Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. My noble friend Lady Verma has just given an exceptionally powerful speech, and I was very pleased to be in the Chamber to hear it. Like her, I have not heard as many speeches in today’s debate as I would have liked, because I have been attending to other parliamentary business in the Moses Room. However, I am quite sure that there will have been lots of speeches by distinguished noble Lords drawing on their expertise, and particularly their legal expertise. My own perspective paints a bigger picture; while it will, I am sure, go against the majority of opinion expressed in this House so far today, it is a perspective I would like to give.

Earlier this month in a debate about the standing of parliamentary democracy, I said that the Post Office scandal illustrates powerfully what is driving many voters’ disaffection: namely, that those of us in positions of authority do not listen or take seriously what voters are telling us when what they say or want does not correspond with what we have decided is right and want to do. The same is true in how we react to the majority’s demand for lower levels of legal immigration and an end to the large numbers of illegal migrants entering and staying in our country. Instead of working together over the last eight years to address one of the underlying causes of Brexit, we have decided that the real problem is that, at best, the voters do not understand why they are wrong and cannot have what they want, or, at worst, they are bigoted for their views.

As I have said before in other debates, people do not expect simple solutions to complex problems but they do expect people such as us to be motivated by the kinds of simple values that any decent, upstanding citizen instinctively shares. We evidence that to them by how we do our job, which must include listening and showing that we understand their experience of the problem that only we have the power to fix.

The travesty of our collective response to the public’s demand that we—the whole of Parliament—get a grip on illegal immigration is that, time and again, convinced that we know better, we have chosen to stand alongside those who enter our country illegally and about whom we know nothing over our fellow citizens who are affected by our decisions and who we rely on to pay their taxes, abide by the law and generally keep the country afloat. When it comes to immigration, our repeated efforts to thwart what the majority have voted for are the clearest representation of the division between insiders and outsiders that led to Brexit and all the other democratic shocks that have since followed. That a majority of Members of this House persist in obstructing at every and any opportunity all measures to deal with illegal immigration shows voters that we have learned nothing and nothing has changed.

To those who argue that a majority do not support this Bill, I argue that it is hardly surprising that people who want tougher action to prevent illegal immigration are losing faith in our ability to succeed. We have done nothing to show that we want to. To be clear, it is normal for people who are angry and want us to clamp down hard on illegal migration to be at the same time welcoming of those who come to this country via approved schemes. My friends and family in Beeston Rylands, the area where I grew up, and which has recently become home to hundreds of people from Hong Kong, are testimony to that.

Whether or not the Rwanda scheme is implemented, it will likely do little to change the Conservative Party’s prospects come the next general election. That is not why I support the Bill and doing whatever it takes to deter people from attempting to enter our country illegally. For me, this is about our duty to deliver what people voted for, regardless of our own politics. The fact that we are having to consider a Bill that is causing so much angst among noble Lords is, in my view, a result of our collective failure.

People go on about populism and populist politicians and how they need to be counteracted. Perhaps those same people should consider why people are pushed towards populism and populist politicians in the first place. Unless we start listening and taking seriously what the majority of voters want, and work together to improve conditions for them—because they are the people who uphold all that we as a country say we stand for—we should not be surprised if they deliver for us yet more electoral shocks.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, many noble Lords have made very helpful and interesting points in this debate. Amendment 168A, moved by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, raises an interesting matter of policy, seeking as it does to introduce a new clause to require the Secretary of State to

“prepare a ten-year strategy for tackling refugee crises affecting migration by irregular routes, or the movement of refugees … through collaboration with signatories to the Refugee Convention or any other international agreement on the rights of refugees”.

Although I agree with much of the sentiment behind this worthy aim, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.

The Bill is to deter and prevent illegal entry into the UK. It is not a Bill about international agreements into which the UK may enter in the future, modify or make. It is for the Government of the day to propose a policy, not the unelected Chamber. Measures such as that which we are now debating tend to be part of general manifesto proposals, on which a Government is elected. They therefore have the authority of the people in whose name the Government are formed, and they reflect the democratic wish. Yes, such a policy may indeed become part of a future Government’s manifesto proposals, but I do not believe that it is for this Chamber to bind the current Government in such a way as Amendment 168A proposes.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a few brief remarks. Clearly, the most reverend Primate will push his amendment to a Division, and from the contributions that have been made it seems likely that the House will support him in doing that. None the less, I want to offer a slightly different perspective.

There is much that is compelling and sensible about what the most reverend Primate has argued, and a lot of the points made by others in support of his amendment are worthy of serious consideration. I very much welcome what my noble friend Lord Bourne said about the need for us to revisit these issues, which have been in place since the 1950s. However, the wholesale approach to this question proposed by way of this amendment requires confidence from everybody to support our motives in taking that approach. We have to keep in mind that the kind of people who support the Bill and want the priority and exclusive focus now to be on stopping the boats are the kind of people who have lost a lot of confidence in the democratic process and in the institutions of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to open by addressing the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. To summarise what she said, one can have a strategy only when one has people’s trust, and this Bill is about stopping the boats; I think that was the gist of her argument. My argument, and the other argument I have heard in this debate, is that even if this Bill achieves its end completely, the most reverend Primate’s amendment would still be appropriate because we still need a strategy as the situation develops over the next 10 years. I think that addresses the point the noble Baroness made.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

As the noble Lord has referenced what I said, if I may, I shall respond to that point. What we have to understand is that people question our motives now because we have too many times behaved in such a way as to suggest that we do not want to take seriously what they are voting for.

[A noble Lord]

Order!

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I will finish this point.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Will my noble friend please ask the question?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Lords Chamber

I have been persuaded by the Government’s amendment, contrary to the arguments that I made in Grand Committee, and I hope that, collectively, we can let this thing move forward. What will be important is the detail of the rules under which the court will operate. I hope that the Government will be able to tell us today that those rules will come forward with all due speed.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to hear my noble and learned friend say that he has changed his position since we met in Grand Committee because I recall that, during those debates, he was strong in his view and mildly critical of those of us who had brought forward amendments.

I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 125H and 125J. I will speak to them but, before I do, I join my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier in welcoming the amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend the Minister. I am very pleased to see them; they go a long way to addressing the concerns that my committee—I declare my interest as chairman of the Communications and Digital Select Committee—has raised in our hearings on this topic over the past 12 months. As has been acknowledged, those amendments are confined to economic crime but that is because this is a Bill about economic crime, so I am happy to accept them as far as they go.

None the less, I want to highlight something that my amendments, the same amendments that I tabled in Committee, refer to—the power of deterrence with regard to the solicitors who represent those who bring forward these forms of legal action. I listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord Faulks introducing his amendment. Unlike my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, I find his arguments quite compelling, but at this point I am pleased with what we have here. The importance of deterrence and the link between the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s new fining powers, the tactics employed by those who bring SLAPPs and the new dismissal mechanism are where I want to focus my comments.

As we have heard, the Government’s amendments bring much-needed legal clarity about the definition of a SLAPP case. The new strike-out clause includes a likelihood test but not a requirement for the case to be shown to have merit. That is a bit of a gap. It suggests that well-to-do law firms could still threaten journalists with a defamation case that has no merit and force the journalist to deal with huge legal costs. As we have already heard, as long as the lawyers toe the line and are not too aggressive in their tactics, they are unlikely to be thrown out under the early dismissal mechanism, but just because a case is not thrown out at the start, that does not mean everything is fine.

Most SLAPP cases never make it to a court, as we have heard. They succeed by intimidating critics into dropping their investigation at a very early stage. In these circumstances, the early dismissal test will not even come into play. One of the best defences probably lies with the solicitors’ regulator. The SRA needs to have confidence that these amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend the Minister will give it a sufficiently robust basis to penalise solicitors and law firms that pursue SLAPPs.

I understand that the SRA has powers to take action against individuals and law firms for misconduct or failing to comply with the rules. I would be grateful for clarification from my noble and learned friend the Minister that the SRA’s new unlimited fining powers, which are already in the Bill, could definitely be used to deter and punish law firms facilitating SLAPP cases, even if the case is not thrown out by the early dismissal test or does not make it to court. Let us not forget that the lawyers are making huge amounts of money from this. They know exactly what they are doing and can be very clever about getting away with it. We need confidence and assurances that the regulator will be able to take robust enforcement action, as we in Parliament need to be able to set a clear expectation of the regulators that they will be proactive in asking people to come forward with concerns, process complaints speedily and investigate high-risk firms to put them on notice.

Above all, the SRA needs to enforce the spirit of the law, not just the letter, by demonstrating zero tolerance for those profiting from flagrant abuses of our legal system. From my noble and learned friend the Minister, I am looking for clarity at the Dispatch Box that the fining powers that the SRA now has in the Bill and this new definition of SLAPPs empower it to act against law firms if it considers it appropriate to do so because they have breached its codes and so on. We are not looking for a situation in which it is possible for the SRA not to do what is properly expected of it just because it has not been spelled out in words of one syllable in the Bill.

In my view, it is really important for any regulator or regulated sector to understand that the members of it and those who are regulating it have a responsibility to uphold the reputation of that sector. That is done by the way in which they conduct their business. It is important that that is made very clear if the Government bring forward this definition of SLAPPs, as they have, to try to prevent further use of this aggressive and abusive form of legal action, which is doing so much to undermine the Government’s overall intention to reduce economic crime.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I welcome the amendment he has put forward. I want to make three quick points.

First, it is clear that the will of the House is that something should be done quickly. The remedy should be speedy, inexpensive and flexible. This leads to my second point. The right course is to allow the rule committee to develop this, but the rules must be flexible and must allow for the development to be made judicially, rather than prescribed in rules. That, in my experience, has generally been the way forward; we have tried this in relation to other matters and know that it is impossible to lay down too many detailed things in rules. Thirdly, I hope that the Government will make available the necessary resources to the judiciary, so that this can be dealt with by a High Court or other senior judge. Speed, effectiveness and determination will show whether this is a means that will work or whether we will have to resort to that which was suggested by the first amendment that was debated.

Nottingham Incident

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I join all noble Lords in paying tribute to the emergency services and the people of Nottingham and offer my condolences to the friends and families of the victims of this terrible atrocity.

I will say more about the students in a moment, but I pay particular tribute to Mr Coates and his friends and family. From what we have learned about Mr Coates in the last 24 hours, he sounds like a remarkable man, a remarkable citizen and a proud citizen of Nottingham. Clearly our thoughts are with those who were injured as well during the attack in the city.

I have never had the honour to represent the people of Beeston, so I have studiously never spoken for them before. I hope it is not considered disrespectful in these tragic circumstances. The main campus of Nottingham University borders Beeston and, over the years, more students have chosen to live in the town. I feel that, alongside the heartfelt condolences of the people of Beeston to the families and friends of Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar, the people of Beeston would also want to reassure parents around the country whose sons and daughters are studying at Nottingham, and may be living in Beeston, that it is a safe town. Its residents offer students, wherever they come from, a warm welcome. That will clearly be something that they would hope to continue. As my noble friend has already done, I join him in supporting all that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said. I hope that my noble friend is able to agree with me.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am absolutely able to agree with my noble friend and I welcome her remarks. I am sure that she and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will work together in due course on making sure that future students have a very warm welcome when they arrive at Nottingham University. This gives me an opportunity to mention that Mr Coates, who has been referred to, was four months from retirement, which seems particularly poignant. I read the comments of his sons and was very moved.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I will not make the speech I was going to, because all the points I planned to make have been made. In the early hours of yesterday morning, I criticised the Minister for not listening to what had been said. There is sometimes repetition because of a hope that it will eventually be heard.

We have heard such powerful arguments today, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who has expressed the humanity behind this amendment. We have heard that giving the right to work is about human dignity, and we have heard about people with lived experience of that. They keep asking why they cannot do paid work and saying, “This is what we want to do”.

I am pleading to the Minister to put away whatever briefing he has been given, which talks about pull factors and so forth, and address the points that have been made in this debate.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, some very powerful remarks have been made in this short debate so far, some of which I will respond to in a moment. At the start of my contribution, it is important to emphasise an obvious statement of fact that bears repetition: the Bill is about dealing with immediate and urgent issues—the current situation in which we find ourselves and the practice of boats crossing the channel. This has to stop, as it is unacceptable not just on the basis of illegal entry into the country by that route being wrong in principle but because of the threat to life involved in those journeys.

Often, important and powerful points are made as if we can just deal with them quickly or with them and bigger issues at the same time. I support what the Government are trying to do here: they are trying to deal with an immediate issue. Through this legislation, I would like the Government to deal—as I think they are trying to do—with that problem, which is vexing not just the Government but the country at large. It is causing a widespread sense of concern and disquiet. Once that has been dealt with and we are on top of the issue, some of the topics raised in these debates will merit proper consideration and further thought.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said in her opening remarks on this group—and I have heard her say it many times, as have other noble Lords who are raising objections to the Bill—that one of the problems with the Government’s approach to this legislation is that the assumption is being made that those claiming asylum must be accepted as asylum seekers and cannot be defined in any other way. Somehow, the fact that a lot of people are concerned by the legitimacy of that claim is not acceptable to many noble Lords. As I said at Second Reading—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I hesitate to interrupt the noble Baroness as I will have a right of reply after the Minister, but I do not think I have said any such thing. I did not say that everybody who crosses the channel or comes in another way irregularly is entitled to refugee status. Obviously, they are defined as refugees under the refugee convention, but if they are seeking status in the UK, they have to go through a process and those who do not qualify should be removed—deported. That is what a rational, fair and proper asylum procedure looks like. Our objection to the Bill is its refusal to admit anybody to the determination process. I have never said, nor have any of my noble friends, that everybody who arrives should be allowed to stay, under whatever status. Of course you cannot run an asylum system in that way and we have never said that.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

What the noble Baroness does through many of her contributions is argue against anybody using the terminology “illegal immigrant” by virtue of the fact that they have come via that route and have claimed asylum. My understanding of what she is arguing is that their status as an asylum seeker should be accepted by virtue of the fact that they have made that claim.

I said at Second Reading that I based my remarks on conversations that I have had with people who work alongside immigrants in workplaces which are very different from the one we spend our time in. I said that if there was one way I could define the main message that they were seeking to make clear to me and to this House and to Parliament as we consider this legislation—I am quoting myself here—it was:

“Don’t assume or believe that everyone attempting to enter our country illegally is a genuine asylum seeker fleeing persecution”. —[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1814.]


I said that because I think that some of the arguments being made about being able to work are based on a desire for us to address that in a context where the noble Baroness’s perception of the situation is rather different from that of other people.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, invoked economic and productivity arguments in favour of allowing asylum seekers to work. Again, I can see where he is coming from and I do not in any way disagree with him or any noble Lord about the hard-working nature or enterprising disposition of people who come to this country. That is not something I would enter into any kind of discussion about. But I think that if we are going to raise economic arguments as a reason for the Government to accept these amendments and allow asylum seekers, at this current moment in time, to work in the way proposed, we must also remember that we have 5 million people on out-of-work benefits at a time when there is a record number of job vacancies.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

There are not 5 million people out of work on benefits. Universal credit applies to large numbers of people in work as well as out of work.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

The information I have is that there are 5 million people receiving out-of-work benefits. In my view, if they are qualifying for these, they are therefore out of work.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I will give way in a moment; let me just finish the point I am trying to make. An argument on economic and productivity grounds is not as compelling as some noble Lords are seeking to make it, given that, as I said, a large proportion of our current population are not in work but could be, and are in receipt of out-of-work benefits. I give way to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I appreciate that. Can the noble Baroness tell us what proportion of those people are not in work because of chronic sickness, disabilities that may get in the way of being in work, and caring responsibilities?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I cannot, and I am not here to get into a detailed discussion about that. I am simply trying to make this point. Noble Lords are raising the issue of productivity and the economy as a justification for accepting this right now in the Bill. As I said to the Committee earlier, there is some value and legitimacy, in principle, to some of the arguments being made. For instance, I would support the right reverend Prelate’s argument about ensuring that people who come to this country and are waiting for their application to be processed are able to make their contribution. However, we need to get to a position where the current rate of asylum seekers in the system is not that with which we are currently dealing.

Some noble Lords are arguing to be able to do both at the same time. Of course, I absolutely agree that the Home Office must be much better than it currently is at processing these things. I am not disagreeing with any of this. Unlike those noble Lords, however, I am saying that, for that kind of change to be accepted by the country at large, we have to take steps to get there. If you look at the bigger issue of immigration, part of what we are trying to do is to create a system that is acceptable and works for the country as a whole, and that everybody can have confidence in, so that they can feel much more in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, would like everyone to feel and believe regarding the changes she wishes to see. We cannot do it all at the same time.

That is what I am trying to do. I am not trying to argue about pull or push factors; just that the Bill is about an immediate issue that the Government are rightly trying to respond to—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I will finish my point and then I will give way. I think that some of the matters that noble Lords are advancing should not be dealt with at this time. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I wonder whether she will answer the next question with a yes or no, because I am confused by some of the things I have heard from her. If a job is available and an asylum seeker is the only person available who can realistically fill it, does she agree that, after three months or so, the asylum seeker should be allowed to take that job?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

At the moment, if somebody is still awaiting a decision on their asylum status or their status as a citizen or resident of the country, they are not eligible for employment—no.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I was not here at the start of the debate, so I am embarrassed to stand up and will be extremely brief. I just want to support very strongly this amendment. I have spoken over the years about just how ludicrous it is that we have asylum seekers here who cannot work, however long the Home Office takes to consider their application. This is an incredibly important amendment. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on the basis that surely this is one amendment that the Government should be able to support, and it will be in everybody’s interests if the Minister is able to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I do not want to be unkind, but the rest of us manage to persuade the door- keepers to bring us glasses of water.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

May I? Forgive me, I am normally somebody who is a stickler for us keeping to the Companion—absolutely, for sure. However, if the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, can contribute to this debate having not even been here at the beginning, when my noble friend was here at the beginning and nipped out to get a glass of water, I think we can hear from my noble friend. If the noble Lord is minded to object, I would hope he would have objected to his noble colleague speaking.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for raising this interesting point and for her proposed Amendment 133. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent and deter illegal migration, and it provides for swift removal, with very few exceptions. Therefore, I am not quite sure why a new clause after Clause 60 is necessary, particularly because, in respect of applications for work from asylum seekers who are already having their asylum claims processed, as far as I know—I am subject to correction here—those are covered under the 2016 Immigration Rules. Part 11B sets out the policy criteria, which can be found in paragraphs 360A, B and C.

I will also comment on various noble Lords’ claims about the potential contribution that asylum seekers can make to the economy. Yes, there may indeed be contributions which can be made, but perhaps we should also consider the costs, the compliance costs and the fact that the UK is trying to move to a high-skills economy, where people with higher skills or where there is a need already can apply to work here under the normal rules. I cannot see why we need this amendment to the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I had not intended to say anything about this amendment, but I will say a couple of things. First, those of us who have met a number of asylum seekers have been very impressed by the high level of skills and enthusiasm for work that they exhibit. Secondly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, I understand the point that she is making about the objective of the Bill, but it has a very long Long Title and I doubt my noble friend would have been able to table her amendment had the clerks not agreed that it was in order.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I am not in any way trying—

[A noble Lord]

For God’s sake.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

Excuse me? Somebody said, “For God’s sake”. I do not know who that was. Okay.

I am not trying to suggest to the Committee that the amendment is somehow outside of scope and therefore inadmissible—that is not my argument at all. If you want to describe the point I am making as political, it is perfectly legitimate to do that. However, I am trying to make the case, in terms of the political aims of the Bill, that I can see that it would be unwise to try to introduce something that the noble Baroness is seeking to do in this legislation—so I was not in any way arguing that.

To the noble Baroness’s other points about the merits of anybody who is claiming asylum in terms of their capabilities, I do not question that either. That is not my point. My point is that I want a migration system that has the confidence of everybody in this country, and I think that we are going to have to do it in stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I will let my noble friend the Minister respond on behalf of the Government to the noble Lord’s point but, as he was responding to what I had argued, I have to say that what he has just described makes my point, if I may be so bold.

I argue that, yes, there may be schemes that are authorised for the recruitment of people from outside the UK for specific jobs, but that does not justify that we make those who arrive outside those schemes eligible for work. That would make crossing the channel a route that is seen as attractive for those who might not want to come and do those jobs in particular but certainly want to come here for economic reasons.

As far as the specific working environments that the noble Lord talks about, if the problem in those industries is that wages are insufficient, whether it is in the care sector or the food industry, then I argue very much that the employers need to address the wage issues to encourage more people to apply, if that is part of the barrier to people going to work in them in the first place.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am not sure whether she heard the evidence provided by my noble friend Lady Ludford from the Home Office report, which said that providing work was not a pull factor in the way that the noble Baroness has suggested.

Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

I think the noble Lord will know the answer, and it is no.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I start by joining the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in the comments that he made about my beloved home city. I also pay tribute to the Nottinghamshire Police and all the emergency services for their responses to the dreadful events in the city today. Clearly, I send my condolences to the friends and families of those who were dreadfully murdered.

I should also start by saying that I very much understand some of the frustration that has been expressed in the debate so far today, whether it has come from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, my noble friend Lord Hunt on behalf of the committee, or in various other speeches that we have heard. It is important that the Government produce good-quality Explanatory Memorandums. They have not covered themselves in glory in this particular situation. I care about procedure— I do, very much—but I also care very much about the way in which this House conducts itself and the relationship that we have between this House and the Executive. I feel that, over the last few years, it has deteriorated. It has become increasingly hostile, and that has been clearly evident in the way in which some of the debates that we have held on a range of legislation have occurred. Sometimes, we have made our points in ways that have not showed any sense of disrespect to the Government—because that is not for the House to worry about—but have too often, I feel, shown disrespect to members of the public who take a particular position on things that some of us may not agree with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in what has been an interesting debate. I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that nobody is saying that the current protests that we have seen are acceptable. We all agree that something needs to be done about it and that they are unacceptable. The whole debate about the instrument before us is around the appropriate way for the state to respond in balancing the rights of protesters and the public.

My contention is that the Government, through secondary legislation, are changing various measures that we only just passed in the Public Order Act—including, for example, the threshold that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to, where “more than minor” was linked just to the particular offences of tunnelling and locking on. Indeed, I was rebuked when I said that that threshold was too low and we should have a higher threshold; it was said to me that it refers only to the offences of locking on and tunnelling. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope says, what the Government have done—they actually pray in aid the noble and learned Lord, who we have heard is very unhappy with the process—is extend that. That is what this is about.

There has been no opportunity for anyone in this House to say that that is inappropriate as a way of controlling protests. Nobody has been able to say that that threshold is inappropriate; we just have to accept it because it is done by secondary legislation and is unamendable. That is the point.

Then we come to the whole point of process, which is the point of my regret amendment and the point of debate for us all here. There are choices before us in how we respond to the fact that the Government have driven a coach and horses through the way that parliamentary democracy in this country works. There is absolutely no question that that is what they have done.

The convention does not say that you change primary legislation by secondary legislation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says that it cannot find another example of that being done. If you cannot find another example of it being done, it probably means that the convention is that you do not do it. Therefore, the convention must be that, if you want to significantly change legislation with respect to protests, you do so through primary legislation. I think that is the majority view—apart from one or two people shaking their heads at me, which is fine. The challenge before us is how we respond to the fact that the majority of people, I suggest, in this place think that the Government have acted inappropriately in dealing with this issue. That is the question.

You might say that we should do nothing about it and that it does not matter. The Tory Whip will say, “Pour in. Vote down Coaker’s amendment. Support the right to lock up all these Just Stop Oil people. It doesn’t matter. Convention doesn’t matter. The way the constitution operates in this country doesn’t matter. Pour in. Just vote it down. He’ll shut up in a minute, it’s fine”. But what has happened is absolutely outrageous. I say to noble Peers opposite that this is an opportunity for the Conservative Members of this House to abstain and say that they accept that this is the wrong way for Parliament to proceed with respect to this matter. Do not just pour in and say it does not matter. It fundamentally matters.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is giving a customarily powerful closing speech. Will the noble Lord at least acknowledge that it is not just, as he is alleging, the Government who have driven a coach and horses through convention over the past few years, but that Parliament, in this House and down the Corridor in the other place, has also done that? My contention earlier was that it takes two to tango. We have got to a situation here whereby the Government are being forced to do unconventional things because of the way in which we collectively have had to conduct ourselves. It should be for him and I to agree that we need to move on and find a better way in which to conduct business than we have seen of late. It requires us all to reflect and not just for the Government to do so—although I accept that they need to do so.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That leads me nicely on to the point that I am trying to make. Conservative Peers have a choice to make as to how they respond to the way in which the Government have undermined the conventions of this House by abstaining on the vote. I have a choice to make and I am saying to my party from the Front Bench that we should respect the conventions of this House by not voting down the will of the elected House of Parliament. I am being criticised for not supporting the fatal amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, have just said, they think that I should be suggesting that to my party. That undermines convention and I will not recommend it to His Majesty Opposition; it is inappropriate. That is the way in which I am seeking to respect conventions of this House—by not suggesting to His Majesty Opposition that they oppose what the elected Government of this country have put forward.

I have to accept my responsibility and make suggestions on how my party should vote on this. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will have his view about how he thinks his party should vote. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has outlined how she thinks the House should vote. I am saying to Conservative Peers that they have an opportunity now, through the vote they make, to deliver their verdict on how the Government have operated with respect to the conventions of this House. I contend that they have driven a coach and horses through the conventions of this House, whereby primary legislation is not changed by secondary legislation.

At its heart, that is what my regret amendment is about—trying to respect the conventions of the House while expressing regret with respect to the way in which these public order regulations have been carried through. At the end of the day, that is a choice that people will have to make. I have made my choice with respect to my party. I am saying that we should abstain on the fatal amendment but support my regret amendment. Others will have to make their choice. I hope that they make the right one.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 10th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I always argue and indeed believe that legislation is improved by the process of scrutiny in this House. However, until the powerful and welcome statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who sadly is no longer in his place, I thought that no noble Lords would be willing to see how our persistence against measures in what some have described as “popular Bills” has the consequence of reciprocal persistence and yet stronger measures. So I applaud the noble and learned Lord for his statement, and urge noble Lords to take note of what he said.

That said, I urge my noble friend the Minister, who I commend for the clear and sensitive way in which he introduced this debate, to listen carefully to those noble Lords who seek, with all sincerity, to improve this legislation with the purpose of ensuring in its implementation that it is effective in stopping the boats that cross the channel illegally. However, as much as our collective effectiveness relies on Ministers listening and taking this House seriously, it also relies on us—your Lordships—listening to and taking seriously the public, who demand that their elected Government take action against illegal activity that affects their lives and livelihoods.

We often forget that, as human beings, we all want what we often deny each other—respect and understanding. In fact, last night in this Chamber, when we were debating amendments on the Online Safety Bill, there was quite a bit of frustration at the lack of understanding from the Government in their response to debates. Something that frustrates many of our fellow citizens is the ease with which we demand respect and understanding for ourselves and show it to those who we do not know ahead of those we live alongside and whose support and co-operation we rely on most. Whether we call them the “squeezed middle”, “just about managing” or the “hardworking people who play by the rules”, these are the people we rely on to pay their taxes, keep good order in their communities and uphold British values which we—those of us in leadership roles—have become shy of or are reluctant to promote ourselves.

Our fellow citizens are no less compassionate or caring than us, and they, too, want to—and do—support people in genuine need. But they do not want their compassion to be taken for granted or taken advantage of, and they do not want us to dictate the terms on which they must support others, when it is them who always have to pay, whether that is via the growing queues for public services they have little choice over using, the shortage of housing for them and their families or through the consequential changes to our society which challenge people’s sense of status at work and the cohesiveness of their community.

I enjoy great privilege. Not only do I spend a lot of time with powerful and influential people in Westminster and other walks of life, and I get to hear and learn from their experience and wisdom. I gain the same benefits of wisdom and experience from my close family and friends who ensure that I enjoy and understand a very different world. Unlike most of us, some of them work alongside immigrants from around the world, including people who arrived in the UK on the backs of lorries a few years ago. They, too, hear some tragic stories, but they hear a whole lot more said, which leads them to make a simple plea when they talk to me, which I relate to this House with their sincerity: “Don’t assume or believe that everyone attempting to enter our country illegally is a genuine asylum seeker fleeing persecution”.

When we get to Committee, if noble Lords table amendments about the right for asylum seekers to work, I will say more about why I oppose that and why I am worried about the growing numbers of legal migration to do unskilled or low-skilled jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was right to raise the issue of the increasing number of work-study visas, about which I have heard stories of misuse. There is far more to the impact of all this than meets the eye, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who is no longer in her place, asked for evidence. I would say to the noble Lady that there is plenty, if we are willing to listen.

But today what I ask is how noble Lords opposing the Government on this Bill think they are helping genuine asylum seekers. How does it help to improve the system? Does opposing this Bill help to restore people’s confidence in our country’s ability to distinguish between refugees fleeing for their lives and those who would simply like a better life, but are willing to lie and use illegal means to get here? Does it help to demonstrate that we can and will prioritise the former and not the latter? Does it reassure that we have the necessary support and infrastructure to cope with new arrivals without pitting their needs against those of the communities in which they are put? In short, how does opposing this Bill persuade the public that this House takes seriously all their legitimate concerns, rather than ignoring or dismissing them as the products of ignorance or prejudice?

If the Lib Dems divide the House tonight, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has already said he will, the Minister can most definitely count on my support. I support the Bill.

National Security Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st March 2023 Lords Chamber

Much of my political life has been about protecting civil liberties for everyone—even people I do not agree with, and people outside on the street sometimes. Journalism is a key plank of any free society and, if we allow legislation that risks having a chilling effect on journalists doing their jobs and holding the Government to account, we are not doing our job here and the Government are not doing theirs. I strongly promote Amendment 18 and support the Lib Dem amendments. I would love to move my Amendment 72, but it is tougher and your Lordships might find it harder to accept than Amendment 18.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I will add a few remarks to what has already been said in the debate. My noble friend Lord Black comprehensively and powerfully set out the case for his amendment, which I support and have added my name to.

I emphasise that, like everyone else, I think, I support the Bill. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that I signed the Official Secrets Act when I was just 18 years old, on my first day as a junior secretary in the Ministry of Defence. I knew very little about the world that I had entered, but it was impressed upon me from the start that I would be in possession of information that could endanger lives. I learned from an early age about protecting any information that could be weaponised against the UK or our citizens.

I also learned that part of what makes us such a powerful and important nation is our freedoms, especially our free press. I learned that it is critical that we do not do anything that risks journalists not being able legitimately to expose serious failings or wrongdoing by government or public servants, especially when those government failings themselves could threaten the lives and well-being of British citizens.

In Committee, we heard some powerful examples that could be at risk of being exposed in the future, for the reasons that were set out. That is why I believe it is essential that we do not legislate to protect our national security in a way that could stop journalists doing their legitimate job, however inconvenient to Ministers or public servants the results of this sometimes are. Journalists should not be threatened with prison for exposing the truth about ineptitude, incompetence or corruption within government, whoever is in power.

I echo what my noble friend Lord Black and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said about the commitment of my noble friend the Minister, his ministerial colleagues and officials across Whitehall, who have given time and effort in trying to find a way forward. As the Minister laid out, the Government have come a long way towards addressing the concerns expressed during debates in Committee. Like others, I support all of the amendments that my noble friend tabled on behalf of the Government.

However, as my noble friend Lord Black explained, we need to go a little further and provide greater clarity than the Government’s amendments if we are to avoid a chilling effect on journalism, which could so undermine the public interest. That said, I fear that my noble friend the Minister may be unwilling to accept our amendment. That troubles me, because a Bill on national security and how a new offence could apply to journalism is not one on which I would like to see the House divided.

I can see why the Government might be struggling with the amendment or to come up with something else that provides the clarity that we need. As unthinkable and unlikely as it may be, I suspect that there is a fear within Whitehall that a journalist working for a recognised news publisher could collude with a foreign state seeking to do us harm and use this as a defence to get away with it.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I want to listen to what my noble friend the Minister says at the end of the debate. It is important that we give him the opportunity to speak very clearly about this. I remind my noble friend that his words at the Dispatch Box are incredibly powerful in legal terms if they are made deliberately with the purpose of ensuring that there is complete clarity and no ambiguity when it comes to the intention of legislation.

If he will not accept this amendment, I want him to be very clear about the explicit limits of this offence. Can he put beyond any doubt that no journalist doing a legitimate job of exposing wrongdoing and failure by the state will be caught by this future Act of Parliament —if that is what it becomes—if they are not working on behalf of a foreign Government or agency? As I said, I want to listen to him, and I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, my noble friend Lord Black and the rest of the House to do the same, because that is what I will do.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. I have also added my name to Amendment 18. I have very little to add to what has already been said by those who have spoken in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has given a very good summary of the ruling of Pepper v Hart, although there first has to be ambiguity for the Minister’s words to have particular effect. None the less, I entirely agree with her that we will listen with great interest, as indeed will the media in general, to what the Minister has to say, to see whether he can give the assurance that is genuinely needed.

All I will add to what noble Lords have said already is that public interest journalism is genuinely under threat. It is very expensive to undertake, and editors can easily be deterred by the possibility of a wild goose chase. It would be an additional impediment to their encouraging proper journalism if they felt that one of their journalists or their publication was in some danger of finding themselves contravening the provisions of this very important Bill, which I also support in all respects. That is why this is a very significant group of amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, citing Roosevelt, freedom of expression is fundamental. The press and the recognised publishers reflected in this amendment represent a very significant part of that freedom, and I hope that, in the Minister’s response to this group of amendments, we will get the reassurance that is so badly needed.

Security Threat to UK-based Journalists

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I think the noble Lord has just, very aptly, described common humanity, and of course I completely agree. I would be straying well beyond my remit if I was to go into soft power and all its uses. Of course, speaking personally, I completely agree. As I pointed out, the FCDO is providing the World Service with significant amounts of funding. Reading between the lines, or perhaps not, I would imagine that indicates that it also believes in the soft power aspect of the World Service. For the reasons that the noble Lord describes, how can we not?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, this is clearly a very serious situation and I would not want to detract from that at all, but one thing my noble friend has not mentioned today is the Government’s national action plan for the safety of journalists. In light of this situation, are the Government looking to see whether that needs to be reviewed in any way? Also, what, if any, engagement might Ministers have with the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, which I believe was established just a few years ago? It seems quite relevant if the threats to journalists we are seeing now are growing in such a serious fashion. Alongside that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, there are other kinds of threats being made and actions being taken against journalists, at a rate we perhaps have not seen in the past.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I am afraid that I am not personally able to answer it, so I will make sure that she is written to. I think DCMS takes the lead on this area but I will make further investigations and make sure she is fully informed.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I will pick up on quite a bit of what he has just said but, like other noble Lords, I will attempt not to be repetitive—certainly not unhelpfully so. I should say from the outset that I recognise that this is a very important Bill and my noble friends on the Front Bench will have my full support in getting it on to the statute book.

I feel a little bit like an interloper. As noble Lords who have observed my interventions in this Chamber over the years will know, I would not normally be found participating in a deep dive into economic crime and issues of corporate transparency law. However, I come to this Bill with my role as chair of the Communications and Digital Select Committee very much to the fore, because of the topic the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, clearly and ably gave us an account of, which is SLAPPs—in full, strategic lawsuits against public participation. I will not go through a detailed description of what this means because the noble Lord has already done that, but I will add a couple of things to what he said.

Although this practice came to public attention last year when it became apparent that it was often deployed by oligarchs, it is important to bear in mind that it is not just something that rich Russians use. It is widespread and used by powerful and wealthy individuals but also by institutions. They reach for it as a defence when they do not like legitimate scrutiny or have something to hide.

When my committee first looked into this matter a year ago, we established that what we were aware of about this practice represented just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the deployment of SLAPPs or very aggressive lawfare is so successful in deterring scrutiny that many cases never get anywhere near a court. I should add, as a former chair of the Charity Commission, that this practice of aggressive lawfare is also sometimes deployed against regulatory bodies, not just journalists.

The Communications and Digital Select Committee recently held a follow-up session on SLAPPs and took evidence from the regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, to find out what it is doing to identify, deter and punish British law firms that profit from facilitating these abuses of our legal system. I am pleased to say that the committee heard that it is now taking the issue seriously, but I was concerned to find that there are completely inadequate deterrents against lawyers taking on SLAPP cases. In a moment I will comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said as a more expansive solution to this issue, but two specific points stood out to me that are directly relevant to the Bill whether or not the Government support the noble Lord’s proposal to use the Bill to address the matter more comprehensively.

First, the regulator can fine wrongdoers up to £25,000. This has just been increased from £2,000. Noble Lords do not need me to point out just how ludicrously small that sum is; it probably amounts to a few hours in legal fees for the top law firms. I cannot imagine that many lawyers working for billionaire oligarchs or any other rich and powerful figure would live in fear of such a punishment.

The Bill provides a crucial opportunity to change that. It will give the regulator unlimited fining powers in relation to economic crime. That is welcome, but most lawfare cases would fall outside of that scope. I therefore recommend changing Clause 181 to allow the regulator to fine solicitors up to £250 million for pursuing SLAPP cases, whether they relate to economic crime or not. This amount is in line with what the SRA can fine other types of organisations, such as alternative business structures. To be clear, ABSs are law firms that are run by non-lawyers or whose partners are a mix of lawyers and non-lawyers. That means that the big accountancy firms qualify for this status, so in theory the SRA could fine those big accountancy firms that provide legal services up to £250 million but not the majority of law firms. I do not know about other noble Lords, but that strikes me as rather odd. In correspondence with me following my committee’s public hearing, the regulator confirmed that it supported this suggestion. The money this would generate could go into a defence fund for journalists and others facing such SLAPPs.

Secondly, I learned that payment for legal advice is not subject to the same type of money laundering regulation checks as other legal services. In addition, key parts of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which should require solicitors to report suspicious activity to the National Crime Agency, apparently do not apply to the conduct of litigation by lawyers. I accept that lawyers will need to represent individuals from all walks of life, including criminals, but that does not mean they should profit from dirty money. Again, this loophole is odd, to say the least, because it suggests a risk that dirty money can be used to pay lawyers to pursue abusive lawsuits aiming to silence journalists. That is particularly ironic, given that money laundering tends to be a key topic of interest for investigative journalists. Indeed, one of our witnesses made explicit allegations that the law firm pursuing a SLAPP case against her was working for someone using illegitimate funds. I recommend taking this opportunity to close that loophole and send a message that law firms should be doing everything in their power to uphold proper standards of due diligence.

The SRA has said it will write to lawyers about money laundering but, in all likelihood, the lawyers carrying out these cases know exactly what they are doing and how to game the system. The only way to stop them is with meaningful deterrents and sanctions. On that topic I have written to the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope my noble friends the Ministers will agree that these changes would be a valuable and proportionate contribution to the Government’s commitment to stamping out abuses of our legal system.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, we need to do more to stamp out the practice of SLAPPs and end London’s disreputable status as the best place for wealthy and powerful bad people to hide from legitimate scrutiny. If the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, seeks to use this legislation to bring forward wider measures to tackle this—and I very much urge the Government to seize this opportunity to deal with this practice—it is possible that we will be able to achieve more than I had hoped we might in what I have covered today, which is quite modest and precise, in amendments that I propose to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that fascinating speech. I think I need to read it again before I fully understand it. I had not heard it on the five previous occasions on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, made it. Halfway through this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, commented that there seemed to be an extraordinary amount of consensus. That carried on through the rest of the debate. The question behind all the speeches is how serious are the Government about making sure that this Bill becomes an Act which successfully tackles economic crime, rather than one making another tiny step—a shuffle perhaps—in the direction of saying that it will, but not actually managing to implement it?

We have heard a range of arguments that the Government should accept amendments on several issues to strengthen the Bill, in so far as they can be fitted within its remit: SLAPPs, whistleblowers, greater transparency, asset seizures for reparations, tighter enforcement of the register of overseas entities and penalties for failure to prevent fraud or for assisting fraud actors and activities.

On the question of fees, we do not need that in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, remarked. I disagree with him on whether Companies House needs more powers. It needs more powers, and for that it needs more resources. What we want is an assurance from the Government that they will substantially raise the fees. I sat thinking with amazement that the fees for Companies House are the way they are. With my wife, I am working through the process of downsizing our house after 45 years in one place. I gather that this is in line with the Government’s preferences and policy. They would like people our age to move out of their large houses into smaller flats so that housing problems are moderated. Yesterday, I sorted out how much it will cost me in stamp duty, conveyancing fees et cetera. In comparison with the fee for registering a company, there is rather a large gap.

We all know—I say this to our Conservative friends—that over the past 12 years a number of regulatory bodies have had their budgets slashed. The Environment Agency’s budget has been slashed by 80% and—surprise, surprise—it does not seem to have kept up with discharges of sewage by water companies. The Charity Commission, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, will know, had its budget severely cut, and that badly affected some of the things it had previously done to regulate and advise charities.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

Forgive me for interrupting. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I ought to make the point that the Charity Commission’s budget was very severely cut, but it has been increased. Its operating budget is now pretty healthy. It might not be healthy compared with a lot of other regulators, such as Ofcom, when you look at what is required of the Charity Commission, but it had a quite dramatic reversal of its fortunes in terms of its operating costs.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I take that correction happily. I was the Lords Minister responsible for charities from 2012 to 2015 and remember these arguments very painfully.

I hope that the Conservatives will say to those in their party, like our last Prime Minister, who say that the answer to every question is tax cuts and for that you have to cut spending wherever you can that there are some areas in which sufficient resources from whatever means—whether fees or taxes—provide very substantial public benefits and sometimes economic advantages as well. This is clearly one of them.

The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, added that greater accountability for Companies House is an important factor that we need to get into this Bill if we can. My career was in dealing with international issues. When I look at a Bill, I always start by asking where the international dimension is dealt with. The international dimension in this Bill is remarkably thin. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that I could challenge him on Clause 190 when we get to it. The extent clause is always the one you have to start by looking at.

As the noble Lord, Lord Gold, said, a lot of economic crime is extraterritorial. When I briefly dealt with some police matters at the beginning of the coalition, I recall being taken around Yorkshire to discuss organised crime. The first statement that the chief constable made was, “There is no domestic organised crime”. All organised crime is cross-border—it is international—and, for that, one clearly needs international co-operation. The Conservative Peer who said in a debate here two years ago that we did not need Europol because we had Interpol and that that provided everything we needed did not understand the complexity of the co-operation one needs among national authorities. I, and I think many of us, would appreciate a briefing from the team on how the pursuit of economic crime will be managed in co-operation with other countries if the Government are going to be more serious about this. There is a brief reference to the Financial Action Task Force in the Explanatory Memorandum, but the whole ethos of coping with a massive transnational problem is almost absent from the Bill.

This leads me on to the question of the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised. I have been interested in this for many years. The frustration is that they fall between the domestic and the international. One is usually assured that one does not have to legislate for them—indeed, that it is improper to do so—but we ask them to follow British domestic legislation. Three years later, we are told that most of them have not got round to doing so yet, but they will, soon. I recall going to one Crown dependency many years ago and gathering from the chief Minister’s enthusiastic briefing that their chief message to me was, “We are so much better than the other two”. That is not a good area. I strongly suggest that this House needs to consider a sessional committee to look at the relationship between the Crown dependencies, the overseas territories and the United Kingdom. It is always being pushed to one side. It is dealt with by a junior Minister in the Ministry of Justice or the FCDO, but some very knotty issues come with it.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, remarked that half the registered overseas entities come from the BVI. The largest numbers among the others, adding up to more than three-quarters, came from Jersey, the Isle of Man and Guernsey, and then, I think, Luxembourg. This leads me on to the other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks: Luxembourg is of course also a tax haven and it has its own interests. I must look at that ECJ judgment. I am certainly for transparency against privacy when one draws the balance, and it sounds as though the ECJ has been persuaded on this occasion to support privacy against transparency. It seems to me that corporate privacy should be valued a great deal less than personal privacy, but I will look at the case. International co-operation is clearly an essential part of where we need to have this. The British Government’s deep reluctance to assert sovereignty over the overseas territories and Crown dependencies is very odd for a Government who have spent a lot of time saying that they want to take back control.

A number of noble Lords have talked about the role of enablers within our system, and I am a bit partisan on that issue. Liz Truss talked about the liberal establishment that blocked her radical reforms, but if one is to talk about the enablers who have assisted oligarchs and others—the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report had some extremely strong language on that—one must acknowledge that they were at the heart of our financial, accountancy and legal establishment in the City and that they successfully penetrated the Conservative Party. That is a real problem for us, and we must do something much more strongly about it. When I criticised sleaze within the Government the other week, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, said to me, “This is a different Government.” I say to him: to demonstrate that we now have a different Government, we need now to take some stronger action, with the Bill, on that problem.

The noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Browne of Ladyton, my noble friend Lord Fox and others all praised the quality of debate on the Bill in the Commons, adding that the Ministers there were clearly listening to concerns and criticisms. I hope that the Ministers here will take very much the same attitude and accept that the Bill can be improved and strengthened, as everyone here has asked. I found it dispiriting, as others have, that on several Bills over the last two Sessions, Ministers here have been told to resist amendments as vigorously as they can. On one recent occasion, a Lords Minister told me that they had to go back on a concession made in the Lords because there was resistance to it from her party in the Commons.

This is a debate in which we have had remarkable consensus on all Benches. We are concerned with the quality and reputation of this country, and we think that the Bill can make a significant difference on that in a number of areas. Let us all pursue the further progress of the Bill with that in mind. I look forward to the conversations which I hope that the Ministers will offer us before we reach Committee, and then again between Committee and Report. Let us see what we can do to put on the statute book a strengthened and improved Act on economic crime and transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, I can. I do not think that deregulating legitimate financial operations and going after economic crime deserve to be talked about in the same sentence. They are very different things.

I have endeavoured to address all the contributions made by noble Lords today. I look forward to further debate and discussion in Committee as the Bill continues its passage. I very much welcome the grit and determination of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and am very happy to continue engagement as we go forward.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, may I just take this opportunity briefly to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to relay to his noble friend Lord Sikka the House’s displeasure at his discourtesy, particularly if, as my noble friend Lord Leigh said, this is not the first time that he has not stayed until the end of a debate, and since his was the longest of the Back-Bench speeches in this debate? He took advantage of a full 15 minutes.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that I will refer the matter to our Chief Whip.