money. 

Three examples confirm my view. Between 2008 and 2015, we issued 205 Kazakh kleptocrats with golden visas to settle with their dirty money in the UK, which was the fifth most common country for users of the Tier 1 Investor scheme. A recent Chatham House report reveals that the Kazakh elite owns over half a billion pounds of property in the UK. Around £330 million of that belongs to Nazarbayev’s extended family, including Sunninghill Park, allegedly bought by Nazarbayev’s son-in-law for £15 million—£3 million over the asking price. The Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project has revealed how Nazarbayev secretly controls four charitable foundations with at least $7.8 billion-worth of assets, invested in everything from hotels to banks. This global fortune is part-owned through a UK listed holding company set up in 2020—Jusan Technologies. 

We have opened our borders, our property market and our financial structures to the Kazakh ruling class, enabling them to launder their illicit wealth and spend it. Worse, we do not even enforce our existing laws against any of this wrongdoing. 

Why does this matter now? Because the fault lines of the corrupt Kazakh political elite have exploded. Protests, initially triggered by the soaring costs of liquidised petroleum gas, quickly developed into a national movement against the governing regime. The response from the new President, Tokayev, allegedly handpicked for the job by Nazarbayev, was initially to distance himself from the old regime. He then requested support from Russia, which sent in troops. Finally, on 7 January, he deployed the military against the protesters, with a “shoot to kill without warning” order. Protesters, most of whom were peaceful citizens, were gunned down without so much as a warning shot. According to some experts, this shocking, violent suppression has left 225 dead, 4,500 injured and 10,000 arrested.  

That terrible loss of life in Kazakhstan should lead to a moment of reflection for us in Britain. We are complicit in what is happening in Kazakhstan. Our lack of transparency over foreign property ownership, our lax regulatory regime and our weak enforcement agencies have all aided and abetted the Kazakh elite. 

Yet it is not too late for us to act. The Government have put in place a new regime of anti-corruption sanctions to complement our Magnitsky sanctions. They allow us to designate foreign, corrupt actors, freeze their UK assets, stop them entering Britain and limit their access to our financial or legal enablers. Sanctions are powerful tools, but, Minister, they must be used. That is why the Government should impose sanctions on the Kazakh oligarchs, who have systematically robbed their people to line their own pockets. The recent violence demonstrates the true cost of kleptocracy. It is surely up to us, in the UK, the jurisdiction that has done so much to facilitate corruption in Kazakhstan, to act and hold these individuals to account.  

Our all-party group on anti-corruption and responsible tax is co-operating with representatives from legislatures in Europe and America. We have formed the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance against Kleptocracy, and together we are urging Governments in the UK, the US and the EU to issue sanctions against the kleptocrats of Kazakhstan. Today, I am calling for action from the UK to designate anti-corruption sanctions against the following individuals, whom I shall name, all of whom are allegedly involved in asset seizure and bribery. The details I will provide are limited because of time, but every story is shocking.

There is Timur Kulibayev, his wife Dinаra Nazarbayeva —the daughter of Nazarbayev—and their associate Arvind Tiku. Evidence suggests that Kulibayev abused his position to accrue vast wealth. In 2020, the Financial Times showed that Kulibayev benefited from a secret scheme to divert profits from big state pipeline contracts. He has faced money laundering and bribery investigations in other jurisdictions. His worth, according to Forbes, is $2.9 billion, and he owns at least £60 million of real estate here in the UK.

There is Dariga Nazarbayeva and her rumoured husband Kairat Sharipbayev. Dariga is Nazarbayev’s eldest daughter. Her empire, estimated by Forbes at $595 million, is hidden in an incredibly complex system of offshore companies, foundations and trusts. Three of her London properties were subject to a failed unexplained wealth order, but investigators at Source Material allege that Nazarbayeva may have misled the UK High Court. Meanwhile, Sharipbayev is allegedly one of the beneficiaries of a $334 million fraud at Kazakh bank Bank RBK, which has been labelled

“the bank of the Nazarbayev family”.

There is Nurali Aliyev, son of Dariga and grandson of the former ruler. Aliyev was appointed deputy chairman of a private Kazakh bank called Nurbank—after the grandfather—at the age of 21, and chairman at 22. UK court documents show he received a $65 million loan from a bank in 2008, through a company which then made a further loan. According to Nurali’s lawyers, he used some of those funds to purchase a £39.5 million house in Bishops Avenue.

There is Karim Massimov, and his associate Aigul Nuriyeva. Massimov is a former Prime Minister of Kazakhstan who has been subject to bribery allegations, including from UK listed companies, as reported in the FT. He was also implicated in allegations of bribery by Airbus for the purchase of 45 helicopters. Nuriyeva is a Kazakh banker and alleged proxy for Massimov, who is himself implicated in major bribery scandals totalling $64 million with the Swedish telecoms company Teli.

Vladimir Kim is Kazakhstan’s richest man, worth some $4.3 billion. He chaired Kazakhmys plc, the first Kazakh company to list on the London Stock Exchange. A Global Witness report claimed that Kim acted as a proxy owner, and that Nazarbayev actually controlled the company. In 2017, Kim’s daughter Kamila, then 18, bought three flats worth $60 million in Knightsbridge. His associate, Eduard Ogay, is co-owner of Kazakhmys—sorry if I am pronouncing these names wrongly—and is alleged to have given bribes to the country’s Prime Minister.

Kenes Rakishev is a mysteriously wealthy Kazakh businessman worth up to $1.6 billion, with close ties to the political elite, and a close associate of the head of the Chechen Republic, who has been sanctioned by the US.

Sauat Mynbayev was Minister for energy and mineral resources, yet he secretly co-owned a Bermuda-based company worth $3 billion, which won public contracts in Kazakhstan despite the obvious conflicts of interest with his ministerial role. His wife and son own property in the UK.

Alexander Mashkevich, Patokh Chodiev and an associate who died were known as the “Trio”, renowned for their ownership of Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, a Kazakh-based mining company also listed on the London Stock Exchange. In 2013, the Serious Fraud Office launched a criminal investigation into the company, following allegations of bribery to African political figures.

Bulat Utemuratov is a former chief of staff to Nazarbayev. A US diplomatic cable reported allegations that Utemuratov was the President’s “personal financial manager” and his own website assesses his personal wealth at $3.9 billion.

Bolat Nazarbayev is Nursultan Nazarbayev’s very wealthy brother. In 2008, he purchased a £20 million apartment in Manhattan’s ultra-exclusive Plaza Hotel. He is accused of involvement in armed groups that helped to spark the January violence.

Akhmetzhan Yesimov, chairman of the sovereign wealth fund, allegedly abused his position to give his former son-in-law, Galimzhan Yessenov, related party loans through secretive British Virgin Islands companies to buy a UK entity called Kazphosphate. Yessenov is now one of Kazakhstan’s richest men.

Kairat Boranbayev’s daughter married Nazarbayev’s grandson—it is all in the family. He held a number of positions, including one involved in the notoriously corrupt transit of gas from Turkmenistan. He owns a £25.4 million mansion in an exclusive gated community in Virginia Water, a £60 million flat in One Hyde Park, and three luxury apartments, worth more than £15 million, in Knightsbridge.

Then there is Alexander Klebanov and his son Yakov. Alexander has an estimated wealth of $374 million and chairs the Central Asian Electric Power Corporation. The two act as financial proxies for the former president’s family, and are thought to have helped Dariga Nazarbayeva to avoid the unexplained wealth order.

Nurlan Nigmatulin, Baurzhan Baibek and Marat Beketayev are senior figures in the ruling Nur Otan party and are close associates of Nazarbayev. They are embedded in supporting corruption and allegedly responsible for human rights abuses.

A UK High Court has highlighted how Aliya Nazarbayeva, Nazarbayev’s youngest daughter, moved over $300 million out of the country through complex offshore structures, including in the BVI. Aidan Karibzhanov is accused by his former wife of having profited from his position as a banker by selling the Kazakhstan national telecoms company and, I quote,

“privatization of public assets resulting in huge profits to politically connected insiders at the expense of the state”.

Kairat Satybaldy and Samat Abish are Nazarbayev’s nephews, enjoying significant wealth through offshore structures. Both are key players in Nazarbayev’s inner circle, involved in the current power struggle that is undermining peace and security.

I have named those people. Imposing sanctions on this corrupt elite will not of itself root out evil practices or lead to a radical democratic transformation in Kazakhstan, but it will demonstrate that we mean what we say when we commit to fighting dirty money and corruption. The cost of inaction is high. The reputation of London and our financial services sector is already sullied, with the UK seen as the jurisdiction of choice for dirty money. With swift action, we can begin to restore the idea of a good global Britain and demonstrate to our allies that we will not provide a safe haven for kleptocrats or oligarchs.

I ask the Minister whether he will consider the individuals I have named and impose sanctions on those who have stolen from their country, laundered their money here, used UK structures to hide their ill-gotten gains, used the golden visa route to gain entry to the UK or committed human rights abuses. Will he act now? Only by strengthening transparency, legislating for tougher regulations and ensuring consistent, strong enforcement will we be able to hold our heads up high again as a trusted jurisdiction that lives by the highest standards. We must finally turn the warm words of successive Governments into firm actions in the promised economic crime Bill. Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will be considered this year? If the Government fail yet again on these two fronts, the only ones who will be delighted are people such as the criminal kleptocrats from Kazakhstan who will be laughing all the way to the bank.

[The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America (James Cleverly)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing the debate and I pay tribute to the work that she has done on these complex issues both in her former role as a Select Committee Chair and as chair of the all-party group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. As my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister with responsibility for south and central Asia, is in the other place, it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government.

This month, the UK celebrated 30 years of diplomatic relations with Kazakhstan, our largest partner in central Asia. Over the years, we have built a strong partnership in areas such as oil and gas investment, education and financial services, as well as promoting human rights and democratic values. We have had real success in encouraging a more open business environment in Kazakhstan, including through the Astana International Financial Centre.

Hon. Members—though few are here—will have witnessed the violent clashes that took place in January after initially peaceful protests in western Kazakhstan over increased fuel prices. As the right hon. Lady said, the latest estimates are that more than 200 people died during those clashes. There were reports of organised attacks on property and law enforcement officers, and almost 10,000 people were detained. I am sure that she will join me and others in roundly condemning the violence and loss of life.

My noble Friend Lord Ahmad has been engaged intensively on these issues, speaking to senior Kazakh contacts last month, including President Tokayev’s special representative on 14 January. In each of these calls, the Minister has underlined the importance of Kazakhstan respecting its international human rights commitments. President Tokayev has called what happened an “attempted coup” and we are urgently seeking further information about that very serious development. We welcome the President’s decision to establish an investigative commission to ascertain what led to these unprecedented events and loss of life. We support the Kazakh authorities’ commitment that this will be an effective and transparent investigation and have encouraged them to consider international and independent expertise.

In his public remarks, the President was clear that the original peaceful protests were based on legitimate grievances about the socioeconomic situation and that urgent economic reform is needed. We support that message and we seek opportunities, with our international partners, to support those reforms.

President Tokayev has also been critical of an existing social system that has seen economic growth largely benefit a small number of very rich people in society, as the right hon. Lady highlighted. We are well aware of reports on the alleged acquisition of assets by wealthy members of elite Kazakh society, including of substantial property holdings here in the UK. It is, of course, the role of law enforcement agencies to investigate any specific allegations of wrongdoing, as she said.

As a leading financial services centre, the UK can, unfortunately, be the destination for the proceeds of corruption, despite findings from the Financial Action Task Force that the UK has one of the strongest systems to combat money laundering and terrorist financing of more than 60 countries assessed to date. Consequently, the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy committed to take stronger action to bear down on illicit finance, including by bolstering the National Economic Crime Centre and working with our closest allies, such as the United States, to maximise our collective impact against this common threat.

The recent spending review has put new resources behind that commitment: £42 million for economic crime reform from now until 2025. That is in addition to £63 million for Companies House reform and the introduction of the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy, which will raise around £100 million per year from the private sector, to combat economic crime from 2023. These additional resources will significantly enhance our ability to tackle transnational corruption and illicit finance.

Since 2006, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has funded the National Crime Agency’s international corruption unit, a world-renowned law enforcement capability focused on investigating corruption from developing countries with UK links. Since funding started in 2006, ICU investigations have resulted in the conviction of 30 people and companies for corruption offences. It has also frozen, confiscated or returned to developing countries more than £1.1 billion-worth of stolen assets.

In addition, the UK leads and hosts the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre, which brings together specialist law enforcement officers from multiple agencies around the world to tackle allegations of grand corruption. The IACCC significantly enhances our ability to investigate complex, multi-jurisdictional corruption cases. Since its launch in 2017, it has provided support on 88 investigations.

In 2019, the UK launched its economic crime plan that provides a joined-up public and private sector response to economic crime. The success of our public-private partnership is perfectly demonstrated by the work of the joint money laundering intelligence taskforce, a mechanism that enables law enforcement and the financial sector to work more closely together to detect, prevent and disrupt money laundering and economic crime. To date, the joint money laundering intelligence taskforce has helped more than 600 law enforcement investigations. This has directly contributed to over 150 arrests and the seizure of more than £34 million in illicit funds.

Finally, in April last year, the UK launched the global anti-corruption sanctions regime, which the right hon. Lady mentioned in her remarks. This allows the Government to impose asset freezes and travel bans on those involved in serious corruption around the world, and it sends a message that the UK will not tolerate those individuals, or their ill-gotten gains, in our country. The regime does not target countries, but instead targets those individuals or organisations that are responsible. We believe that this is a strong, personal deterrent and it has been used so far to sanction 27 individuals in 10 different countries.

Collectively, these investments significantly enhance our ability to bring corrupt actors to justice. They also send a clear message that we will use the full force of our capabilities to bear down on those who seek to use the UK as a destination for their illegitimate wealth.

Criminals, corrupt elites and individuals who threaten our security are not welcome in the UK.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister, but he has given me a very general response. I named more than 20 individuals, many of whom are members of the same family. Will he undertake to investigate the circumstances that I briefly outlined, and undertake that, if I am correct, those individuals will face sanctions under the new regime?

Russian Federation: Human Rights

Baroness Hodge of Barking Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

Again, we have been very clear what our expectations are when it comes to Russia and Russian behaviour. When it comes to the case of Alexei Navalny, Russia must fully respond to the OPCW demands for a transparent investigation and explain how a chemical weapon came to be used against a Russian citizen on Russian soil. Russia must start to account for itself.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]]

The best way in which we can show our support for Alexei Navalny is not by words but by actions, and not by investigations but by convictions. Navalny himself has said that he wants the international community to use sanctions against complicit Russian kleptocrats who live outside Russia. He has named Abramovich and Usmanov, both of whom have considerable wealth, property and links to English football clubs. On Facebook, Navalny has said that the sanctions have not worked because

“the West has refrained from sanctioning the people with the money” .

Is that true?

[Wendy Morton]

Sanctions send a clear message to those responsible that the use of chemical weapons is an egregious violation of the international obligations that we must all uphold to keep societies safe. We continue to work to protect human rights and civil society in Russia. We are considering all options for further action, but as I have said, and as I am sure the right hon. Lady is aware, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on any future listings.

Jonathan Taylor: SBM Offshore

Baroness Hodge of Barking Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I assure my hon. Friend that we have already given a lot of consular support to Mr Taylor and we will continue to do so.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]]

May I join in congratulating the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing the urgent question and thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it? The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax has taken an interest in this issue for some time, and I thank the Minister for meeting us. We provided her with the evidence she needs that both links the case with Mr Taylor’s action as a whistleblower and shows that due process has not been followed.

Jonathan Taylor has blown the whistle on bribery and corruption across the globe, from Brazil to Angola, from Iraq to Equatorial Guinea and from the USA to the UK. He is a British citizen, and this brave man’s evidence has led to arrests, convictions and nearly $1 billion-worth of fines across many jurisdictions. Will the Minister explain what on earth the Government are waiting for? I simply cannot understand it. What else will it take for them to make the obvious, straightforward, necessary and important representations to both Croatia and Monaco to stop this ridiculous extradition process and bring Mr Taylor back home?

[Wendy Morton]

I am well aware and appreciate that the right hon. Lady takes a close interest in the case. As I said in my opening remarks, I met her and her fellow co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. I must reiterate however that there is a process and the Vienna convention to follow, and we have no evidence that the arrest is linked to Mr Taylor’s whistleblowing on corruption at SBM Offshore. Mr Taylor has alleged that the arrest is linked to his whistleblowing activities. On 3 September the Croatian extrajudicial council issued its decision to extradite Mr Taylor to Monaco. He appealed against his extradition. We understand that the CPS has advised there is no outstanding case against him.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Baroness Hodge of Barking Excerpts

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

[Helen Goodman]

I shall make a little more progress, because many Members want to speak.

I have linked new clause 14 to the fifth anti-money laundering directive, so that we would see a number of jurisdictions moving together. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the secrecy jurisdictions and that we have a role with respect to the overseas territories, but we need an effective path to bring change according to a timetable, within the current Parliament, and new clause 6 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking would provide that. I will not press new clause 14 to a vote—I was not going to press it in any case—because I think we can reach an agreement on how to proceed on these matters.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Let me start by saying how grateful I am to all right hon. and hon. Members from all parties who support new clause 6. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who has worked with me on this important issue and shown his particular skills and experience as a former Government Chief Whip.

The fact that the new clause commands such wide support throughout the House speaks volumes for what it says. Our proposal is right in principle and will be effective in practice. When it is passed—I am grateful to the Minister for conceding that the Government will not oppose it—this simple measure to require British overseas territories, our tax havens, to publish public registers of beneficial ownership will transform the landscape that allows tax avoiders, tax evaders, kleptocrats, criminals, gangs involved in organised crime, money launderers or those wanting to fund terrorism to operate. It will stop them exploiting our secret regime, hiding their toxic wealth and laundering money into the legitimate system, often for nefarious purposes.

Transparency is a powerful tool. With open registers, we will know who owns what and where and will be able to see where the money flows. We will thereby be better equipped to root out dirty money and deal with the related issues, and we will be better able to prevent others from using secretive jurisdictions to hide their ill-gotten gains.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that open registers are not the panacea that she is describing? Indeed, the UK currently has open registers, but the name and address of an 85-year-old was used fraudulently to register 25,800 companies, without anyone discovering that fraud.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Open registers are an essential tool. They are necessary, but they are not sufficient. We also need a strong regulatory framework for the establishment of companies and strong policing arrangements to ensure that the regulations are implemented.

[Toby Perkins]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to Members from all parties, including the Conservative Members who bravely supported her even when the Government attempted to buy them off. On behalf of many Members from different parties, may I say how grateful we are for the tenacity that she has shown and the excellence with which she has pursued this campaign? It shows Parliament in a good light, and the measures that the House is set to approve will do a great deal of good.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, but it really has been a team effort, with people from throughout the House and across all the political tribes.

New clause 6 would simply put into legislation proposals that David Cameron first articulated in 2013, when he spoke about ripping aside the “cloak of secrecy” and repeated the well-known mantra, “sunlight is the best disinfectant”. It would do no more and no less than fulfil the commitment made by the then Prime Minister five years ago.

Britain sits at the hub of the world’s largest network of secretive jurisdictions, and British tax havens are central to the movement of illicit moneys around the world. The secrecy under which they currently operate facilitates wrongdoing on an industrial scale. We have a weak regulatory regime, some of which was enacted by the previous Labour Government and needs reform, and sadly we have lax policing of our system. Couple that with the secrecy that prevails, and Britain and our overseas territories have increasingly become the most attractive destination for crooks, kleptocrats and corrupt individuals who engage in financial skulduggery. If we do not accept new clause 6, we will be in danger of sacrificing our traditional reputation as a reliable jurisdiction by our failure to challenge the secrecy.

[Liam Byrne]

I very much echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is impossible for us to get unexplained wealth orders to work unless we put in place registers not only for our countries and the overseas dependencies, but for the Crown dependencies, too?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend’s important point.

Let me take Members through the argument, because it is important that we understand what we are dealing with. First, on the scale of the problem we are tackling, the National Crime Agency reckons that around £90 billion a year is laundered through the UK. We know that developing countries lose three times as much in tax avoidance as they get in all the international aid that is available to them. Half the entities cited in the Panama papers were corporations registered in just one of our overseas territories: the British Virgin Islands. We know that, in the past 10 years, £68 billion has flowed out of Russia into our overseas territories. That is seven times more going to the overseas territories than has come to Britain. We know that there are 85,000 properties here in the UK that are owned by companies registered in our tax havens, half of which are in just two constituencies in London, and a sample survey done by Transparency International suggests that two out of five of those properties have Russian owners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

So far, we have been talking about public registers of beneficial ownership of companies. Does my right hon. Friend accept that this should also apply to beneficial ownership of trusts? It seems incomprehensible to me that we in this country should keep the trusts quite separate and quite hidden.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I completely concur with the point made so forcefully by my hon. Friend. No doubt that will be subject to further campaigns for a change in legislation over the coming period.

[John Penrose]

May I just follow up on that last point? It is not just trusts that are an essential and major omission here. It is also other kinds of assets, including real estate, mineral rights, debt and bonds. Unless we have complete and comprehensive registers in due course, my worry, and the worry of others, is that we may be over-claiming the benefits of transparency. It may be a necessary step, but it certainly does not cover all those other areas, which, arguably, are more important.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I welcome the contribution from our anti-corruption champion—the hon. Gentleman was appointed by the Government to fulfil that role. Indeed, he is right, but I hope that he will work with me and others in ensuring that we get better coverage for the public registers. However, that should in no way limit what we are attempting to achieve today, which will be a remarkable, important and really world-changing measure in the fight against corruption.

Our overseas territories are an integral part of Britain and they should be guided by the same values as us. Clamping down on corruption and toxic wealth is morally right. We will never be a truly global Britain on the back of stolen principles. Other Members have mentioned the White Paper that was published by the Government in 2012 on our relationship with our overseas territories. I simply refer Members to one phrase in that document:

“As a matter of constitutional law, the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the territories.”

The Government put that phrase pretty high up in that White Paper, so they are jealously guarding their powers in relation to the overseas territories. These are powers that we should always be reluctant to use, but they are also powers that Governments of both parties have employed in the past.

[Mr Cox]

In 2009, we gave the people of the Cayman Islands a solemn pledge in this House. We said, “We will not legislate for you in these areas of public responsibility without your consent.” By this measure today, we are breaking that promise to them, and it is beneath the dignity of this Parliament to do away with that promise and that pledge of good faith.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I simply draw the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to what his Government stated in 2012 in the White Paper. In that White Paper, they set out the fact that they were jealously guarding their right to legislate as and when that became appropriate. That is what his Government said in 2012.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

On a point of record, I believe that that was in our previous two manifestos, so I am not quite sure why we, on the Government Benches, are arguing on this point.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

For the sake of clarity, let me just say that, in the past, Conservatives have used this power when they legislated to ensure that capital punishment was abolished in all our overseas territories. A Labour Government used the power to ensure that we brought to an end discrimination on the grounds of sexuality in our overseas territories. One of us—I never remember which—used the power to intervene in the Turks and Caicos when there were problems with the administration of governance.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady has conceded that we use with reluctance our undoubted power to exercise our jurisdiction in these territories and she has given the very important areas in which this House has already done that. Does she accept that, when such vast sums of dishonest money are being channelled through the territories, and when such obviously little progress is being made in many of them to deal with the matter, that is a situation that justifies our jurisdiction? As the Cayman Islands have a rather better record than some of the other British overseas territories—they do co-operate very closely with our law authorities, as the dependent territories do—it is open to their Government to consider the matter and act on their own accord given the steer that this House is giving to them.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I completely concur with the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s succinct remarks. People have said to me that the areas in which we have intervened—we do intervene with huge reluctance—are moral issues. I cannot think of another issue that is more moral than trying to intervene to prevent the traffic in corrupt money and illicit finance across the world.

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that corruption also costs lives and violates people’s human rights?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Absolutely. That is why the Magnitsky amendment, which we have just passed, is absolutely central to our proceedings and legislation on anti-money laundering.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and I congratulate her on this excellent cross-party consensus. Is she not concerned that the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) seems more concerned about a promise made to the Cayman Islands than about the people of his own constituency and of the UK who are suffering as a result of corruption and money laundering? Does that not seem odd?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The truth is that the traffic in illicit money has an impact not just on people here in the UK—for example, through the acquisition of properties here—but worldwide. We see that in the losses in tax revenues, particularly to the poorest developing countries.

[Mr Cox]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I are going to agree. I am going to make some progress because I know that other Members wish to say certain things.

Openness and transparency do not stop the overseas territories from choosing to try to compete on tax. Although I would not approve, they can all set a corporation tax rate of zero. If they believe that that is a way of attracting financial services into their countries, they are free do so. We are asking for openness and not much more. I do agree with their argument that our registers need to be improved, but that is not an either/or; it is a both/and. We need both to improve our registers and ensure transparency in our overseas territories. To those who argue that the money will transfer to other tax havens, I say this: there may well be some leakage, but our tax havens play a disproportionately large role in the secret world that makes tax havens. If we lance that boil, it will be far easier for us to secure transparency elsewhere and much harder for other tax havens to sustain their business models.

Our campaign on transparency is not and has never been partisan. My party believes passionately that transparency is vital in the battle against financial crime and money laundering, but all Members of this House—from all the political tribes—share our determination to eliminate the wrongdoing that inevitably springs from the secrecy that pervades our tax havens. We cannot sit here and ignore the practices that allow Britain and our British overseas territories to provide safe havens for dirty money. If we can act to root out the corruption, we must do so. Our proposal is simple but powerful. It is easy to implement but lethal in its effectiveness. It is not just legally possible; it is morally vital. Britain and our overseas territories will not get rich on dirty money. We must act now and new clause 6 is an important move in doing so. I ask the House to support it.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Before I speak about new clause 6, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas on two other issues, the first of which is the Magnitsky amendment, for which many of us made the case on Second Reading, especially with regard to a degree of independent input from the House into the visa banning and sanctions regime. No doubt aided by the dreadful events in Salisbury, we have all now got to the same place, and I am grateful to him and his colleagues for ensuring that that is the case today.

The second issue—I know from our time together at the Department for International Development that my right hon. Friend understands this well—is about trying to ensure that no unnecessary restrictions will stop money flows for humanitarian charities and non-governmental organisations that often operate with great bravery in extremely difficult and contested areas. I understand that very good progress has been made on that, and I hope that he will keep an open mind if there are future difficulties in that regard.

I turn to new clause 6. It has been a tremendous pleasure to work with so many colleagues from both sides of the House, and I am grateful to many of my own colleagues for standing firm in the face of considerable pressure. It has been a very pleasurable experience to work closely with the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) over the past six months, and the House has clearly benefited hugely from her distinguished period as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I think that this is the fourth time that we have been around this track, so it is now time for the House to assert its authority and nudge the Government into the right place. I am therefore delighted that the Government have indicated that they will accept new clause 6. I cannot forbear to point out that this is evidence that, in a hung Parliament, power passes from the Cabinet room to the Floor of the House of Commons. I was going to urge the House to support new clause 6 and, with the deepest respect, reject the Government’s starred amendments, which were tabled at the last moment yesterday, but in fact you did not select them, Mr Speaker.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Baroness Hodge of Barking Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—I was referring to real estate. As I am sure he knows, the proposal has the same intention as the tax on enveloped dwellings that was introduced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has proved, to the best of my knowledge, to be extremely lucrative for the Exchequer.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Given the Secretary of State’s commitment to the EU’s action on money laundering, is he saying that the Government will implement the fifth EU anti-money laundering directive, which requires that we all have public registers of beneficial ownership by the end of 2019?

[Boris Johnson]

As the right hon. Lady will be aware, the UK is already out in front of the rest of the world in insisting on public registry of beneficial ownership, irrespective of the implementation of the fifth EU anti-money laundering directive. As I will explain to the House, we already ask the overseas territories to do far more than other jurisdictions that offer financial services advantages.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I would be most grateful if the Secretary of State would give way again.

[Boris Johnson]

Oh, go on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. The reason I asked the question is that the EU’s anti-money laundering directive would have an impact on the UK and Gibraltar. I am interested in whether the Foreign Secretary will implement the directive, given that implementation is required by 2019.

[Boris Johnson]

I do not know the exact stage of the directive at the moment. To the best of my knowledge, we are in the process of implementing it. It should creep in under the wire and will, I hope, have the beneficial effect that the right hon. Lady desires.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

We have to be very careful. To an extent, we push people and give them a carrot, and in a sense, we have a stick. We have to weigh up in all of this where exactly they are on that continuum and with compliance. Will Ministers tell us what conversations they have had with the likes of Guernsey and Jersey? Do they have confirmation of a permissive extent clause? I am very keen to see open registers. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield laid out some points on that excellently. If the registers are there, they should be publicly available. We want to see transparency everywhere, but we also need to bear in mind that we have a long way to go on ensuring that everything that we do is absolutely correct and proper.

There are clearly issues and disputes among people about their interpretation of the proposals. Having read a submission from Jersey and Guernsey, I know that their account of affairs is quite different from other people’s. Perhaps we will have time in Committee to discuss this a wee bit more, take evidence and see in more detail exactly what needs to be done, how far people can be pushed, cajoled or brought along, or whether or not we need take this action and the extent to which it has a different force.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am intrigued by the hon. Lady’s contribution. We all want to move forward on the basis of consent, but I slightly disagree with her about how fast the overseas territories are moving. It has been five years since David Cameron first encouraged them to develop public registers of interest. Will she give us some indication of when she thinks that the broader interest of having those public registers and the role that they could play in tackling financial crime would override her absolutely instinctive desire to seek consent in moving forward?

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree. That is the point I was trying to make, fairly badly I suppose: how long do we leave it? Has it been five years with no sign of anything, or five years with some sign of something? We need more conversations to see exactly where things are, but I am keen to support the right hon. Lady’s amendment.

There is slightly more concern about overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda. When we look at the extent of the Panama papers and the Paradise papers, we cannot fail to be deeply concerned by the extent of nefarious transactions, out-and-out theft and money laundering, particularly when it involves, as other Members have said, the siphoning—the guzzling —of funds from countries whose populations can least afford it. We should be deeply concerned about that, and there seems to be little indication that they will comply at all. Perhaps there is a different approach from the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories on how willing they are to comply with what has to be done to make things transparent and open.

Moving on to part 2 and clauses 43 and 44, on the progress towards beneficial owners of overseas entities. This is very encouraging, but again the thing with the Bill is that action is required. Action is required to check up on all these companies and registrations. Action is required on enforcement and prosecution, and enforcement action requires agencies, intelligence, people and boots on the ground to make sure that it is done. It is fine to have law, but if we do not have anybody to enforce it, there is absolutely no point at all.

Scottish limited partnerships are a particular example of where things are not being enforced. This was bequeathed to me by Roger Mullin, and I am very grateful. It is estimated by Richard Smith and David Leask, who have been working hard on this issue—hon. Members will have seen some of David’s reports in The Herald—that an estimated 20,000 to 28,000 SLPs are of concern. The Herald recently reported that a former president of Peru has been accused of taking £4 million of bribes that have been funnelled through a shell firm based in Scotland. These things should be checked up on and enforcement action should have been taken, but SLPs have become a cover for all manner of murky and dubious behaviour.

As Transparency International and others have said, the missing link in all this is Companies House, because it does not have the duty to refuse a company’s registration; it has to register the company. It does not check up on whether it is legitimate, or whether the people who are registering it actually exist, and it is less compliant than the agents who use it, so there is no benefit to someone going through an agent if they can go through Companies House and avoid all the scrutiny. We have an opportunity in the Bill to close that loophole, because for me, Companies House is ignoring its money laundering duty.

There are wider concerns about shell companies. I invite the Minister to look at New Zealand, which was in a similar situation. However, its regulations have seen a near eradication of its 5,000 shell companies, which were registered to only about a dozen addresses in New Zealand. Part of the solution was a requirement for a New Zealand-based director, which made a huge difference almost overnight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

The Bill commands general support on both sides of the House, and, like the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who made an excellent speech, I welcome it. As currently drafted, however, it fails to include one vital measure that would at a stroke transform Britain’s contribution to the fight against money laundering, tax avoidance and evasion, corruption and financial crime. That measure has been debated many times in both Houses, and is strongly supported by parliamentarians in all parties and by the all-party parliamentary group on responsible tax.

We simply want to ensure that British overseas territories, many of which constitute the leading tax havens in the world, have registers of beneficial ownership that are public and open for anyone to interrogate: businesses, individuals, the press or civil society. I for one have had enough of the endless rhetoric proclaiming that Britain is leading the global fight against corruption and money laundering. The reality has to start to match that rhetoric, because at present it does not. By failing to insist that our overseas territories have public registers of beneficial ownership, we are complicit in facilitating the very corruption that we claim to want to eradicate.

Our overseas territories play a central role in the scourge that is corruption, tax evasion and money laundering. Of the 200,000 companies exposed in the Panama papers, more than half were registered in the British Virgin Islands, a UK overseas territory. More than half the offices of the law firm Appleby that were exposed in the Paradise papers are located in UK-controlled tax havens, and 90% of the world’s top 200 global companies have a presence in a UK tax haven. A World Bank review of corruption cases over a 30-year period found that our tiny overseas territories came second only to the vast United States of America among jurisdictions that provide anonymous shell entities for those involved in international corruption.

We all know that the effect of this financial crime is immense, and that the impact on the poorest in the world is particularly pernicious. We in the UK lose money that we desperately need for our schools and hospitals, but developing countries are even more adversely affected. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has estimated that developing countries lose at least $100 billion a year as a result of tax havens, and the OECD has estimated that they are costing those countries up to three times as much as the total global aid budget. What happens in our tax havens really matters. Persistent collusion by the UK in enabling them to endure, because of the Government’s failure to clamp down on the secrecy that pervades our British tax havens, is inexcusable.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. Does she agree that whatever is in the Bill, it will lack any credibility if we point the finger at secrecy in other countries but do nothing about the secrecy in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I strongly concur. Interestingly enough, David Cameron recognised that in 2013 when he told the overseas territories to rip aside the “cloak of secrecy” by establishing public registers of beneficial ownership. He wrote to them in 2014 saying that public registers were

“vital to meeting the urgent challenges of illicit finance and tax evasion.”

In September 2015, he accused them of

“frankly…not moving anywhere near fast enough.”

He said that

“if we want to break the business model of stealing money and hiding it in places where it can’t be seen: transparency is the answer.”

When he launched the UK’s public register, he argued that

“it’s better for us all to have an open system which everyone has access to, because the more eyes that look at this information the more accurate it will be.”

I agree with all those sentiments and arguments. All that we are asking of the present Government is that they stand by the promises made by their colleagues, their right hon. and hon. Friends, in a Conservative-led Government nearly five years ago. I also agree with the current Prime Minister, who said:

“If you’re a tax-dodger, we’re coming after you. If you’re an accountant, a financial adviser or a middleman who helps people to avoid what they owe to society, we’re coming after you”.

However, our tax havens are “middlemen”. It is time that the Prime Minister and her Government turned their rhetoric into practical action, and put an end to the nefarious activities that take place in so many of our jurisdictions.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Many of our tax havens, and some of our Crown dependencies, were put on the EU watch list. They had to demonstrate that they were making improvements. I understand that one of the ways in which they could get on to the watch list was for the UK Government to underwrite that progress by indicating that they would support it, which would enable them to avoid being put on the blacklist. Is it not imperative for us to enforce the commitment that we made to the European Union in preventing them from being put on the blacklist by ensuring that they implement what they promised?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I entirely agree. Indeed, if we leave the EU without having implemented reforms that would have an impact on the overseas territories, the EU will blacklist them.

I know that there are many principled Conservative Members—including the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—who care passionately about transparency, and have championed the cause from both the Back Benches and the Front Bench for many years. I urge them all to make clear to their Front-Bench colleagues that they will support a cross-party amendment setting a clear and reasonable timeframe within which the overseas territories would be required to prepare and launch public registers of beneficial ownership. I hope that the Government will listen to the advice of leading Back Benchers on their own side. Those of us who are involved in campaigning for transparency are not seeking short-term political advantage. What we want is an important, sustainable change that will have a lasting impact on the process of stamping out financial skulduggery, and a considerable impact not just on the United Kingdom’s public finances but on those of the poorest nations in the world.

We can never build a global Britain on dirty money. We will not create a strong economy on the back of being the jurisdiction of choice for every kleptocrat and crook in the world. Our British overseas territories will not prosper over time on the basis of being safe havens for illicit wealth. Transparency is an essential tool in the battle against all financial crimes. Exchanging information behind closed doors, which the Government claim is sufficient, particularly disadvantages the very same countries that suffer the most from financial crime and money laundering, because they have the weakest regulatory agencies in operation.

Relying on regulatory bodies is also very much second best. Even our under-resourced bodies such as Companies House are at best reactive in their work on uncovering financial crimes; there is very little evidence that they are undertaking proactive investigations. Indeed, the constant flow of scandals is strong evidence that the system based on the private automatic exchange of information is not working.

Let us consider the case highlighted recently by Global Witness of the $75 million paid by Glencore to Dan Gertler, a controversial businessman accused of bribing senior officials in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to advance mining interests. The money was originally due to be paid to Congo’s state mining company, but following a secret agreement was paid into one of Dan Gertler’s companies registered in the Cayman Islands. Or let us consider the case revealed in the Paradise papers of Jean-Claude Bastos, who managed Angola’s sovereign wealth fund and was paid more than $41 million from the fund via a secretive British Virgin Islands company. The BVI company was itself owned by a series of secretive offshore companies, but the ultimate beneficial owner was Mr Bastos.

Today’s Guardian contains disturbing revelations that North Korea broke international sanctions aimed at inhibiting the development of weapons by using a network of companies based in our tax havens to acquire millions of dollars-worth of fertiliser, coal and other commodities—our tax havens, undermining our national security and that of other western nations. Secrecy enables wrongdoing.

Ironically, the British Government have accepted that argument, because we are ourselves publishing our national register of beneficial ownership. The standard that we accept for ourselves should be the standard we expect for our overseas territories. To pretend, as the Government do, that the overseas territories are making good progress is nonsense. It was 2013 when David Cameron first demanded public registers; nearly five years later, we are still waiting for a number of the jurisdictions, including Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands, to set up a central register.

Let me take this opportunity to debunk some of the myths that were prayed in aid when this matter was debated in the House of Lords. Raising the spectre of identity theft and personal security risks is wide of the mark. Public registers can have tightly defined case-by-case exemption policies to protect individuals who are genuinely at risk. Ministers claim that no other countries are adopting public registers. Again, that is not true: the EU is currently implementing the fifth anti-money laundering directive requiring all EU members to implement public registers by 2019, including Gibraltar, and we should be implementing that.

Arguing, as Ministers do, that we should not act until others have acted is a wretched excuse. We have been bold in leading the movement to stamp out corruption; we should pursue that course and be proud of it. As the number of tax havens decreases and the noose tightens around the remaining tax havens, our action will make action elsewhere in the world inevitable.

I welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the UK wants to lead a global race to the top in rights and standards. There is no better way of leading that race to the top than by insisting that our overseas territories adopt public registers of beneficial ownership.

Public registers will not undermine legitimate businesses or individuals who want to continue to take advantage of low-tax regimes. They will expose those who seek to hide their money because they have received it corruptly, or who unlawfully evade tax, all too often at the expense of poor people and poor countries.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

On public registers, is it not also the case that firms that are more transparent are often more successful than those that are not? We see that in the examples of Santander, SSE and many others.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend on the Front Bench is completely right.

Finally, while we were all horrified by the destruction wrought by the hurricanes last year, those disasters should never, ever be used as an excuse for allowing kleptocrats, villains and tax evaders to prosper. In a White Paper on the overseas territories published in 2012, the Government stated:

“As a matter of constitutional law the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the Territories.”

I am urging tonight that the Government use their powers to insist that our tax havens—our overseas territories—put in place public registers in a defined timescale. That is a reasonable demand. Stopping it would create a grim stain on Britain’s reputation as we move to establish credibility in a post-Brexit world.

The Rohingya and the Myanmar Government

Baroness Hodge of Barking Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I very much hope that our Government will back up that definition.

The House will be aware that in 1993 the final report of the Commission of Experts, which was established following UN Security Council resolution 780, defined ethnic cleansing as

“a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

That is a textbook definition to which the motion refers and against which we must measure what is happening in Myanmar. The question is whether the events in Burma amount to “a purposeful policy”. Are violent and terror-inspiring means being used? Is a specific ethnic or religious group being removed from certain geographical areas? The answer is yes to all the above. We are witnessing a deliberate state-sponsored policy of terror, murder, arson, rape and torture designed to remove the Rohingya people from their homes. There is now such an overwhelming weight of evidence of ethnic cleansing that Members cannot fail to agree and nor can the Government. It is vital that Members of this Parliament, which is seen as a beacon of democracy in the world, send a powerful message today that we will stand with the people being persecuted, the Rohingya population and other minorities in Myanmar.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and her powerful contribution. Does she agree that although we welcome the Government’s action on stopping training support for military personnel, the Government should pause all other such programmes that they fund, through the Department for International Development and elsewhere, while we reflect on how best to respond to the ethnic cleansing that she has so powerfully described?

[Rushanara Ali]

I believe that all humanitarian efforts and pressure on the Government for access should be retained but that other non-essential programmes should be reviewed so that we can consider what to do to bring an end to the violence and find a longer-term solution that brings peace to the region and protects the Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar.

As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Burma, I have been aware of the discrimination and mistreatment that the Rohingya have endured for decades. In 2013, following a series of violent clashes in 2012 that left more than 100,000 people internally displaced, I visited Myanmar with Refugees International and the Burma Campaign. I heard stories of how Rohingya communities had fled violent attacks to remote areas of the countryside. In Rakhine state, the camps where Rohingya had been forced to live were horrific, with little or no access to humanitarian aid or healthcare. Some of that pressure was relieved, but international agencies had limited access. I travelled by boat to a UNHCR-supported camp in Pauktaw and have vivid memories of the shores nearby being covered in faeces and of dead rats floating just metres away from children bathing to keep cool in the unbearable heat. I remember being told stories of loved ones being killed and of children dying from a lack of healthcare and women from a lack of support in childbirth.