Situation in the Gulf

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

What my hon. Friend says is close to my heart, as the son of a naval officer, a phrase I have been known to use in the last few weeks one or two times—[Interruption]—and as an entrepreneur, but that is not perhaps relevant to this afternoon’s statement.

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Defence Secretary has been talking to the Defence Ministers of France, the Netherlands, Norway and others about more burden sharing within the EU. The reason we have constructed the proposal that we have in the way that we have today is precisely because we are trying to encourage more European involvement in maritime security, because that is in the European interest.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

While the world witnesses the horror of this dangerous 3D, real-life game of battleships, may I relay to the Foreign Secretary—he may be more than that by this time tomorrow—the concerns of my Iranian diaspora constituents? Their relatives and nearest and dearest are caught up in this, such as the children unable to access vital medicines due to the sanctions imposed by Trump and Bolton in vengeance because they do not like their predecessors. May I urge him to do all he can and all in his power to condemn and rectify these cruel hardships suffered by ordinary Iranians on the ground, as well as to carry out his decisive actions on the high seas?

[Mr Hunt]

I commend the hon. Lady for staying in touch with the Iranian diaspora in this country, who remind us that at their heart many Iranians fundamentally do understand our values and want to find a way to accommodate Iran in the modern world. Iran is a great country and a great civilisation, and we ought to be able to find a way to resolve our differences. However, there is the particular issue at the heart of it—I discussed this with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), the parliamentary leader of the Democratic Unionist party, just now—which is its support for destabilising activity across the middle east, which is already the most dangerous region in the world, and that is the thing we have to address if we are going to solve this.

International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered international freedom of religion or belief day 2018.

It is a pleasure to introduce this debate. Thank you, Mr Walker, for chairing it—it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship. International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day will take place on Saturday 27 October. I thank right hon. and hon. Members—particularly those who will make contributions—for coming along. The fact that we debate this issue annually does not take away from its importance. It is good to consider again where there are problems.

I thank the Minister and the Government for their actions to advance the right of freedom of religion or belief. The appointment of Lord Ahmad as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religious belief is very welcome. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has appointed more staff to its FORB team and, crucially, committed to developing a statistical database to track FORB violations around the world. Those are significant and commendable steps to advance FORB. I truly appreciate the efforts of the Government and in particular of the Minister, who I know will always speak out for those who have no voice. That is the reason we are here.

We are privileged to have Ministers who are so compassionate and committed to the cause of human rights. As I have said many times, I am thrilled that we have the right Ministers in the right place at the right time. I very much look forward to hearing the Government’s plans for commemorating International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day and for defending and promoting that vital human right.

Unfortunately, despite the amazing work that has been done, there is much still to do. FORB violations are rampant and truly global. Earlier today, at a panel on Afghanistan, I spoke about freedom of religious belief and how religious minorities of all kinds are persecuted in that country. Other Members will speak about Pakistan, which I recently visited with the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and Lord Alton. We had an opportunity to express concerns on behalf of religious minorities there, which we did with some fervour. I know she will speak about that.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Pakistan. Bangladesh was of course formerly East Pakistan. Is he aware of the abuses of freedom of belief—I imagine there are abuses of freedom of religion, too—that take place there? The photojournalist Shahidul Alam was imprisoned for taking pictures of student protests. I know the Minister is looking at that case, and I hope he can give us good news soon, but it is an affront to democracy. We cherish freedom of belief in this country, and such abuses should be cracked down on.

[Jim Shannon]

I absolutely agree. Wherever there are human rights abuses—abuses of journalists or whatever else—we should certainly speak out. I thank the hon. Lady for reminding us of that case.

Just today I tabled a question to the FCO asking whether it will make a public statement in support of a full, independent investigation into allegations of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China. Others will speak about killings along religious lines in Nigeria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

That is a salient reminder for us all. We have one in the Freedom of Religious Belief office here. I am regularly in contact with Open Doors and many of the other organisations—Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Release International and the Barnabas Fund—and our churches all have them as well. The hon. Gentleman will know this, but every morning in my and other people’s prayer times, when we go around the countries of the world, there are 50 or 60 countries where persecution is rife. That is always a reminder to me at the beginning of the day of the freedom that we have here, and that others do not. He is right and I thank him for his intervention.

We had the ISIS-inspired attack in Madhya Pradesh in India, in which 10 people were killed. For the benefit of both India and its potential for a stable long-term relationship with the UK, we must take a stand against growing human rights violations there. I hope that the Minister can work with the Indian Government at least to make them aware that we are concerned.

I will speak quickly about Nepal. As the Minister knows, the Nepalese penal code 2017 contains problematic provisions that criminalise religious conversion and “hurting religious sentiment”. Those words give the Government power to do a lot of things to persecute religious minorities. We have had reports of 20 Christians being arrested and four churches being burnt down. Where does this stop? The Nepalese Government receives some DFID funding and gets support from our Government. The laws are insensitive to the feelings of religious minorities and their positions, and we believe that the legislation relating to criminal liability for doctors, and the issue of arrest warrants, is completely irrational and illegal. There is an excellent opportunity for the UK to suggest that Nepal reconsiders its problematic provisions in order to stay in line with its obligations as a member of the UN Human Rights Council. Members of the Human Rights Council must adhere to its principles.

Turkey has become a difficult country. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton referred to journalists, and Turkey’s clampdown on journalists and the media has been atrocious. Pakistan has been asked to send 230 Turkish teachers back to Turkey to make them accountable and to have their rights taken away. I have written to the Minister suggesting that we do all we can to ensure that the Turkish Government cannot do that. An early-day motion in the House this week also refers to that.

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Is he aware of another example of Christian persecution in the middle east: that of the American Quakers? Although they have an illustrious history of helping refugees of all faiths in the second world war and of hiding Jewish children, they are now on a banned list for travel to Israel. Does that not seem baffling?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that up. I was not aware of that one, but we will certainly pursue it through the APPG.

There has been a surge in ultra-nationalist rhetoric across Turkey, alongside hate speech and incitement to violence against non-Sunni Muslims. Religious minority groups face growing harassment, and foreign missionaries have been arrested and deported. Most notably, in 2016 the American pastor Andrew Brunson was arrested, along with his wife, and accused of being a threat to national security—the threat being that he was a Christian in Turkey, preaching the gospel to people who wanted to hear it. Where is the threat in that? The European Court of Human Rights has made many judgments on those and other long-standing issues, such as the right to raise one’s children in line with one’s religious or philosophical views, the right to establish places of worship and the right not to disclose one’s religious beliefs, but they have not been addressed by the Turkish Government.

Egypt may have fallen off the map a wee bit, but I could not be here without mentioning it. Egypt has many serious human rights issues, including restrictions on freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. In recent years, Egyptian authorities have used torture and enforced disappearance against hundreds of people, and dozens have been extra-judicially executed. In addition, last year more than 100 Christians were killed in terror attacks amid an atmosphere of continued impunity for sectarian violence. In November 2017 gunmen attacked a mosque in North Sinai, killing over 300 people—the deadliest attack seen in Egypt for many years.

In December 2017 the head of the Egyptian Parliament’s committee on religion said that a new law was being drawn up to criminalise atheism. Well, the APPG that I have the privilege of chairing speaks up for those of Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith, and that is contrary to what we believe in. The freedom to have one’s own thoughts is very much part of a democratic society. That law seems not to have had much support, although that is probably because the Egyptian criminal code already has severe provisions that can be used to target both atheists and “apostates”, to use their language.

It is important to highlight the plight of the Baha’is in Iran, as we often do in this House. While many religious and belief groups are persecuted by the Iranian regime, Baha’is are a particular target for official persecution. Since 1979, Iranian authorities have killed or executed more than 200 leaders of the Baha’i faith and nearly 1,000 Baha’is have been arbitrarily arrested in the last decade. Baha’is have been murdered simply for their faith.

I have a small but vibrant and particularly vocal Baha’i group in my constituency. I have attended their events, and I know they will be encouraged that the plight of Baha’is being mentioned in this House. They are often denied the right to higher education or prevented from working, and often their lands or businesses are taken away from them. Despite the presidency of the supposedly centrist Rouhani, oppression of the Baha’is in Iran is getting worse.

Hon. Members will know how important FORB is to me, as it is to them. I was going to say that I should stop speaking so that others have something to talk about but, tragically, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, there is no shortage of topics to cover when we look at what is happening across the world.

FORB is a fundamental human right not only because of its importance to human dignity and flourishing, but because of the role it plays in preventing conflict and maintaining stability. I thank the Government for their commitment to this right and humbly suggest that, to advance FORB even further, the Minister should consider: producing plans to provide DFID and Ministry of Defence staff with FORB literacy training; encouraging the development of Government and civil society programmes that promote FORB; and working with FCO and DFID country heads to develop country-specific FORB strategies.

I am sure that those from Christian Solidarity Worldwide will not mind me saying that just this week an event took place in the House—many Members present attended it—on its toolkit for standing up for freedom of religion or belief. It has produced a really good publication—if the Minister did not get a copy, I will make sure that he does—which is a toolkit for all of us individually but also for civil servants and those in departments across the world.

Hopefully these recommendations can help make a difference for religious or minority groups in countries such as Pakistan, India, Nepal, Turkey, Egypt and Iran who are being denied their right to FORB. The sheer volume of FORB violations in those countries—and elsewhere, including the UK—points us to the importance of International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day, which necessarily gives us the opportunity to come together and stand up for all those who are suffering, all those who are attacked, and all those who have to struggle and fight for something we take for granted. I come back to Pakistan where, as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston knows, we went to church under police protection. By comparison, here in the United Kingdom we at least have the freedom to go to church and worship our God.

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to stand up for people, wherever they may be. To help with that, I direct hon. Members to the toolkit produced by Christian Solidarity Worldwide. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for coming to the debate. We may never meet some of the people across the world on whose behalf we are speaking, but today we have the opportunity to speak on their behalf.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

18. What are the Government doing towards the release of Shahidul Alam, the photographer imprisoned and tortured in Bangladesh, whose case has been championed by 10 Nobel prize winners and Sharon Stone? He is one of 700 detained under that country’s Information and Communication Technology Act, which Amnesty International says represents a muzzling of all critics of the regime. Offences carry a minimum seven-year sentence, and the judiciary is not impartial. Will the Minister impress upon this ally that such draconian legislation is killing Bangladesh’s once vibrant civil society?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who doubles up as a Department for International Development Minister, made direct representations when he visited last week, and the high commissioner in Bangladesh is continuing to make strong representations as frequently and as effectively as she possibly can.

Demolition of Khan al-Ahmar

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

It is just a question of what the background and context might be. The settlements in the area are deemed illegal, but between 2014 and the summer of 2016 just 1.3% of building permits requested by Palestinians in area C were granted, and between 2010 and 2015 only 8% of all building permits in Jerusalem were given in Palestinian neighbourhoods. Practically, this leaves Palestinians with little option but to build without permission, placing their homes at risk of demolition on the grounds that they do not have a permit. While recognising Israel’s judicial system and recognising the rights that it believes it has in relation to this, other circumstances have to come into consideration, which is why the United Kingdom takes the view that it does about this demolition.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

For the two Bushes, Clinton and Obama, building on area E1, where Bedouins have grazed sheep and goats for years, was a red line, but now, under Trump, there are no red lines. Does the Minister not appreciate that his concern, disappointment and bemusement—as I think he even said—do not seem enough when bulldozers will literally be concreting over all hopes for a two-state solution by constructing a continuous west bank settlement?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Lady makes her own points very strongly. It is right that this has been considered a red line, for the reasons that she has set out. It has yet to be seen what the international reaction to this will be.

Gaza: UN Human Rights Council Vote

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Before any of these resolutions come together, there is a great deal of contact between member states to try to find a way to broker an appropriate resolution. It normally works on the basis of someone putting forward a draft and other parties coming forward with suggestions, but if there cannot be an agreement, something then gets tabled on which people have to vote.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Both America and Israel are our allies, yet we are powerless when the US moves its embassy and we are onlookers when the UN votes to hold an inquiry into the killings in Gaza. True friends offer advice and criticism, but are we now content just to hold hands rather than holding anyone to account?

[Alistair Burt]

No, I do not think that that is the case at all. As I said earlier, true friends take a position in which they try as best they can to learn all the facts of the circumstances before coming to any conclusions, particularly in an area as sensitive and difficult as this. That is what we have sought to do.

Gaza Border Violence

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

That is simply because Israel does face defensive threats, and a complete arms embargo would not be the right response or called for. The hon. Gentleman could go through the arms export criteria with his concerned constituents and see how the House and the Government handle them, how they are challengeable in the courts and why that remains the basis for any decision made on arms exports, which are constantly reviewed.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Our Government back a two-state solution, but recognise only one of the states. Given yesterday’s shocking events, surely they could send a powerful signal, make good on the overwhelming vote in this House in 2014 and, along with 137 other nations, recognise Palestine. If the time is not right now, will it ever be?

[Alistair Burt]

I recognise the force of the hon. Lady’s question, as I did earlier. We have no definitive set rule on this matter. It remains open to the United Kingdom to make such a decision when we consider it is most conducive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who will know that we have enjoyed strong support, not just bilaterally but multilaterally, for our explanation of what happened at Salisbury. We had the NATO statement and the statements by our friends in the UN Security Council, and the EU ambassador to Russia has also been recalled.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

21. The Prime Minister swung full support behind her position among our EU allies, which is encouraging, but how will we ever replicate that influence on foreign policy after we leave, when we will not even have a seat at the table?

[Boris Johnson]

I am afraid I must correct the hon. Lady. The UK may be leaving the EU, but we are not leaving Europe, and we remain unconditionally committed to the security of our friends and partners. As she will know, we secured strong support from the EU both institutionally and bilaterally, but it is worth observing that not every EU member chose to withdraw—expel—diplomats. Many of them did, however, and that is a good omen for the future.

UK-EU: International Development

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK’s future relationship with the EU on international development.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the Minister for being here to respond to the debate, and hon. Members from across the House who have joined me for this important discussion.

This is the first Westminster Hall debate that I have secured, and I am proud to have done so on such a key issue. The UK’s future international development work will play a pivotal role in the lives of millions of the world’s poorest people. We cannot allow Brexit to undo the good work that we have achieved through overseas aid.

Before my election to the House, I ran a hospital and a community health programme in Uganda, on the edge of the Bwindi impenetrable forest, for almost five years. It offered HIV, malaria, and maternal and child health services to local communities. I have seen at first hand the difference that development programmes can make. We should be incredibly proud of the work that the UK and the EU do to save lives and end poverty around the world. We should also be proud of our continued commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid.

I called for this debate because we are at a crucial crossroads in the discussions about Brexit. In the next six months, the second phase of talks must agree what our future relationship with the EU will look like. Just as crucially, at the same time, the EU’s multi-annual financial framework—its budget—for 2021 to 2027 is under discussion.

Many questions remain unanswered. So much is still unknown and so little time remains. It is therefore right that this House should have a serious say in what the UK is trying to achieve, as well as on our negotiating position to get there. We have had very few opportunities so far to do that, so I welcome today’s debate.

I will talk about four key points: first, the impact of this vital work, and the many lives we already save and improve; secondly, the importance of working together with the EU to achieve greater efficiency and to add value to what we do; thirdly, the recognition that the UK is a world leader on development—we punch well above our weight and it is important to continue to provide that leadership; fourthly, the acknowledgement that other options and partnerships simply will not match up to what we can already offer. There is much at stake. Our future relationship with the EU on international development matters.

First, and perhaps most critically, the impact of this work is such that the lives of the world’s poorest and most marginalised populations depend on our getting it right. We must get the greatest impact and value for money out of every pound of the UK’s aid budget. If we do not, we will deliver fewer life-saving vaccinations, put fewer girls in schools and save fewer refugees from sexual violence.

In 2016, £1.5 billion—11% of our total official development assistance budget—was delivered through the EU budget and the European development fund. After decades of working with the EU, we know that it is one of the most effective delivery channels for spending taxpayers’ money to help the world’s poorest. Hon. Members do not need to take my word for that: in the Government’s multilateral aid review, the European Commission’s development and humanitarian programmes were assessed as “very good” in terms of matching UK development objectives, and “good” in terms of their organisational strengths. When the Ebola crisis happened, with leadership from the Department for International Development, member states worked together. By pooling resources, they could provide a much more effective response on the ground.

Secondly, partnership working with the EU allows DFID to improve where and how it works, and to help more of the world’s poorest. It has been said that every £1 of aid the UK spends through EU institutions is matched by £6 from other member states. The EU has operations in 120 of the world’s countries. Our partnership enables our aid budget to reach and respond in a far higher number of countries than we could ever achieve by working alone—often in places that other partnerships simply do not reach.

Anybody who, like me, has worked in international development or humanitarian response will say how important co-ordination on the ground is in responding to an emerging situation. The EU is a crucial in-country co-ordination mechanism for European donors to quickly share information and make decisions, so we must find a way to keep a seat at that table. By pooling resources and expertise with the EU and with European donors, DFID can tackle, at scale, much bigger crises than it could by itself.

Thirdly, our financial commitments to EU development and humanitarian programmes grant the UK enormous access and influence over international development globally. In 2016, EU nations spent more than €75 billion on official development assistance, but that figure could and should be higher. The UK and others led the way by spending 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance, but many countries do not. We must persuade those who are still falling short to raise their game, but we can do so only if they listen to us.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend’s passionate speech, but he mentioned 2016 and I wondered if he had seen the International Development Committee’s report of that year. It points out that the Government should

“consider the ramifications of the UK’s exit on the laws and regulations designed to curb corruption both here and overseas”.

Anti-corruption was not one of his four pillars, but the report said that it should not be de-prioritised. Yet when the Government’s anti-corruption strategy came out in December, there was no mention of this. Is he as disturbed as I am by that gaping hole?

[Dr Williams]

I did not choose to talk about corruption, but my hon. Friend raises an important point. To ensure that our aid is spent effectively, and, perhaps more importantly, to maintain public confidence in the fact that we give 0.7% of national income to official development assistance, we have to work in any way we can, and with many partnerships, to root out corruption.

DFID is widely perceived as one of the top aid agencies, which raises the standard of aid effectiveness and transparency in Europe and around the world. It has a seat in Cabinet and it is supported by deep technical expertise. Many European partners do not have that, which means that it is often able to set the standard, raise the bar, and promote important principles, such as poverty reduction and the untying of aid.

Despite the key role we play in the EU’s international development, we would be naive to think that we could achieve just as much by going it alone. To withdraw from EU development and humanitarian programmes would be a mistake. Large proportions of the money we invest on the ground to help the world’s poorest would be likely to be swallowed up by the creation of costly administrative systems to distribute those funds outside existing structures.

Government Policy on Russia

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I have to disagree with my hon. Friend, because I believe that the UK is in the frontline of a struggle between two value systems. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, Russia is determined to impose its own way of thinking, particularly on the peoples of central and eastern Europe—the countries of the former Soviet Union. Russia is effectively revanchist, and it is the UK that is in the lead in standing up to it. Many other countries would prefer to turn a blind eye. Many other countries would prefer to go to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, step up their trade in hydrocarbons and ignore what is going on. Believe me, there are many countries around the table in the European Union that would like to do that, and there are many countries around the world that believe that it is wrong and misguided to stand up to Russia.

We do not take that view; we take a principled view. We have been in the lead in the imposition of sanctions. We have been in the lead in standing up against Russian-supported aggression in Syria and in calling out Russia for what it did in the western Balkans and Montenegro. We are having a summit in this country in July on the defence of the western Balkans and all those countries against Russian encroachment. It is the UK that is resisting. As I have said to Members repeatedly, it may very well be that Russia will behave towards us in a way that is notably aggressive, but we will not be bowed and we will not allow such action to go unpunished.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The Skripal case has disturbing parallels not only with the Litvinenko case, but with the BBC drama “McMafia”, as does the report leaked to The Guardian and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project last month, which found that millions of pounds linked to the Putin family and the FSB—Russia’s federal security service—spy network had been laundered through the London property network. Does not the Foreign Secretary appreciate how simply patting himself on the back and saying that we are leading the world looks complacent? We simply must do more to promote financial transparency.

[Boris Johnson]

I certainly agree that more can be done to promote financial transparency, but across the world the UK is second to none in doing that.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Rupa Huq Excerpts

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

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who made a thoughtful contribution on some of the gaps in this Bill. Perhaps it is because I am, with him, the co-chair of the all-party group on anti-corruption, perhaps it is because in the last Parliament I was our Front-Bench spokesperson on the Criminal Finances Bill or perhaps it is because I am in front of the TV too much at the weekend, but I get the sense that money laundering is everywhere of late.

As the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, we heard this morning of the record £6.2 million fine slapped on William Hill for not being vigilant enough in the prevention of money laundering. We have seen how the proceeds of crime have been funnelled through its channels, and the Gambling Commission has said that it must do better—as if it did not have enough on its plate with responsible gambling.

It has just finished, but for a while Sunday night was “McMafia” night—it is now “Homeland” night again in our house—and as the plot unfolded, we saw how billions of pounds can be transferred internationally very quickly, at the click of a mouse on a laptop. It also showed corrupt politicians, violent police, counterfeit goods hawked around high streets and all sorts of other things. It was fiction, but there was some factual basis.

No one so far has spoken against the idea of having such a Bill. The principle is good. No one is saying that we should turn a blind eye to dirty money. My worry is that, as right hon. and hon. Members from all parties have said, the Bill could do better and go a lot further. It is a good start, but the Paradise papers and Panama papers shone a light on a murky world of international finance and taxation working for the benefit of those with access to vast wealth and an army of lawyers—for the few, not the many—when ordinary citizens just want a fair and transparent financial system. So two cheers for the Bill.

The glaring omission, which has been mentioned many times, is that the Government need to work a lot harder to persuade the UK’s overseas territories—and one day, I hope, the Crown dependencies, too—to adopt the same level of transparency as we have in the UK and introduce public registers of beneficial ownership.

It is not for nothing that London is frequently named as the world’s money laundering capital. In 2016, the Home Affairs Committee concluded that the London property market was the primary avenue for the laundering of £100 billion of illicit money a year. As a London MP, that is particularly galling to me, because my inbox and postbag are full of housing issues, which also come up a lot when people come to my surgeries. We have a housing crisis, with people who want to get a foothold on the ladder and people in substandard accommodation.

It is not enough to think that it is not our problem; otherwise, silence equals complicity in what are becoming industrial levels of tax avoidance and evasion. The Bill will allow us to set our own sanctions and anti-money laundering policy, but our leaving the EU will inevitably damage our ability to influence the policies of the bloc. Britain’s voice will be quieter on the world stage and its global footprint will diminish. We will shrink in our role fighting corruption globally.

Some progress has been made in the adoption of private registers, but not all overseas territories have even adopted one, and if they have, they have not been centrally located or fully populated. Four and a half years on from when the Government tried to persuade the overseas territories to adopt public registers, none has so far done so, and the Government seem to have given up on them. As has been said many times in this debate, only Montserrat has made the commitment.

The ghost of David Cameron seems to have been ever present in this debate. He invited the world to an anti-corruption summit in London in May 2016—how long ago it all seems—and talked about how the public register model should be a “gold standard”. He said that tax avoidance schemes

“are quite frankly morally wrong”.

Again, there is that disjuncture between what is legally possible and what is morally correct.

Fast forward to 2018 and the Foreign Office expects the UK tax havens to adopt the public register model only when it becomes a “global standard”. There is a definite shift there. It is hardly leadership; it is followership, backtracking or a dereliction of duty, if we are being blunt.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is uselessness.

[Dr Huq]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend is so correct, as ever.

We all know what happened to David Cameron next: his ill-judged referendum was his downfall. Ironically, the EU seems to be taking the lead as it prepares to implement the fifth anti-money laundering directive. Our chaotic approach to Brexit and the slippage—we do not know what will or will not apply—is why the Bill is necessary. Last December, the EU agreed that all its 28 member states should establish public registers of the beneficial ownership of companies. We can all get behind the reasons: they allow greater scrutiny of information and contribute to preserving trust and integrity in the financial system. More and more countries are committed to implementing, or have implemented, public registers—I am talking about sovereign countries and not necessarily our overseas territories. There were 35 countries with registers at the last count, and with all EU member states required to have them by 2019, I suggest that this is a golden opportunity to build a new global standard.

When that happens in 2019, the UK Government should seize the opportunity to ensure that our overseas territories follow suit as soon as possible. Regulatory alignment is a popular watchword these days, and we should apply it in this situation. The territories that rely on wealth being stashed away from taxpayers are astute. They do it because they can get away with it, and they use the arguments of competitiveness and security against a centralised register. Our Government continue to drag their feet after so much promise, which is shameful.

The Government’s anti-corruption strategy was hastily rushed out—some Conservative Members did not notice it—because of harrying by people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who had several debates on it at the end of last year. We kept saying, “Where is that anti-corruption strategy?” and the strategy was hurriedly rushed out at the end of last year. There is full awareness of the importance of public registers, but the strategy states:

“Our ultimate aim is that public registers become the norm. If this were to happen”—

suddenly it has become conditional—

“we would expect the Overseas Territories to follow suit. The government will continue to work with these Overseas Territories to strengthen their beneficial ownership arrangements”.

The Government also promise a statutory review by December 2018. Why not now? It seems we have had a year of nothing, with the smokescreen of a consultation thrown in. People have consultation fatigue and we know what the issue is.

How can the Government aim for something if they are taking no action? It is not good enough. Only when the UK mandates the overseas territories to create the registers will transparency flow, and only then will the big question be sorted out, with all its constitutional, ethical and international dimensions—people have talked about foreign aid. It is right to hold the Government to account on the promises they have made, as the all-party parliamentary group will continue to do. I hope that the anti-corruption tsar, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who has gone from his place—I would have liked a tsarina—will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire.

I should give a short plug for the APPG. We recently had an event where we had the cast and crew of “McMafia” in the building—my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) was there. It is not just fiction, but is happening in the real world. They launched an app. If people enter their postcode, they can see how many secretive jurisdictions are near them. The programme showed Kensington and these smart central London properties, but it is happening in Ealing. I put in my own postcode: Ealing is the 14th most secret neighbourhood in the country.

We are lucky enough to live in one of the most desirable cities in the world, but it is desirable for the corrupt, too—those with dirty cash to stash and launder. The Government agreed to fix that at least two years ago, but no concrete progress has ultimately been made. There are loads of examples—I will not go into them all now because we could be here forever. There were stories of “from Russia with cash”, Magnitsky was mentioned in the debate, and there is the pop princess from Uzbekistan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking had a debate on the Azerbaijan laundromat case, and we have had Bywater Investments and North Korean shell games. The list goes on and on.

This country has a real choice ahead in defining what kind of country we want to be post Brexit. We can put an end to the millions of pounds of stolen money flowing through London’s luxury property market or we can continue turning a blind eye, kicking the can down the road, saying that we are doing a consultation, pushing these things into the long grass and making London an even more appealing playground for the corrupt.

Thankfully, the other place wants significant concessions on the Henry VIII powers that might have come to pass. We have heard mention of statutory instruments, but this House must be vigilant and ensure that the Government do not try to sneak in more secondary powers through the back door, giving Ministers carte blanche.

Leaving the EU will undoubtedly affect our ability to sanction regimes properly. We will be vulnerable to legal challenges because corporations will see us as an easy target outside the EU. They will have an easier task suing a smaller state. Despite the Bill’s title, only one and a half of its 59 pages are dedicated to anti-money laundering. The Bill is a disappointment and a missed opportunity from a Government who promised much but are short on delivering. It is not just me saying that; ask Christian Aid, Global Witness and Transparency International. My verdict is, “Could do better.”