Yemen

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is important first to note that the people paying the heaviest price in this conflict are those who are least responsible for it—the children of Yemen. A child is dying every 10 minutes from a preventable cause. It is at least one every 10 minutes, but it could well be more; we just cannot get access to find out. In this three-hour debate, that means 18 children—imagine 18 children lined up along this green Bench—and the many more who would, by the end of the day and by the end of the week, fill this Chamber, sadly, in no time at all. Famine conditions, widespread diseases such as cholera and diphtheria, and the shut-down of medical facilities are the real and lasting side effects of the sustained conflict in Yemen, which will result in stunting, trauma and a lost generation scarred by conflict.

There has been a recent upscaling of the violence, with fresh Saudi and Emirati-led coalition attacks in the past few days, and humanitarian agencies have described the pace of the attacks as relentless. With progress in the negotiations stalling over the weekend, there is real concern that there is no end in sight for this conflict. I pay absolute credit to all the aid staff currently based in Yemen, because they are putting their lives at risk every day to make sure that people in that country have food to eat and are treated for diseases and to prevent the further loss of life that could happen.

I am certainly not the only Member of the House who has concerns about the part Britain is playing in this unimaginable suffering. It is no secret that billions of pounds of weapons made in the UK are being supplied to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen. As the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) has set out, British military personnel have been involved in training Saudi troops in how best to target those weapons. It shocks me that he would suggest that their role is making this war less bad, because this war is not a good war. This war is a messy, dirty war in which children are dying—children are dying regularly—and I do not believe that that is the way to approach this.

It is quite disturbing that our involvement in this war is resulting in so many mistakes. I would ask all Members who support such involvement how many mistakes they are willing to accept and how many children they are willing to have die in inexcusable circumstances. There has been mistake after mistake, and I will set out some of them. When is the UK going to stop putting profit before the lives of innocent civilians? It is time to take action now to suspend arms sales, as other countries have done—Spain did so just last week—and send the message to Saudi Arabia that using the threat of starvation as a weapon is fundamentally unacceptable and that the indiscriminate targeting of civilians is also unacceptable.

The report of the UN group of experts on Yemen has been particularly damning for the Saudi-Emirati coalition. It is clear that there is a litany of cases on both sides of this conflict about which we should have serious and grave cause for concern. The group said:

“The Group submitted a request to the coalition for specific information on this”—

targeting—

“process; regrettably, it has not received any response to date. The brief public reports by the coalition’s Joint Incidents Assessment Team do not provide any detail on the targeting process.”

The group has raised concerns about proportionality, about timing, about compliance with the “no strike” list and about double-strike hits, in which those rushing to save lives end up being targeted in a subsequent attack.

The experts mentioned the situation in Taiz, but they were not able to get to that city to assess the detail. On the Houthi side, they picked up on the instances of shelling and of snipers, which are also clear violations of international humanitarian law. The situation and the danger are such that the panel could not even get access and had to verify that from other sources.

I support the call for an independent investigation made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). I pay absolute credit to him for securing another debate on this very important issue; he has been a stalwart in this cause. We must have an independent investigation because there is so much mess, conflict and confusion on both sides. The shelling of the World Food Programme aid convoy at al-Tuhayat has been mentioned, but there has been no investigation of it and there has been no accountability for it. The activist Hisham al-Omeisy, who was held by the Houthis and was lucky to escape with his life, has had to flee Yemen with his young children to be safe. He has highlighted the persecution of those of the Baha’i faith, who have also been detained and tortured by the Houthi regime.

It is clear that Saudi Arabia and the coalition do not have clean hands either. On 14 June, coalition anti-Houthi forces hit a Save the Children hospital, leaving 20 dead. On 2 August, a fish market and hospital were hit, with 55 killed and 130 injured. On 9 August, there was the school bus attack—everybody has spoken well about the absolute atrocity of children on a school trip being killed on their way home—with 51 killed, of whom 40 were children, and 79 injured, of whom 56 are children. It absolutely sickens you when you think of all the children who travel to school every day and who ought to be safe in doing so. On 23 August, 22 children and four women were killed in an airstrike as they were trying to escape the conflict in Hodeidah.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) touched on the issue of violence against women. The UN group of experts has mentioned something that other Members have not talked about, so I want to raise it. The Bureiqa migrant detention centre in Aden, run by Security Belt forces, held many Eritrean, Ethiopian and Somali migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, some of whom had been in Yemen for many years, who have been subject to rape—mass rape—as well as sexual abuse, humiliation and torture. All those things are going on in this country, and we are not getting in there to play our role in stopping it.

As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the risk for women is significant. They are at greater risk of sexual violence in the absence of law enforcement, and more at risk of child marriage, which will ruin their future. They are more likely to drop out of education and to contract diseases such as cholera because of their caring responsibilities. We must not forget their role in peacemaking. The all-party parliamentary group on Yemen held an excellent session with women from Yemen, who ought to have a great role to play in building the peace. Their voices are not being heard, but they must be.

The issues around the UN Human Rights Council report are significant. I recommend that every Member of this House who has not read it does so. What it says about the Joint Incidents Assessment Team causes me great concern: it says that it

“lacks independence, its public findings contain insufficient details and that there is no mechanism to ensure implementation of its recommendations.”

Not only is the Saudi coalition marking its own homework, but it cannot be trusted to do so—that is a UN finding and a recommendation of the report. We must pay attention to that. We cannot rely on the Saudis alone to make representations on this matter, because it is clear from the report that the UN could not get access to the information it needed to complete the report satisfactorily. We cannot allow that situation to continue.

Amnesty and other human rights organisations have agreed with the report’s recommendation that the international community refrain from providing arms that could be used in the conflict. The only way that progress will be made quickly in Yemen is if a ceasefire is obtained quickly, and it is clear to me and many others that there will be no ceasefire while we continue to supply arms. Spain has already cancelled its contracts. Canada has spoken out about the role of Saudi Arabia, and concerns are being raised in the United States. We cannot turn a blind eye to this.

As well as the conflict, there are the blockades that the Saudi coalition is perpetrating. The UN verification and inspection mechanism should allow ships into Hodeidah with a turnaround of 28 hours, but the blockades lead to delays of several weeks in aid and commercial goods getting in. Those goods are extremely limited, and there is a very high premium on what is available. Most people certainly cannot get food or medicine, or pay for it if they do get it. Save the Children is increasingly concerned that starvation is being used as a weapon of war in the conflict and that countless children—more than we could ever imagine, because we cannot get access to count them—will starve and die on our watch if we do not do something about it.

Like other Members, I have a lot of time for the Minister for the Middle East. I know that he cares deeply about the conflict and has put great effort into his work on it. However, on 4 September, he said in the House that the justification to withdraw arms sales to Saudi Arabia had not been made. So the case has not been made though bombs have been used to attack hospitals; though arms were used to blow to pieces a bus full of children; though women and children fleeing attack have been targeted; though weapons contribute to the systematic rape of women, and to a situation in which women are told to commit suicide in detention centres; and though children as young as eight—as young as my son—are being sent to fight on the frontline. When will the case be made? What depths have to be reached before the Minister will take action and stop the UK being complicit in this violence?

I will read from the UNICEF briefing, which lets us hear children’s voices from the conflict. Over the summer holidays, I re-read “Zlata’s Diary”, which is Zlata’s account of Sarajevo between 1992 and ’93. It breaks my heart that children are today facing the same terrible situations that she faced. The briefing says:

“I am Hanin Al-Asaadi, 8th grader, from Yemen, let me tell you something about our school and life.

First of all, war is such a scary story, everyone feels afraid of, nobody ever likes it, it’s really awful.

Five years ago, we were having kind of normal life, we were safe with our families and friends, playing, running, laughing, and learning without any scariness.

Suddenly without any introductions, the crazy war began. Families were dispersed, friends got separated. Most of my close friends have travelled and I haven't seen them since this damn war began.

We were about thirty students in our class but now, we are less than the half of what we used to be!

We were moving to school safely, but now bombings might surprise you while you are on the way to school or maybe to a place you like for example, parks.

Few months back we decided to change home routine and go to the park…we went there to enjoy our time but while having fun with my sisters and brother two bombings changed everything, everybody who was inside went to the exit, that place was very crowded, we moved on, we wanted to ride on a bus to get back home but third strong bombing exploded, it was to near to us, bombing’s fragments, stones and dust fall on us like heavy rain drops, we went back home scared.

No more parks, no more games, no more family trips to climb mountains, in short no more fun!

I hope that Yemen will be a safe and wealthy place to live in like your countries, so I can invite you to come visit and enjoy Yemen’s beauty.

Even though it’s so hard I will go to school again.”

How hard is it to maintain hope when it feels like no hope is left, and when death and destruction are all around? We owe this generation much more than just to look the other way and say that everything will work out in the end.

Between 2015 and 2017, the Government’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia were worth 18 times UK aid. With 10,000 people dead and 8.4 million at risk of famine, the UK Government need to begin to reverse that imbalance. I very much support the calls for us to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, because it is clear that everything else that we have done has had absolutely no impact on that country’s behaviour. We need to try something different.

[Graham P. Jones]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

I am about to conclude my remarks, and the hon. Gentleman has said plenty in this debate.

I support calls for an independent UN investigation, because without that independence, we will not get a satisfactory resolution. There are war crimes on all sides; that is perfectly evident. The UN has the independence required to get a conclusion on this. We need a new resolution at the UN to ensure progress towards peace. We need to support the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths, and give him our ultimate backing to make sure there is progress.

The Scottish National party has been consistent in its calls. At the moment, there is no possibility of Scotland having an independent foreign policy. Until we do, we will continue to push this UK Government to have a bit more ethics in how they conduct their business.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

I thank all colleagues who have taken part in this excellent debate. It has mostly been a fair illustration of the complexities and difficulties of this conflict, which not a single person in the House wants to see continue. I think the source of some of the frustration we express is that we would like a simple answer that just ends it all, but there is not one. I understand the frustration that that brings.

There is a legitimate cause, which is to resist an insurgency, and there is a reason, which is to support an ally under fire from missiles. There are regional conflicts over which the events in Yemen have an influence. There are unimaginably painful events that challenge the UK Government, who are doing all they believe they can to bring the conflict to an end, and there is criticism of all parties to the conflict. The killing of children can never be justified—however it occurs, it cannot be right—so the catalyst for this debate, so ably led by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), is clear. The only real issue is how to bring it to an end and what the UK can do.

However grateful I am, I beg colleagues not to load my shoulders with what I do not deserve. There are, fortunately, many peacemakers; my role, through the UK Government, is to encourage and support them. I cannot deliver to the House a simple answer or give the political answer I know some colleagues believe would simply end it all—and I do not intend to do so—but before I deal with some of the issues raised, I will briefly run through the debate.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, the Chair of the International Development Committee, gave a powerful speech covering all the background, with which the House, after too long, is now sadly familiar. I will answer many of his questions during my remarks, but to come to the long term right at the beginning, of course the UK has a long-term interest in supporting Yemen. We did so before the conflict. It was Gordon Brown who in 2009, as part of Friends of Yemen, sought further development in Yemen—a process followed through the UN for some years before the conflict broke out. So certainly we will support Yemen in the long term.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) was harsh on us, but that harshness came from a genuine desire for peace and his upset with what he sees in Yemen. The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) gave a powerful speech—no one can talk about the death of children without the emotion she rightly brought to it—and I will answer her three questions in due course. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) spoke of regional issues, ably put the conflict into context and expressed the risks he believed the coalition was taking, even if it had a rightful cause.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) spoke movingly about Yemen as only he can—we have grown used to his emotion in speaking about the country of his birth and his hopes for the future. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) wants the war to come to an end—as we all do—and set out clearly why, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) gave a thoughtful speech in which his experience of conflict in the region came through very well. He was neither sentimental nor unsympathetic, and I think he told it as it was. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) trod understandable ground given the Scottish National party’s view on arms sales and spoke about it, with her usual power and distinction, as the fundamental issue in this complex conflict.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about Iran and its involvement. Iran is a complex state with a complex authority structure and a country with which I am personally engaged in seeking to persuade it that its activities in Yemen should change and that if they did, the risks to it would diminish, and who knows what doors might be open to it. That is what diplomacy is all about. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), with his great experience as a former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, set out the context of the war, which is not simple, and related it not just to the region itself but to the post-2011 timescale and all that that means.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby for securing this opportunity to discuss the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and I know from personal experience that, as Chair of the International Development Committee, he has a deep knowledge of the situation. It is important for us all to be mindful of the background to the current conflict, but I will be brief as it has been covered. The causes of the conflict are numerous and complex. Since unification in 1990, Yemen has suffered internal power struggles, unrest and terrorist attacks. After a year of protests in 2011, the 33-year rule of Ali Abdullah Saleh transferred to President Hadi as part of a unity Government brokered with regional support. A national dialogue process began that offered an opportunity for a democratic future—I remember it well.

Tragically, that opportunity was lost when the Houthi insurgency movement, which claimed to have been excluded from the national dialogue process but was encouraged by the ousted Ali Abdullah Saleh, sought to take power through violence. In September 2014, Houthi rebels took the capital by force, prompting President Hadi to flee to the southern city of Aden. The Houthis then began advancing on the south of the country. President Hadi, as the internationally recognised leader of the legitimate Government of Yemen, requested military help from the Saudi-led coalition. The conflict between the Government of Yemen, backed by the coalition, and the Houthis and their allies has so far lasted three years.

The position when President Hadi was forced to flee was potentially disastrous. At that moment, there was a clear risk that the country would fall into the hands of forces avowedly hostile to Saudi Arabia, which shares with Yemen an 800-mile border that is vulnerable and porous. It was against that background that the Saudis and their allies were requested by President Hadi to intervene in March 2015, a decision that was not only justified but legally sound. Saudi Arabia and its allies are responding to a crisis that was forced on them and that poses a grave threat to international peace and security. The Houthis have frequently fired mortar bombs and rockets into Saudi territory, including Scud missiles.

Let me directly address what the Government have been doing to bring the conflict to a resolution—which is what we all want—and to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people. We continue to urge all parties to the conflict to do everything possible to protect civilians and to demonstrate their commitment to international law. That brings me, first, to the desperate events of the attack on the bus. One of the reasons for our belief that it is still possible to continue arms sales to an ally which is under attack is our belief in the efforts being made by the coalition to avoid the tragedy of the attack that led to the death of children on the bus. Let me quote what was said about it by the Joint Incidents Assessment Team. As one or two other Members have mentioned, this is deeply unusual in the context of the middle east.

The coalition has said that every civilian death is a painful tragedy, and it is always the first to investigate these incidents so that it can reduce future risk whenever possible.

On the attack itself, the coalition said:

“With regard to the bus incident, the JIAT has concluded that there were mistakes made in abiding by the rules of engagement. Based upon that, the Command of the Coalition would like to express regret for these mistakes, and offers its condolences and solidarity with the families of the victims”.

In the context of the deaths of children, I well understand how that must sound, but it is unusual in the wider context. That is what gives us the sense that the coalition is doing all that it can not to target civilians unnecessarily and not to target children, but to do what it can in a military context to avoid such events.

We were deeply concerned by the tragic incidents of 2, 9 and 23 August in which so many Yemenis were killed. On 16 August, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Saudi Foreign Minister and pressed for a quick and transparent investigation. On 1 September, the coalition announced the outcome of that investigation, as I have just set out. We welcome that acknowledgement and the steps that the coalition intends to take.

On 2 September, Her Majesty’s Government issued a statement that reiterated our concerns, and our appreciation of the speed of the coalition’s investigation of the 9 August incident. We encouraged the coalition to publish the outcomes of its investigation of the 23 August incident as soon as possible; we called for clarification of the circumstances of the incident of 2 August, for which responsibility is still unclear; and we condemned the Houthi attacks against commercial shipping in the Red sea, as well as the regular missile strikes against civilian targets in Saudi Arabia that have been launched by the Houthis with Iranian support.

I raised those matters with the Emirati Minister of State, Dr Gargash, on 3 September, with the Saudi Foreign Minister on 4 September, and with the Saudi Ambassador to London on 6 September. We have done all that we can, in relation to those incidents, to express the concern that has been expressed by the House and to encourage the coalition to do all that it can to avoid them in the future.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Yemen Data Project has counted more than 16,000 air raids—one every 90 minutes—over the past three years. More than 5,000 have involved non-military targets. What does the Minister believe has changed in the case of the most recent attacks? There has been a consistent pattern of hitting civilian targets indiscriminately.

[Alistair Burt]

As has been made clear during the debate, there is a war going on, in which the Government of Yemen have been usurped and those who are seeking to push back an insurgency are having to do it by military means because of the forces that they are facing.

Let me say a little more about the alleged breaches of international humanitarian law, because the issue is understandably vital to what the UK believes. We are, of course, aware of reports of alleged violation of that law, and we take them very seriously. It is important for all sides to conduct thorough and conclusive investigations of incidents in which it is alleged that international humanitarian law has been breached. As I have just indicated, we regularly raise the importance of compliance with the Saudi Arabia Government and other members of the military.

Saudi Arabia has publicly stated that it is investigating reports of alleged violations and that lessons will be acted upon. The key test for our continued arms exports in relation to international humanitarian law is whether there is a clear risk that those items subject to a licence might be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law. That situation is kept under careful and continued review. If the efforts of the coalition were not made, that would certainly be breached, but it is not, and that is why we believe as we do.

However, equally we are appalled by the many ballistic missile attacks the Houthis have launched in Saudi Arabia in recent months. There have been seven long-range ballistic missile attacks on Riyadh, indiscriminately, from March to August. The coalition claims that the Houthis have fired 190 ballistic missiles at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since the start of hostilities, and the Saudis have also recorded a number of smaller strikes on the KSA—mortars, artillery and so forth—with the total number currently standing at 67,000 strikes. That is not always given the prominence it needs to have.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The circumstances were a little confusing. The Spanish police might have seen it as a straightforward pub brawl, when in fact Mr Carol was intervening to back up some women who were being badly harassed. I think the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that it took some time for the local police to pass the case on to the national police. I would be perfectly happy for her to come and see me, perhaps with a close relative of Mr Carol, and I will do my utmost to ensure that consular officials do all that they can on this case.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

8. If he will make it his policy to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

We assess arms exports to Saudi Arabia against strict criteria. The key test is whether there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We take this very seriously and keep licensing decisions under careful review.

[Alison Thewliss]

The New York Times reports today that Spain has heeded the United Nations Human Rights Council’s group of eminent experts on Yemen and ceased its sales of arms to Saudi Arabia for fear that they might be used in Yemen. This decision was taken following the publication of the report, which also expressed serious concern about the independence of the Joint Incidents Assessments Team. How many children in Yemen have to be blown to pieces on a bus before we cease our arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

[Alistair Burt]

That incident, and the deaths of any civilians, particularly children, caught up in a conflict are always dreadful. The most important thing is to bring the conflict to an end. We assess our arms sales on a case-by-case basis. I indicated earlier that the coalition was engaged in Yemen to try to reverse an insurgency. That insurgency is now firing missiles at civilian targets and, accordingly, I do not think that the political justification to withdraw arms sales to Saudi Arabia is made, but it is essential that international humanitarian law is adhered to and that there are no such further incidents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I think that whatever the website used to say about the single market, it will shortly no longer apply to the UK.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The UNESCO world heritage site of Socotra has reportedly become the latest front in the war in Yemen, with Saudi troops landing there in response to the United Arab Emirates apparently occupying the island. What is the Minister going to do to protect that unique and special environment and its people?

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but I would advise the House to be a little cautious about some of the reports coming out in relation to Socotra. I spoke just this week to the Foreign Affairs Deputy Minister of the United Arab Emirates, and the circumstances on the allegations being made are not particularly clear at present, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that we will be able to make a further statement about that in due course.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

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

[Sir Alan Duncan]

This group contains new clauses and amendments regarding three related issues that I will discuss in turn: imposing sanctions for gross human rights violations, or what is now popularly known as the Magnitsky amendment; Scottish limited partnerships, which are of deep concern, particularly for the Scottish National party; and public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories. In two of those areas, the Government are taking action to tackle abuses and tighten up standards: through Government amendments on Magnitsky and through a consultation document on Scottish limited partnerships.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is a bit early, but I will do so if the hon. Lady insists; I am ever obliging to the hon. Lady.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister mentions the consultation on SLPs. Does he not accept that there has already been a consultation on SLPs and that it closed over a year ago, so to have another consultation is just wasting time?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

If I might say so ever so politely to the hon. Lady, she is jumping the gun slightly given that I am only at the end of my first paragraph, and as she knows there have been some detailed discussions through the usual channels. I will address the matter she has asked about in more detail later on; if I may, I will tackle the three issues to which I have referred in the order that I raised them, in order to satisfy the House that we are looking at all concerns in detail and genuinely.

First, sanctions for gross human rights violations have clearly been an issue of significant concern to Members on both sides of the House, as was made clear by many who spoke on Second Reading and in Committee. I fully recognise why Members and many people outside this House want to include gross human rights abuses in the Bill explicitly as a reason why sanctions can be applied, particularly in reference to the abhorrent case of Sergei Magnitsky in Russia.

In her speech to the House on 14 March, the Prime Minister made clear the Government’s intention to bring forward a Magnitsky amendment to the Bill, and as the House can see we have fulfilled that obligation by doing so for discussion in the House today. As a result of that commitment, we have worked closely, constructively and genuinely with Members on both sides of the House, including some who have campaigned for this amendment at great length, particularly my right hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I also genuinely thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), my opposite number, and the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). Together we have worked to put together a form of words that now enjoys cross-party support. We have tabled amendments that we hope will capture the maximum possible consensus in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I will be saying more about the overseas territories in a moment. I fully recognise the interest that my hon. Friend has shown, over many years, in the importance of protecting the interests of the overseas territories, particularly in the Caribbean. I will be able to give him deeper reassurance on this in a moment, but if I may, I will continue with my points in the order that I was planning to make them, by addressing the Magnitsky issue first, then Scottish limited partnerships, before turning to that rather more vexed issue.

Looking at the Scottish National party Benches, I turn to the separate amendments on Magnitsky tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). While we agree with the driving principles behind the amendments, we are satisfied that the package of amendments that we have tabled—which have been signed by Members on both Front Benches—sufficiently cover the same objectives. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel that they do. As she knows from our discussions in Committee, we have approached this entire issue in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Indeed, she has played an important part in that in her campaigning.

[Alison Thewliss]

I should like to take this opportunity to say that, having heard what the Minister has said on this matter and others, I am content not to press my amendments relating to Magnitsky.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name, on behalf of the Scottish National party. As I said earlier, I will formally withdraw amendments 31 to 33, which the cross-party amendments have dealt with adequately.

First, I would like to thank the Government and their advisers and civil servants for their time and expertise in the run-up to the Bill, as well as all those who sent me information and briefings, which have been incredibly helpful. I also want to particularly thank the experts at the Law Society, UK Finance, Roger Mullin, Richard Smith and David Leask for their thoughts on Scottish limited partnerships.

A lot has changed since the Bill began its process. Salisbury has focused minds and, I hope, will now result in some action. The UK Government went from trying to find a way to wriggle out of the Magnitsky amendment to the Prime Minister giving it her full support. Regardless of how the Government have come to that decision, I am grateful that they have finally come on board, and we can all be grateful that that move has been made.

I spent the weekend finishing Bill Browder’s disturbing book “Red Notice”, which details the lengths to which the rich and powerful in Russia are willing to go to preserve their ill-gotten gains. I recommend that all Members read it as an object lesson in Russian oligarchs’ power, which we need to be mindful of. It is a complex trail which finally led to the brave lawyer Sergei Magnitsky being wrongfully imprisoned, maltreated, tortured and eventually beaten to death in prison because he refused to perjure himself. He stood for the truth. He documented the human rights abuses against him, and, after his death, Bill Browder and his team campaigned steadfastly to bring some justice to the situation. That led to the Magnitsky Act in the US, which introduced Government sanctions prohibiting entry to the US and access to the US banking system for those involved in Sergei Magnitsky’s death. It has since been expanded in scope to become the Global Magnitsky Act, tackling more dirty money and dubious people.

The UK Government made moves on that with section 13 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017. The amendments today expand on that in a very welcome way, and I am glad to give my party’s support to them. It is crucial that the names go on the record, and I am glad that the Government have committed to an administrative list being publicly available. I could read out right now all the names that are currently on the American Magnitsky list, because they are in the public domain and everybody can see them. There is transparency and accountability, with nowhere to hide once someone is on that list. It is crucial that the list is used in the same way in the UK and that the webpage, or wherever the names are held, is available and updated regularly.

I appreciate that this is not an issue for the House, but I hope that Members will give further thought to how the process of parliamentary scrutiny will work. Will it be through a Committee? If so, which Committee? Will that Committee have powers to add names and conduct reviews? We must hold ourselves to the same standard as the existing Magnitsky list for this to be fully effective.

I want to speak about the issue of Scottish limited partnerships, which is dealt with in new clauses 1 and 19. We believe that linking an SLP with a human individual would go a considerable way to cracking down on the abuse of SLPs, so we suggest that a limited partner and a general partner must both be British citizens and that a general and a limited partner must have a UK bank account. That would, at a stroke, remove a great deal of illegitimate SLPs, while protecting those in agriculture and other areas who would be easily able to fulfil those simple requirements. The anti-money laundering requirements of our banks would act as a degree of deterrent to those seeking to abuse the system.

On new clause 1, until 2009 registrants of limited partnerships were required under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 to provide the full name of the partners. However, the Legislative Reform (Limited Partnerships) Order 2009 confirmed that the legally required level of registration disclosure needed to be less expansive. The new clause would restore the basic information requested at the time of registration and introduce a requirement for one of the general partners to be a British citizen.

New clause 19, on the UK bank account requirement, would tie this a bit more tightly. Although SLPs’ name and country of incorporation may give them the veneer of a UK-regulated entity, at the moment their bank account and all their financial transactions can be run through overseas bank accounts that have few, if any, anti-money laundering checks on their account holders. We want to tighten that up significantly, because allowing that kind of abuse could severely damage the credibility of UK legal entities abroad.

[Helen Goodman]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I took so many interventions on overseas territories that I forgot to comment on new clauses 1 and 19. We think that both are very sensible, given the explosion in SLPs in recent years and the complete failure to act on what has happened in the past year. New clause 19 is particularly powerful because it would mean that these people were within the ambit of the anti-money laundering legislation for the banking system.

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I hope to at least press new clause 19 to a vote, because there needs to be some action on SLPs, and tying it to a bank account is a good way of doing that.

The SNP is extremely proud of Scotland’s reputation as a successful place to conduct business, but with SLPs continuing to generate new scandals, there is an ever-growing reputational risk to Scotland, and indeed the UK, if action is not taken. I would like to take this opportunity to dig the Government up for their shenanigans on SLPs.

Owing to the diligent campaigning by the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Roger Mullin, the UK Government launched a consultation on SLPs on 16 January last year and closed it on 17 March last year. We then had an election, in which my dear friend did not get re-elected. We waited. Questions were tabled, and we were told again and again by Government that a response on the consultation was imminent. There was nothing. A month ago, we were told that it would be a matter of weeks, but probably not until after the Bill came back. Last week, we were told by officials that the report on SLPs was awaiting sign-off in Government, and on Sunday there was an announcement in the press that action was going to be taken, with a “Crackdown on abuse of UK businesses for foreign money laundering”. When we get to the detail, what in fact is it? It is another consultation—it is a consultation about a consultation.

That simply will not do. The UK Government are well aware of the problems with SLPs, which are well documented. The Secretary of State mentioned earlier the evidence that led to the bringing into scope of the person of significant control. We know that that was required, and there was evidence on it. We are waiting for fines to be levied on people who have not registered their persons of significant control.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental point in all this is that closing a consultation and then having a debate on Report shows a Government in complete chaos? How can they commit public money to a consultation process that has no influence on the legislation before us?

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. The Government have been told all the way through this process that this is the opportunity to act on the evidence that has been gathered and is out there in the newspapers—it is in The Herald on a weekly basis, for goodness’ sake—about abuses of SLPs. The Government could have done something about this. They could easily support the amendments we are proposing to the Bill. The press release that came out said that there was

“growing evidence SLPs have been exploited in complex money laundering schemes, including one which involved using over 100 SLPs to move up to $80 billion out of Russia. They have also been linked to international criminal networks in Eastern Europe and around the world, and have allegedly been used in arms deals.”

So why will the Government not act?

Proposals are far too vague. We are promised that the Government will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Secretary of State said that the consultation will close on 23 July, so we are looking at after the summer recess before anything comes back to the House. This is the stuff of never-never land. Minsters could accept our new clauses and amendments today and start to legislate now. If they are really serious about this, they should stop fannying around, support the new clauses and amendments and stop the flow of dirty money through SLPs once and for all.

The Government’s move not to oppose new clause 6 is astonishing, but I am very glad they have made it. There has been some speculation by Conservative Members about the Scottish National party’s position on this issue, and I will deal with that, but I first want to pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for their Herculean efforts in bringing this before the House today. For a long time, we did not know when or if the Bill was coming back, but they have steadfastly worked hard to garner cross-party support, and I absolutely pay tribute to them for doing so.

Earlier in the Bill’s progress, I made clear the reservations I had at first, and it should not be the case that the UK Government impose things on other territories. Again, I reiterate that I would not like this if it were about Scotland, but I should say to all Members who doubt the sincerity of the SNP’s position—[Interruption] I hear some of them chuckling—that we cannot envisage a situation in which a Scottish Government would deliberately act to damage the financial interests of the UK economy by allowing tax evasion and avoidance to take place on an industrial scale within our jurisdiction and to shield the flow of dodgy money. That is what we are talking about today, and that is the fundamental difference. In Scotland, the fundamental issue of landownership is also hidden behind the shield of overseas entities.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

I am just about to finish. [Interruption.] Let me finish this point, and I will then give way.

Landownership is hidden behind such entities. Just a few weeks ago, The Sunday Post highlighted the very important point that Scottish property is held in 22 different tax havens by 776 companies. Just last year, overseas firms bought £200 million of Scottish land and buildings, ranging in size from council estates to country estates, and the total value of such property is estimated to be £2.9 billion. This costs taxpayers in Scotland and here in the form of the capital gains tax revenue that is missed because the property has gone somewhere else. It has left the country, and there is no transparency. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to justify it, I will happily take an intervention from him.

[Luke Graham]

I actually wanted to praise SNP Members for standing up with others to support new clause 6 and back increased financial transparency. I also congratulate them on and thank them for recognising the sovereignty of Westminster in legislating for all parts of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories. I thank them for backing the constitution as it exists, and I appreciate such support at a time when we are looking for more investment in our constituencies, especially in relation to devolved matters.

[Alison Thewliss]

I must say that the hon. Gentleman makes a very simplistic argument. Unsurprisingly, he entirely misses the point. However, I welcome his support, which is very good. I hope that we will be able to claim back more money for our constituencies when there has been a crackdown on tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Why do we need to act now? Because the Prime Minister has committed to ensuring that the torrent of Russian dirty money stops, and Global Witness has found that over the past 10 years, more than seven times more money—an estimated £68 billion—has gushed from Russia to the overseas territories than into the UK. This has primarily been discovered through leaks, such as the Panama papers and the Paradise papers, and by the painstaking work of researchers and campaigners, including organisations such as Transparency International. They have tried to put that together, because we cannot see this hidden picture for ourselves.

Some of the money hidden in the British Virgin Islands has been revealed to be connected to the Magnitsky case too, so we must bear in mind the severe human rights implications of money laundering—with money hiding behind closed doors, where we cannot see it. There is an incentive for people to do that because they know that, at the moment, they cannot be found out. As hon. Members have illustrated, there are many cases of public funds being stolen from some of the poorest countries in the world and hidden in the overseas territories, and we cannot in all conscience allow this to continue.

Progress has been made by the overseas territories over the years, but the pace has been slow and the work has been patchy. The EU is moving towards having a public register of beneficial owners as part of the anti-money laundering directive, and we must play our part—regardless of Brexit—to keep up the pace towards international transparency.

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

I am about to finish, and I want to allow other speakers in.

This should be about everybody moving forward together on a global basis and gathering momentum towards transparency. I acknowledge the concerns of the overseas territories, but the case for action on corruption and money laundering is absolutely and completely compelling. I very much hope that we will not need to get to the position of using Orders in Council, because with such support public registers are entirely achievable.

I will talk more about Companies House later, if I am able to, but I want to close now by saying that I am not satisfied by the Government’s actions on SLPs. This is a missed opportunity, and I urge them to take real concerted action to do something today and make a change where they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am happy to be corrected, and I apologise to the hon. Lady.

Amendment 29 relates to the procedure by which individuals or entities apply for licences and exceptions to be included in the regulations. Retaining the application procedures in guidance will give the Government the flexibility to update them as needed and to respond to stakeholder feedback.

The Government have tabled new clause 4 because we recognise the concern raised by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the repeal of part 1 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 would remove the independent reviewer’s oversight of domestic counter-terrorism asset freezes. Government new clauses 15 to 17 and amendments 23 to 26 will provide the UK Government with the powers necessary to enforce UK sanctions regulations against ships in international and foreign waters. These powers will ensure adherence to the standards set out in relevant UN Security Council resolutions and provide protection against the transportation of dangerous and harmful goods in international waters. These provisions contain important safeguards on the use of these powers, including a requirement to have reasonable grounds to suspect that sanctions are being flouted before enforcement action can be taken as well as flag state and foreign state consent where relevant.

New clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central—I hope I have got that one right—would oblige the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament each year on the exercise of the powers in the Bill. We have a range of reporting requirements in the Bill already, including an annual report on the sanctions regulations in force, and further reports when sanctions are imposed or amended. In addition, new clause 3 sets out reporting requirements for regulations made under the human rights purpose. We consider it unnecessary, therefore, to add an additional report on top of these, given that the issues that would be addressed in the report would be mirrored by those already required in the Bill.

Amendments 3 to 6, also tabled by the hon. Lady, would require that every sanctions designation be comprehensively re-examined annually. We agree that sanctions should only be in place for as long as there are good reasons for them to be so, and the Bill contains a range of procedures to ensure that all our sanctions are subject to regular scrutiny and review. We believe that three-year comprehensive reviews, combined with a robust package of procedural safeguards in the Bill, will ensure that these standards are at least maintained, so we would ask that she consider not pressing her amendments.

New clause 10, tabled by the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland and for Oxford East, would require statutory instruments that are to be considered under the draft affirmative procedure to receive a positive recommendation from a House of Commons Committee before being laid. All secondary legislation to which it would apply requires affirmative votes before coming into force, and we believe that that negates the need for additional parliamentary scrutiny. Sanctions are a manifestation of the UK’s foreign policy. They are not stand-alone or independent initiatives. Indeed, a number of existing parliamentary Committees have considered, or are planning to consider, sanctions issues, including the House of Lords EU Committee and the House of Commons Treasury Committee. It is not clear why further layers of scrutiny are necessary or desirable.

Amendment 22 would remove the requirement for Ministers to publish a written statement of explanation if they did not comply with a reporting provision. I should make it clear that this provision does not in any way displace the statutory duty to report; Ministers who fail to comply with that duty must face the consequences, regardless of whether an explanation is given.

Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, would mean that sanctions regulations could be created only when that was deemed “necessary” for the purposes of the Bill, rather than when it was deemed “appropriate”. For many years the use of sanctions has been an essential part of international diplomacy, to respond to threats such as terrorism or to change unacceptable or threatening behaviour. It is important for the Government of the day to have the flexibility to impose sanctions or not to do so, after a thorough review of the prevailing political situation. Changing “appropriate” to “necessary” would mean that the Government could consider sanctions only as the last resort.

Amendment 9 would require the legislative consent of the devolved Administrations for any sanctions regulation made under section 1, if that regulation included a consequential repeal of, revocation of, or amendment to any law created by those Administrations. The power to create sanctions regulations falls under matters that are reserved to Westminster, and that includes modifications consequential on those regulations. Under the UK’s constitutional settlement, foreign policy is a reserved matter. The Bill gives the Government the power to impose sanctions as a foreign policy and national security tool.

[Alison Thewliss]

I have already made this point to the Minister. I agree that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to impose sanctions, but why do the UK Government want to say that we cannot do so when it is already clear that we cannot? Why should the Government revoke something that we cannot actually do?

[John Glen]

We contend that the amendment would change this part of the devolution settlement, and we have received no representations from the Scottish Government on it.

Amendment 21 would remove Ministers’ power to make consequential amendments, related to sanctions and anti-money laundering regulations, to existing primary and secondary legislation. That would remove the ability to ensure that the statute book works after sanctions have been imposed. The power is not unusual, and is confined to modifications that arise solely as a result of sanctions or anti-money laundering provision. In any case, regulations making such modifications of the statute book would be dealt with by the draft affirmative procedure, so both Houses would need to approve them before they could come into force. I ask the House to preserve that important power.

Let me make it clear that the Government support the principle of amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, which is to help prevent organised crime and human trafficking. Those are serious issues that we are strongly committed to tackling. However, as we have explained before, we do not think it necessary to state that sanctions regulations could be created for these purposes in the Bill, because it already provides the powers to impose sanctions in these cases.

Government new clause 5 is technical. It simply seeks to clarify the interaction of the powers in this Bill with the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. This Bill contains powers that enable the Government to amend retained EU law to impose or lift sanctions. The new clause simply makes it clear that restrictions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill do not prevent those powers from being exercised in the way that was intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that those 80,000-plus properties, which are often owned through secrecy jurisdictions, are the ones that crop up most often in corruption investigations. It is often exactly that kind of property that appears to be used illicitly, and it is enormously important that we get a grasp of this problem. We have seen—through the various laundromat investigations, for example—how British property has been used not only to hide illicitly gotten gains, but to guarantee additional profit, because those properties can be let out, guaranteeing a future income stream.

In that regard, I will give the Government one more opportunity. I have asked them many times to indicate whose side they are on. Are they on the side of the investigative journalists who have shown us so much about the movement of dirty money through our financial system, either through the laundromat investigations or through the Paradise, Panama and Luxembourg leaks papers, or are they on the side of those who want to shut down debate on this matter? It would also be helpful to know whether they think it is appropriate that the BBC and The Guardian are being singled out by the firm Appleby and having legal action taken against them purely because they published information from the Panama papers leaks. They are the only two British companies to be singled out in that way.

Moving back to the substance of new clause 8, the Government initially intimated that they would introduce the register back in April. Instead, it now will not be available until 2021, but we heard nothing from the Minister about why that delay is necessary. Investigative reporters have already created a register of sorts that we can all access on the internet. It was created by journalists at Private Eye and other organisations who matched up Land Registry data with company data. I am not aware of any significant worries about the reliability of that information, so why are there so many concerns in this regard? The Financial Action Task Force is due to report soon on our systems to combat money laundering, and this is not the time to delay any action.

If Ministers feel the need to slow down the process in order to consult the Opposition and produce draft legislation, I can tell them that Labour Members support such a measure. The Government do not need to jump through hoops with this legislation—they can move ahead immediately with our full support—so there is no need for delay. In fact, there is every need for haste. I look forward to hearing whether Conservative Members think that there are genuine reasons for this hold-up, because I do not believe that there are any. There is cross-party support for the original timetable. Indeed, faster progress was urged by Conservative peers when the matter came up in the other place, so I hope that the Government will listen to them and to the Opposition, and deliver this register to an appropriate, faster timetable.

On the question of registers, the topic of trusts has been raised in previous debates as well as this one. In fact, it is covered by an Opposition amendment, and the Minister also mentioned it. Not having transparency for trusts will place us behind developments in the European Union, because there is now consensus at the EU level about the need to ensure that there will be transparency for business-like trusts, so we will be behind the curve on that one. Of course, the coalition Government lobbied against transparency for trusts, and we now know that David Cameron personally intervened to try to prevent it. However, this Government could take a different approach and introduce greater transparency, so I hope that they will shift that position.

On the offence of failure to prevent money laundering, I hope the House will not mind if I briefly ask the Minister when exactly we will see the Government response to the consultation and call for evidence, which ended last year, on the failure to prevent economic crime. Although that process ended many months ago, we still do not know what action the Government will take—we are still waiting. There is no lack of evidence for the need to take action; there is only a lack of will, sadly, and that needs to change.

Our new clause 13 is similar to the SNP’s new clause 2, but it is rather broader, as it deals with trust and company service providers, as well as Companies House. In the previous debate, the Minister for Europe and the Americas rightly drew attention to the fact that the UK was a frontrunner in adopting a public register of beneficial ownership. The Opposition are of course pleased that the Government have accepted the need for such a register for the overseas territories but, as Members on both sides of the House have said, we need to ensure that the information in any such register is accurate, and that is the point about which many concerns have been raised.

I have been in correspondence with the Minister and with the FCA about one particular case, namely that of the so-called Business Bank Italy, in which a number of rather strange figures seem to be involved. One of them gave his title as the Italian translation of “the chicken thief” and maintained that he lived on the “Street of 40 Thieves” in the town of “Ali Babba”. I have tried to find out whether he and those associated with him are being prosecuted, but he has certainly been under investigation in Italy, and some of his associates have been prosecuted for their involvement in the mafia over there.

In contrast, the only person to have been prosecuted— I would also say persecuted—in the UK for submitting false information is Kevin Brewer, who is actually a whistleblower. He created a fictitious company and told the world about it in the pages of a national newspaper, but his prosecution has since been held up as showing the Government’s determination to

“come down hard on people who knowingly break the law”.

He broke the law in order to show that the law was an ass under the current system, and it is a disgrace that he has been prosecuted when others seem to be able to operate with impunity. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is no longer in the Chamber, referred to an 85-year-old who was exercising significant control in 25,800 companies, so it is essential that such individuals are investigated.

New clause 13 would require any company formation agent to carry out appropriate due diligence on the beneficial owners of the companies that they are forming. It would cover both trust and company formation service providers, and Companies House, where companies can be directly registered without anyone else being involved in the process. I will not re-run our debates during the Bill’s previous stages, but suffice it to say that rather than providing additional clarity—I say the same of the additional exchanges that I have had with Ministers since—the waters have only been muddied. There is a huge ambiguity about the precise role of Companies House. Some Ministers seem to resist the view that it should be responsible for checking data on the business database, while others say that it should exercise that kind of due diligence and is doing so perfectly well. What I see as a parliamentarian, as do many businesspeople and others who are concerned about the fraudulent companies that appear to be able to operate with impunity, is Companies House sadly being severely behind the curve that has been set by crooks and criminals.

The Minister said that change would be difficult, but it would not. For example, when one registers a company with Companies House, one can enter whatever information one wants in the boxes on the website. That website does not even have the highly technologically sophisticated tool of a drop-down menu, which means that people can enter non-existent addresses, as I just mentioned, suggest that two-year-olds are people of significant control in a company and so on. The situation is ridiculous and dealing with it would not require a huge amount of investment.

We also need stronger action when it comes to the responsibilities of trust and company service providers. There is extensive evidence, most recently revealed by “Panorama”, that existing anti-money laundering legislation is insufficient to deter the money-laundering activity facilitated by some TCSPs.

I have had an extensive exchange of letters with the Treasury, and I am grateful to the Minister for corresponding with me on this subject, particularly regarding the problem of foreign TCSPs registering companies with Companies House. I have been informed by the Government that foreign TCSPs are of lower risk than UK-based ones, despite the fact they are not covered by UK anti-money laundering legislation. I received the latest letter this very morning, for which I am grateful, and it concludes by stating that foreign TCSPs are regulated by their home jurisdictions. That is okay then—they are regulated by their home jurisdictions, so there is no problem. Sadly the evidence suggests quite the opposite.

We have seen some positive moves from the Government today, under enormous pressure from Members on both sides of the House, on Magnitsky clauses and on beneficial ownership registers for overseas territories, but we need appropriate scrutiny of sanctions and anti-money laundering legislation, a return to something nearer the original timetable for foreign-owned property registration, and the exercise of proper due diligence on the information submitted to our companies register if we are really to clean dirty money out of our financial system.

We have to stop crooks, criminals and the corrupt benefiting from our country’s good name. Our Government need to stop obfuscating and start acting.

[Alison Thewliss]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. I will rattle through them and say why they have been tabled. The primary concern is about Companies House. Very much as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has just said, we have laid out our serious concerns at all stages of the Bill. It is disappointing to get to this stage and find that the Government are still not listening to those concerns.

Companies House does not have the adequate resources or powers sufficiently to monitor and ensure the integrity of the company incorporation data submitted to it.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems to be harder to open a gym membership than to register a company with Companies House?

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Registering with Companies House seems to be the easiest thing possible. It is baffling that anything else, such as a tax return, a passport application or a driving licence application, needs to go through the gov.uk verify scheme, but Companies House does not have that requirement. Just tightening up those rules would help hugely both to ensure the accuracy of the information and to clamp down on those who wish to abuse the system. It is in all our interests to make sure the system is accurate, but it is not accurate.

Worse, there are only about 20 people at Companies House policing some 4 million firms’ compliance with company law. There are no proactive checks on the accuracy of the information submitted, which, as the hon. Member for Oxford East has just said, allows a significant amount of false and misleading data to be submitted to the companies register.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says there are no proactive checks at Companies House, but if an outside person challenges an entry, surely the people at Companies House have to check it out. It is a criminal offence if an entry is wrong, is it not?

[Alison Thewliss]

The difficulty in all this is with enforcement. As the hon. Member for Oxford East pointed out, it has been very difficult to get anything to happen in the case of “the chicken thief”. The only person to be prosecuted so far is a whistleblower, which does not lead me to believe much will be done to those who abuse the system. The volume of data at Companies House makes such abuse very difficult to tackle. Indeed, investigative journalist Richard Smith has flagged up such things and has found it difficult to get any action. If a person submits the wrong name and address on their form, either deliberately or accidentally, how is the agency supposed to track down that person to get them to correct the information?

Not making the system accurate allows hon. Members to stand up in this place and say that transparency of registers does not work, but we know it does work if it is done properly and if we invest in it properly. We need to be careful to make sure that our own integrity is right, because if we are leading on transparency and beneficial registers across the world, we need to make sure that what we are doing here—the intention around Companies House—is what is carried out in practice. Companies House needs more resource to allow that to happen.

Protecting Children in Conflict Areas

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My goodness, how can I possibly follow that account? I thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). As always when I hear him speak, in any debate, he contributes something from his own experience that sets us all thinking about our own responsibilities and what more we can do in the world. I thank him for sharing that story, and I thank him and his bodyguards very much for taking that responsibility. We have to wonder what would have happened to Melissa without that and where she would have gone. They at the very least gave her somewhere she felt safe, which was a hugely important thing to do. If the MOD got the hon. Gentleman into trouble for it, it certainly should not have, because he did absolutely the right thing, and we should all express our appreciation.

Robert Owen said that

“no infant has the power of deciding at what period of time or in what part of the world he shall come into existence”.

That is true, because no child would want to be born in a conflict zone or grow up in one, but those are the circumstances in which so many children find themselves—it is one in six of the world’s children and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, disproportionately those in the middle east and Africa. The brilliant briefing by Save the Children gives us food for thought on what more we can do in that respect.

All hon. Members have said strongly and passionately that the first thing that we should try to do is to protect education for children, because that is the foundation on which all other things will be built for the future, for the children individually, for their communities and for their countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) highlighted, if we do not protect children’s education, that will breed further violence. There will be a cycle of violence that the country will not be able to break out of. The responsibilities that we hold as a significant player in the international community and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council should therefore include, in as many circumstances as possible, ensuring that the protection of education becomes a priority in all those different areas. That is the basis on which the countries will be able to get themselves back on their feet once the conflicts hopefully conclude.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) mentioned the safe schools declaration, which seems like a hugely positive step in making places of education safe spaces where children can come together. I am glad that so many countries have signed up. We should use our pressure in the world to get other countries to come on board. I suggest we prioritise Saudi Arabia, which is not yet a signatory.

I do not mention Saudi Arabia and Yemen lightly, because as we saw with the attack on a wedding this week, it is a huge problem. We have responsibility because we are selling arms to a country that is disproportionately targeting civilians in the attacks it carries out. The evidence is there to see in the picture that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) held up. It is also evident in projects such as the Yemen Data Project, which collects airstrike data for Yemen. The results do not make good reading. At least one third of Saudi airstrikes have hit civilian targets. Last month’s data identified that a school had been targeted and hit, and that parks and residential areas have also been targeted. This should give us cause for concern as a nation. The Government are signing off on arms deals to a country that is not taking its responsibility for the safety of civilians in conflict seriously. We must cease these arms sales before more children are severely damaged and lose their lives forever.

The UN convention on the rights of the child is almost 30 years old, but this is clearly a time of increasing danger for children. Many hon. Members have mentioned that children are becoming part of the very mechanisms of war, and are targeted by state and non-state actors. It is a huge worry to us all not only that chemical weapons are coming back to countries such as Syria—as the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said—but that children, whom we have always tried to protect in war, are becoming part of the target. We should be extremely worried about that and use our international influence to maintain international norms and standards. If children are becoming a routine part of conflict and the target of weapons, the fabric of international society and conventions is fundamentally damaged. We must be very afraid of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West movingly showed us four photographs, which stick in our minds and resonate. I went recently to an exhibition of photographs by Antonio Olmos and Young Lens Syria at Anderston Kelvingrove church in my constituency—they showed the journey of Syrian refugees from their home countries to Europe. It strikes me that families in conflicts make decisions, not choices—there really is no choice in such situations. They want to keep their family and children together if they can, and keep their children safe by all means possible. It has often been said that people will not put their child on a boat in the sea unless it is more dangerous than staying on land. That is the non-choice and the decision that families make every single day. We will continue to see that until their countries are safe.

We must also bear in mind our responsibilities when those children reach Europe and the UK. Organisations I have spoken to in my constituency have taken in child refugees who are on their own, and tried to support them and give them the counselling that we can perhaps better offer than their home countries—we have the professional expertise and the counsellors who can do that. There is barely any counsellor in some countries, never mind one for all the children who need one. What those organisations cannot offer, but the Government can, is certainty for those young people. They do not know how long they will be here, whether they have a future here, or whether or when they will be sent back to a country where they feel unsafe, and where they might have seen their families killed, as the hon. Member for Beckenham mentioned. We must do all we can to ensure that the young people that we as a country take into our care feel safe, that they do not feel that they cannot put down roots here, so that they can start to heal from their traumatic experiences. If they cannot do that, they will not be able to fully engage with the services that are trying to help them and will continue to feel unsafe.

I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate and look forward to hearing what the Minister will do. We have a responsibility to children all around the world. They are not somebody else’s children. They are the world’s children—they are our children. We must do all that we would do for our own children to ensure that they stay safe and get all the rights that we expect for our own.

British Nationals Imprisoned Abroad

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for securing this very important debate.

According to data released by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, more than 5,000 British nationals were detained overseas in 2016. However, keeping in mind the time constraints, I will be unable to talk about cases such as the very high-profile case of Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I note that Mr Ratcliffe and his mother are present in the Public Gallery as part of their long-standing fight for justice. Instead, I will focus on the case of Mr Jagtar Singh Johal, a British resident of Dunbartonshire who was arrested in November 2017 while on holiday in the Punjab in India, and who has been imprisoned since then without any charge. As we have heard today, Mr Johal has undergone experiences that gravely concern many colleagues in this House; that is proved by the number of Members of Parliament from all parties who are in attendance.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman speaks of the concerns that we all have about Jagtar Singh Johal; I have had 68 emails from constituents—I have three gurdwaras in my constituency—and there is wider concern among people who wish to travel to India about how they will be treated when they go.

[Mr Dhesi]

Precisely; like the hon. Lady, I have had various—to put it mildly—contacts from constituents and further afield. It is incumbent on us all to stand for the human rights of all British citizens. That is why we are taking part in this debate.

UK Relations: Saudi Arabia

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. The purpose of parliamentary visits, in which many Members engage, is to get an opportunity to see the context of a country. It is not about being given a grand tour of easy options, but about getting the chance to ask difficult questions. In my experience, Members of Parliament take that opportunity fully. To be able to observe, as my hon. Friend has, some of the palpable changes in where women are going and to speak to women now involved in culture, music and business, is to see where the country intends to take itself, and a woman’s voice in where it is going is an important one and increasingly heard.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My constituents, from Garnethill to Strathbungo and Dumbreck to Toryglen, have all been emailing me with deep concerns over the hospitality being afforded to the Saudi royalty against the backdrop of children regularly killed by the bombs that we are selling them. What more are the Government doing to ensure that the Saudis carry out the full implementation of the UN humanitarian response plan? Children in Yemen are dying far, far too frequently every single day and Yemen just cannot wait.

[Alistair Burt]

I agree with the hon. Lady—no, of course, Yemen cannot wait. As I said earlier, if I believed for a moment that asking one party to the conflict simply to stop its activities would bring an end to it, then we would all advocate that solution, but I do not believe that that is the case. There must be a negotiated end; it should come as quickly as possible, and we have been pressing for that for some considerable time. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can to ease the humanitarian situation, and we have seen an easing of restrictions, particularly since the visits of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to Djibouti and to Riyadh in December, where she was able to explain to the coalition exactly what the international community was doing to seek to protect them. That led to an easing of the restrictions straight away, but nothing will truly help the people of Yemen until the conflict comes to an end. On that, she, her constituents and all the rest of us are absolutely right.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

As I was about to say, the Government will be allowed to amend the definition only if it is necessary to continue to meet our new UN obligations or if it would further the prevention of terrorism in the UK or elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked me to speculate on potential uses. That is difficult to do, by the very nature of these things, but, for example, we are seeing the use of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. It may be that there is potential risk associated with that and there may be a need to include that, but I am making a speculative observation. It would depend on the circumstances, and what other jurisdictions and the UN were bringing forward.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe.

I would like to reiterate the concerns that I raised on Second Reading about the overruling of any Acts made by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have a solution to this, to some degree, in amendment 37. That is coming up, so I will speak about it more then. However, I am deeply concerned that UK Ministers are being empowered in this Bill to make changes to devolved legislation without the involvement or the permission of the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament. That is deeply concerning. If not this Government, it makes future Governments capable of amending Acts of another Parliament and I remain deeply concerned about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

Thirty-three whole regimes is quite a chunky number, is it not? That is not 33 individuals; it is 33 regimes. Of course, I was extremely concerned about the way that the EU withdrawal Bill looked, as were many Members. However, in one respect the problem is greater in this Bill. This is a Bill with permanent powers; the EU withdrawal Bill is one with temporary powers. Therefore, when we come to the right moment, we will wish to put new clause 7 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Alison Thewliss]

I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 48, page 36, line 5, 

‘(5A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 1 that repeals, revokes or amends—

(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,

(b) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales, or

(c) Northern Ireland legislation,

must receive the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, respectively.”

This amendment would require the UK Government to obtain the consent of the devolved administrations before repealing, revoking or amending devolved legislation using a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 1.

As I mentioned before, in this Bill the Government have given themselves the capability—although it is not necessarily their intention—to amend devolved Acts. It is not necessarily that the Government will do that, but we need to be mindful that future Governments may choose to. We cannot foretell exactly what the future will hold. In its response to the consultation on this issue, the Law Society posed the question about whether the Government have consulted the devolved Administrations and for what purpose the measure is in the Bill. Although the Government have given themselves this power, they have not explained the circumstances in which they might need to use it. If they say that nothing in the legislation has to do with the devolved Assemblies, why are they giving themselves the power to revoke devolved Assemblies’ legislation, when they would not have any competence to do so? It does make any sense that they would put something in the Bill if they have no intention or need to use it.

I would also like to know—given that the Government have not explained this either—the circumstances in which they would want to override devolved legislation and why they feel a consent provision such as the one I am suggesting is not appropriate. If the Government believe that devolved legislations have no power in this area anyway and would therefore not be legislating in it, why have they put the capability of amending devolved Acts within the scope of this Bill? Would the Minister also explain why our consent provision would be considered inappropriate? That has not been explained up to this point, or during deliberations in the Lords. I have read some of the background, and Baroness Northover and Baroness Sheehan did not quite understand the need for what the Government propose either, so I would be grateful if they made more information available. It is not clear to me, and, as I mentioned previously, this provision strikes me as a power grab, and an unnecessary one at that.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

If I can set this out again to the hon. Lady’s satisfaction I hope she will draw a conclusion. Under the UK’s constitutional settlement, matters of foreign policy are reserved to Westminster. This Bill will provide the UK Government with powers to be used in pursuit of the UK’s foreign policy as well as to ensure that our national security is intact and to deal with money laundering. The Bill therefore relates to matters that are accordingly reserved. The devolved Administrations were consulted during the Bill’s preparation, and they have not disagreed with our assessment that the Bill deals with a reserved matter. Amendment 37 would mean that the consent of the relevant devolved Administration was required for any sanctions or anti-money laundering regulations that made a consequential repeal, revocation or amendment to any law created by the devolved Administrations. This would effectively give devolved Administrations veto rights over legislation relating to UK foreign and security policy, or to anti-money laundering policy. That is contrary to the established devolution settlement between Westminster and the devolved legislatures.

With regard to regulations under the Bill, any amendment to laws created by devolved Administrations would only arise as the consequence of the sanctions or money laundering measures under the Bill. Regulations cannot make free-standing changes to devolved legislation. Their primary purposes will always be a reserved matter. Such consequential amendments are entirely consistent with the constitutional settlement, and it would not be consistent with our devolution settlement to give the right of veto to devolved Administrations. Given that the effect of this amendment would be to rewrite the devolution settlement without consulting other devolved Administrations or seeking their consent, I do not agree with it and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I am not certain that the Government have answered my points. I can buy what the Minister of State says about sanctions and foreign policy, but Scotland and the Scottish Parliament may have something to say about the money-laundering part. I am concerned that the case has not yet been made for the power grabs in the Bill. Why include powers to overrule Scotland on something that it cannot do in the first place? That is just not logical.

I do not intend to press amendment 37 to a vote at this stage, but I would like the Government to consider the matter further; we might raise it again on Report.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

I will not. These powers are reserved. This is not a power grab; it is a reserved matter. Devolution does not mean “separate”. We are in conversations, and Scotland has a strong voice here in its Members of Parliament.

[Alison Thewliss]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Extent

[Helen Goodman]

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 54, page 41, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Goodman]

The purpose of these amendments is to increase the frequency of the periodic review of designations from every three years to every year. I owe this idea to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who suggested it on Second Reading. I thought that she might table amendments but that I had better do so in case she did not. It was a very sensible suggestion, and I am sure she wishes to explain why it is a good idea.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for tabling these amendments—she was just a little swifter getting them in than I was.

I spoke about this issue on Second Reading. First, there is an important point about consistency: the EU has a 12-month review period for its sanctions, and we ought to make the Bill consistent with that. There seems to be no reason why we should want to leave it as long as three years to review sanctions, particularly given that situations can change rapidly and that we should hope that sanctions take effect in a shorter period than three years. We are trying to promote good behaviour and resolution, and we should hope to achieve that within three years, making the three-year period redundant in some cases.

It makes sense to maintain consistency and allow constant review by keeping the review period to 12 months. If things take longer than that, it makes sense to look at them within 12 months to ensure that the Government’s foreign policy objectives are making progress and that things are actually happening. If they are not, perhaps they ought to be reviewed. A 12-month period would give us a good deal more flexibility and accountability. It certainly seems logical to me, and I very much hope the Government accept the amendments.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I rather sense this will forever be known as the bobble hat amendment.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister is just jealous.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I certainly am.

Reviews are crucial to maintaining effective sanctions regimes, and sanctions should not remain in place where there is no longer a reason for them to do so. Clause 21 requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive re-examination of each designation decision at least every three years. That is one of a number of safeguards that the Bill provides for designated persons. The amendments would oblige the Government to re-examine each designation annually.

I agree completely that sanctions designations need to be based on solid, legally robust evidence. The UK has pushed hard for that in the EU—that is widely recognised, including, for example, in the House of Lords European Union Committee’s recent report, “The legality of EU sanctions”—and we are committed to maintaining those high standards. I recognise that the EU generally reviews its sanctions regimes annually. However, as noted during the passage of the Bill in the other place, EU reviews are relatively light touch. Designated persons are invited by the Council to present new information, and member states are able to make observations, but they are under no obligation to engage. In contrast, the triennial review envisaged in the Bill would be a comprehensive re-examination of each and every designation.

The Bill as drafted includes a robust package of procedural safeguards, including a number of amendments introduced in the other place. The combined package would provide a higher level of protection for designated persons—at least as strong as current EU standards, if not better. The Government would review all sanctions regulations annually and present the results in a written report to Parliament. If the report concluded that there were no longer good reasons for maintaining a UK sanctions regime, we would lift it. Any changes made to the equivalent sanctions regimes of the EU or other international partners would be examined closely as part of the annual review.

Alongside this annual review of the regulations, the Bill requires the Government to put in place a dynamic process to reassess designations on request. The triennial review is not the only opportunity; a designated person can request a reassessment of their designation at any time, and can request a further reassessment where a significant matter has not previously been considered by the Minister. I take the point that a designated person who has requested a reassessment, challenged it in court and failed to establish any unlawfulness will not have a further review until a significant new matter arises or until the triennial review. However, there will be no need for a further review if the lawfulness of the designation has been established and nothing has changed since. If there are new arguments to be tested or if the passage of time has changed the situation, a further reassessment can be requested. If not, there will be no need for one.

Ministers can instigate a reassessment at any time—for example, if the person concerned has been delisted by the EU. They will have every interest in initiating reassessments proactively, both in the interests of justice and to minimise the risk and cost of legal challenges— a compelling argument in many a ministerial decision. In any case, if the EU decided to revoke the designation of a person also designated in the UK, I would certainly want to reassess the corresponding UK designation.

The provisions will ensure that UK sanctions are under constant scrutiny and that the Government are obliged to respond swiftly to new information and challenges. The triennial review will provide a further backstop to ensure that each and every determination is considered afresh on a regular, predetermined cycle. This aligns with current practice in Australia and will put us ahead of countries such as the US and Canada, which have no such process at all. It will not prevent more frequent reviews; indeed, we have mechanisms in place that oblige us to carry out more frequent reviews where appropriate.

Requiring the Government to conduct such reviews every year would be extremely resource-intensive and—given the finite Government resources dedicated to sanctions—would take resources away from other important areas. It could also make litigation more complex.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am on my last three words, but yes. The hon. Lady has got in under the wire.

[Alison Thewliss]

I did not realise that the Minister had reached his last three words. He mentions resources and cost implications. Can he give us more specific detail?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

If something has to happen three times as frequently, it will take up a lot more resource.

I hope that the arguments I have put to the Committee have convinced the hon. Lady that the compulsion to have a review every year is superfluous, given all the other layers and safeguards that exist in the Bill.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments, not least so that I do not freeze to my chair, Mr McCabe.

On Second Reading, the rough theme of the discussion was that we wanted a sanctions regime in this country that punished the individuals for their behaviour but did not as a result punish their countrymen and women or people in their care, and what is proposed would seem to fit perfectly with that. The circumstances that might cause us to use sanctions—persecution, human rights abuses or violent conflict at home—are the very circumstances that cause refugees and people to need to leave their country and seek sanctuary elsewhere. We always have to be mindful of unintended consequences, and the amendment seems to offer one way of avoiding them.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am happy to rise in support of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). She makes some good points. We need to be mindful that there are people who are trapped in difficult situations, and if getting on a plane or into a boat is the only way to get out of that situation, and the alternative is almost certain death—particularly for people in Syria and Yemen—they will do that. We need to seek protection for those operating services for such people. I do not know whether Migrant Offshore Aid Station or Médecins Sans Frontières or any of those other people operating boats in the Mediterranean could fall foul of any sanctions regime. It would be good to get reassurance from the Minister on that, because those are important humanitarian services that rescue people and ensure that they are kept safe.

People are taking a huge risk. Recently there was a case of Somali refugees who sought first sanctuary in Yemen and then tried to leave Yemen because it is so dangerous there, and ended up being shot out of the sea by an airstrike. There are huge risks for people in the choices they make when they are trying to flee. We need to do everything we can to protect them in their efforts to get to a position of safety. I support the amendment.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I genuinely thank hon. Members for raising this issue, which we dwelt on at some length on Second Reading. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland says, I am a former DFID Minister, so I feel these issues deeply. I am familiar with not only the plight of refugees, but the legal void in which they sometimes have to try to survive. The amendment is a laudable attempt to address that very issue and I make no criticism whatsoever of the intent behind it, because it is one that we all share.

The Government take seriously the impact that sanctions might or can have on a country’s civilian population. We also acknowledge the important work of NGOs and other humanitarian organisations working in difficult and often threatening situations—look at what is happening in Ghouta in Syria at the moment. The amendments are designed to exempt ships or aircraft from sanctions if they are being used to transport refugees. I agree with the principle, but in my opinion this is not the right way to achieve the desired effect.

I hope that hon. Members recognise that refugee status—and hence the ability to deem someone a refugee under the amendment—is usually granted after a person has fled from their country of origin: once they have reached safety, they can apply for asylum and be recognised as refugees. The amendment would not cover persons fleeing from their country of origin in order to claim asylum. I suspect that that does not reflect the good intentions of those who tabled it.

As I said earlier, the UK is very proactive in ensuring that NGOs can operate in countries subject to sanctions by providing licences and exceptions. In fact, the Bill would make it easier by allowing us to draft exceptions and grant general licences specifically aimed at assisting humanitarian activities, which include assisting refugees or displaced persons. There are good reasons why broad prohibitions are applied to a country, and licences are used to provide targeted exceptions. If we were to provide a general exception for ships and aircraft in those circumstances, aside from the practical difficulty with these amendments that I have mentioned, it could be subject to abuse and would be pretty well impossible to enforce.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 5 is about reviewing the situation at the end of the process. The basic point, made strongly by Rights and Accountability in Development, is that the Bill does not provide sufficient transparency: we do not know why exemptions are granted to sanctioned individuals or how large they are. The new clause covers both the humanitarian exemptions and licences and the ones given to people who are themselves sanctioned. The reason is that we do not know how much money those people are allowed to have and what is considered reasonable for them. They are allowed to keep money unfrozen for their daily living expenses, but also for legal costs, in which we are particularly interested. We all know that there have been massive cuts to legal aid and we want to know whether people who are sanctioned, who often have extremely deep pockets, are being allowed to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on expensive barristers. That is the rationale for our new clause 5.

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree very much with the amendments and support the hon. Lady in what she has said. I share the concerns that she has conveyed from both the NGO sector and the banking sector, where we seem to be caught between admirable public policy objectives—providing humanitarian aid—and the practicalities of sanctions compliance, which seems to be hindering the delivery of that aid in many different ways.

The amendments sensibly seek to expand a particularly narrow EU definition of humanitarian aid. That would give a wee bit more certainty and clarity to agencies working on the ground. It also gives us an opportunity to figure out how we ensure that money reaches those who need it and reaches them quickly. I understand that, at the moment, organisations can often wait up to six to nine months to get licences and agreements in place. Frankly, people on the ground in many of the countries involved do not have six to nine months to wait. They need money and aid almost immediately, so we need to find a way of fast-tracking the money in; we need to figure out what a viable financial route to get money from us here in the UK through to the frontlines in Yemen and Syria to ensure that people can survive looks like.

In Yemen particularly, there is a shortage of physical cash in the country. Hospitals in which people are working are often supported by the likes of Médecins Sans Frontières. MSF is paying those staff, but it needs to get the money into Yemen to pay them, so that they can turn up to work and feed their families, and provide vital assistance to people facing bombardment from the air. We need to find a way of getting the money in and doing that quickly.

There are practicalities involved in asking humanitarian agencies to go and carry out this work. Let us say that people are providing humanitarian aid on the ground; to move things around the country they need fuel. If they are in a country in which they have to choose between buying their fuel from Islamic State fighters or Assad, that is not actually a choice they can make, because both options would place them in breach of sanctions, so there needs to be a way of getting money to people and doing that quickly, so that organisations can do their work. If financial assistance has been granted to humanitarian organisations specifically for the purpose of buying fuel and then they cannot practically do that, that is a real problem and makes the delivery of much-needed aid extremely difficult.

There is an argument for granting up-front licences for infrastructure. If we know what is to be built—put in place—and it is a bridge that will allow people to cross it and move humanitarian aid around the country, or if it is a hospital or other facility that will provide aid, why cannot the licences be granted fast and up front, so that there is no delay in procuring the purchase of things to make that happen?

I agree very much with the points made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland about mutual recognition of licences. If we see fit to issue licences, that should be good enough for other countries as well. If we have gone through a due diligence regime, that should be good enough for other people to accept and would help speed up the process, and would prevent organisations from falling foul of someone else’s regulations. There should be agreement on that, whether in a treaty or some other form. It would be a hugely sensible way of speeding up the process.

I very much agree with the points that have been made on new clause 5. I understand that the United States has a huge amount of transparency around the exemptions and licensing regime. It is possible to see not only what has been licensed and how but the backlog to the licences, which is critically important because we can see delays in the process.

We need to understand why those delays are there and what we can do to overcome them. Frankly, people in different parts of the world cannot wait for us to go through a laborious process to issue licences. We cannot have those organisations spend huge amounts of money on lawyers. We just need to get the aid to where it needs to be with the best practicable due diligence.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I have listened carefully to the respective Front-Bench speakers and studied the three amendments and the new clause: amendment 18 on fast-track exceptions; amendment 19 on consulting on exceptions to disapply; amendment 20 on an exception for humanitarian or peace-building purposes; and new clause 5, which would require the preparation of an annual report on humanitarian and non-humanitarian exemptions.

I will speak to each in turn. Like my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas, I acknowledge the spirit in which they were tabled, but I will set out the Government’s position on why they are not necessary.

I will address the point about FATF immediately, because I have had some contact with it. FATF was set up by 16 countries after the 1989 G7 summit. It is not an incorporated or treaty body. It does not create binding obligations on the UK. The UK is a founder member and plays a leading role. I would reinforce that with this point. I recently received the Pakistani Home Secretary, who was seeking to persuade the Government to resist the greylisting of Pakistan for not making sufficient progress. That was clearly taken very seriously by the Pakistanis. I also acknowledge the work that is going on across Government in the UK to deal with the considerable challenge of the current evaluation of our own compliance with FATF standards. This is a robust, internationally recognised set of obligations that have real meaning and authority.

Many of the amendments have been debated in the other place and lobbied for by UK Finance and a number of NGOs, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland set out. I can assure the Committee that the Government remain a steadfast supporter of NGOs working in conflict areas. The Government engaged with them while the Bill was in the other place, and we will continue to do so. We recognise that it is important to ensure that this work continues, where possible, in sanctioned countries.

It is equally vital, however, that we have appropriate safeguards in place that preserve our foreign policy priorities, by ensuring compliance with sanctions, but also serve to protect the NGOs and help prevent the sector from becoming attractive to criminals looking to circumvent our laws.

Amendment 18 calls on the Government to establish a fast-track process for dealing with requests for exceptions and licences for humanitarian purposes. I can assure hon. Members that the Government make every effort to prioritise urgent and humanitarian cases, where there is a risk of harm or a threat to life, and will continue to do so. However, we believe that any prioritisation criteria for considering licences and exceptions must remain as flexible as possible, to ensure that the Government can consistently prioritise the most important cases, including humanitarian cases where appropriate.

The process for considering licences is best done administratively and on a case-by-case basis. Government Departments will, of course, continue to reach out to the NGO sector to ensure that NGOs understand how that process works for humanitarian licence applications. Given the number of Departments involved—typically four: the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Department for International Trade and the Department for International Development—and the many rightly differing derogations, exceptions and grounds for licensing that are involved, it would not be straightforward to operate a fast-track process as suggested by the amendment. To get each application right demands a tailored approach, because the facts differ greatly from case to case. Therefore the Government believe that it would not be prudent to establish a single fast-track process, which may impede the Government’s ability to assess cases accurately, and will be unwieldy to operate given the different ways in which the various types of sanctions work.

A fast-track process might also create perverse results—such as where an urgent request for a licence to allow a designated person access to medicine would have to come second to a routine application in respect of humanitarian activity that only involves changing the details of bank accounts. For all these reasons, we do not consider that a new and administratively burdensome requirement ought to be added to sanctions regulations.

Amendment 19 suggests that a consultation be undertaken for an overarching framework for exceptions and licences. The NGOs and UK Finance have called for that, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said.

It must be said that we have carried out a consultation on our White Paper, including roundtables with banks and NGOs. We are still talking to them and have set up a working group with them. We intend to use the opportunity to improve licences—such as general licences for humanitarian activity—and we will issue guidance. We have been clear that we will do that, and because of that consultation we do not feel that the amendment is necessary. We have listened to the comments of all respondents and we intend to design a post-Brexit licensing framework that is fully informed by those comments. That is an ongoing process and one in which we are enthusiastically engaged.

Comprehensive regulations that will be laid before Parliament and debated will include detailed information on the exceptions and licences that are appropriate for each regime. We also intend to continue to consult with industry to ensure that the framework allows us to be flexible and has the minimum possible effect on industry whilst having the maximum effect on the intended targets of the sanctions. An overarching framework for licences will not allow us the flexibility that we need for each regime. For example, the licensing grounds for a proliferation regime should be different from those of a misappropriation or counterterrorism regime. Furthermore, the timetable for conducting such a consultation after the commencement of the Bill makes little sense. By then, we expect that the relevant sanctions regulations—with the appropriate exceptions and licensing arrangements for each regime currently existing in EU law—will already have been made and debated by Parliament. We fear that a further consultation would add confusion at a time when we would be working hard to ensure a smooth transition.

The Government have committed in the Bill—clause 37 —to issuing guidance about sanctions regulations. As the guidance is developed, we will engage with stakeholders, as we already do for guidance that is published on the implementation of sanctions.

[Alison Thewliss]

Could the Economic Secretary give more clarity on the timescale? We have the Bill just now; how soon will the guidance appear? The current guidance is not really useful in terms of how the sanctions landscape works.

[John Glen]

I cannot give a precise timetable. I will consult officials and write to the Committee to give clarification on that as soon as I can.

Amendment 20 would make it plain on the face of the Bill that exceptions to sanctions can be made for humanitarian development, reconstruction and peace-building activities. Broadening such exceptions to cover such a broad group of organisations and activities goes much further than the Government intended and is incompatible with both the policy intent and our obligations under UN and EU regimes. The Government are currently able to issue specific licences on application from humanitarian and other agencies. The licensing provision is read across and extended in clauses 15(2)(b) and 14(3)(a) to allow Ministers to issue both general and specific licences. It is the Government’s intention to use the power to issue general licences where appropriate. One key area in which it is foreseen that general licences could be written is for the purpose of delivering humanitarian aid. We should also be wary of the confusion caused by listing these activities but not others, such as denuclearisation activities. To add one would imply that the other was outside the scope of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, this Bill is much worse and more serious than the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, on which Ministers have already made concessions, because that Bill is a temporary Bill. It is designed for making delegated legislation for a two-year period during the transition phase to bring our statute book up to scratch. The powers that Ministers are taking in this Bill are permanent, and there is no sunset clause. I have heard the Minister, but we are thoroughly opposed to Government amendment 4.

[Alison Thewliss]

I echo that. We are also very worried by this amendment, and by the return of something that was clearly and definitively rejected. As far as we are concerned, it is dangerous and an affront to democracy. The Government should accept that they were wrong, and withdraw the amendment. I point out that the Lords Constitution Committee said:

“We consider that such regulation-making powers are constitutionally unacceptable and should not remain part of the Bill.”

The Government should take heed.

[John Glen]

I am grateful for the dialogue with hon. Members on the Front Bench, and I will respond to some of the points that have been made. On the question of whether there is some sort of secret plot to hide any conversations with Lord Judge, Government lawyers have had a number of meetings. No letters have been exchanged, so there is no material to share. The vote was lost by 192 votes to 209; I concede that it was lost, but the thrust of the remarks by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland concerns the notion that behind the measure is some kind of power grab by the Government. I see it as the Government needing to be accountable for how these powers create new offences and how they are used. New clause 3 will require the Government to lay a report before Parliament, setting out what criminal offences are included in any new sanctions regulations.