Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend asks a very important question about the risk posed by Russian activity not only within its own borders, but in Ukraine and at the nuclear power station of Zaporizhzhia. Sadly, Russia has shown no restraint in using munitions against civilian structures, critical national infrastructure, hospitals, surgeries and so on, which add to the long list of war crimes that it has clearly been engaged in. We monitor it very closely. We work with the international community to ensure that everything that can be done is done to protect the nuclear power station, and to remind Russia, not only through us but through third countries, of its obligations to protect the civilian population.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I fully support the provision of all the munitions that we have been able to give to Ukraine. I hope we will be able to continue to do that for the foreseeable future, and certainly until Putin loses. It seems that quite often different allies of Ukraine are giving different kinds of bits and pieces of armament and munitions, and that that does not necessarily add up to more than the sum of its parts. Would it not be better if we now looked to the future by commissioning jointly, so that we get more matériel at cost directly through to Ukraine?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. To better co-ordinate the gifting, at the beginning we set up the International Donor Co-ordination Centre, with about 80 British personnel in the lead, alongside the United States, to ensure that what Ukraine is asking for is what it gets and that it is co-ordinated across the international community, because we all have different armouries. In recognition of his very important point about how we develop and encourage a sustainable supply chain to Ukraine, Britain alongside Denmark set up the international fund for Ukraine. We committed £250 million last year and another £250 million this year, and it is topping up towards €1 billion-plus of funding. One specific task is to commission effectively from supply chains and manufacturing plants, so that there is a long-term solution to the need and munition is rolling off production lines. We all have finite stocks, which is why we will use the cash in the fund to start commissioning, which we have already done.

Ukraine: Update

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about Wagner. For a long time, Wagner has operated outside the rules of any law. That has been its selling point in Libya and Mali in Africa: “Pay for us with contracts, diamonds or whatever”—there are no rules. Wagner has been observed on numerous occasions engaged in war crimes and events, but given its proximity to the Kremlin, it does not fool anyone that it is somehow some unilateral, purely commercial operation. Currently, we think that two thirds of the Wagner force around the Bakhmut area are convicts taken from prisons. They are suffering approximately two thirds casualty rates, so it is not a good deal for convicts in the Wagner Group.

It is also a very worrying reflection. If I were General Gerasimov, I would be asking myself why I am outwitted and outperformed by a bunch of mercenaries and, by the looks of things in Moscow, rivals. What does it say about the Russian army that it takes a bunch of mercenaries, as they would see it, to get some traction? However, I would not believe Wagner’s propaganda either. There is not much traction; there is only death, at the hands of Jafar Montazeri their paid commanders or, indeed, their own men. We have seen the social media videos in which the group executed a convict of their own using a sledgehammer.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

This war has been going on not for 10 months but for nine years. We need to make sure that Putin ultimately loses, but it is not just about military solutions, it is also about economic ones: rebuilding, reconstructing and, frankly, protecting many Ukrainians from the freezing cold this winter and enabling them to put food on the table for their children over the years to come. At the moment, we have guaranteed something like £3 billion-worth of financial support, but there is an easier solution. More than £23 billion-worth of Russian assets are sitting in British banks. Why do we not seize them and send them to Ukraine?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman makes the most important point first: even before 24 February, Russia had killed 18,000 Ukrainian troops since 2014; not a week or month went by on that border when they were not shot. When we said to people, “It might escalate, or it might be a war,” Ukrainians often looked at us and said, “Where have you been for the last decade?” It is very sobering to go to the memorial in Kyiv; most of those plaques are from way before February 2021.

On the point about building, refurbishment and support to refugees, that is where I think Germany needs to get the credit. Germany and Poland have hosted tens of thousands of Ukrainians. It is putting a lot of money into aid and support for Ukraine and is making a significant difference. I have often said that the strength of an alliance of 30 or 40 is that we can move at different speeds.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question about Russian assets, as the former criminal finance Minister and Security Minister, I would be quite interested to know why we cannot do that.

Ukraine

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

We do not need to be in Ukraine to help with our knowledge, and to help to better co-ordinate, explain and train. That is why we have brought nearly 10,000 Ukrainian troops here. Many Ukrainians received specialist troop training outside Ukraine. The Germans and, I think, the Dutch did training on long-range artillery for the Ukrainians, and we obviously helped with combat engineer training in neighbouring states.

I have noticed some misleading media comments about the Royal Marines. We have a small contingent for force protection around the embassy, as would be expected, to ensure that we always protect our diplomats and our areas. We are not directly engaged in conflict with Russia—we have been very clear about that—but we have been providing hardware and know-how to assist Ukraine to defend itself.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Of course Putin has got to be defeated, but that means not just going down a military set of avenues but ensuring that every part of British society is doing whatever it can to bring Putin to his knees. Will the Secretary of State—he is the fixed point in an ever turning world with this Government—explain why Unilever is still selling Cornettos and Magnums in Russia, why Infosys is still functioning in Russia, and why many months after Abramovich’s Chelsea was sold, the charity is still not in place to be able to deliver £2.5 billion of that money into the rebuilding of Ukraine?

[Mr Wallace]

On the latter point, I am happy to write to the sports Minister to find out that detail, as I am not across that part of the process.

The hon. Gentleman is right about brands. If I was running any one of those international companies I would not want my brand to be associated with what is going on in Russia and the Russian regime. As I said in my statement, what is going on in Ukraine is not a few isolated units but part of the system, as is Russia’s treatment of its own people who disagree with the policy, which includes people being locked up for long periods simply for criticising the special military operation. I urge those international brands to think very carefully about continuing to trade in Russia.

On what more we can do, I think—I am happy to be corrected, perhaps by the Leader of the House, who is sitting next to me—that the next steps of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill will make it harder for people to keep and launder money in the United Kingdom. That has got to be the right thing. When I was Security Minister I did a considerable amount on that, and there is still more to do.

Ukraine Update

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes a point about one of the consequences of a hollowed-out armed forces. Those who save money in the areas no one notices—such as hollowing out ammunition stocks—because they are always spending on something nice, shiny and brand new, pay for it. Industry will not just keep supply chains open for nothing. One lesson is to ensure that whatever we put in the field and whatever military we commit to, we equip it properly, support it properly with the right logistics and ammunition, and create the relationship with industry so that it knows when we are going to top up or keep it at the right level.

It is also incredibly important to ensure that we invest in the skills base, which in some parts of the country is well invested in by the Government and the primes. Last week, I went to Barrow-in-Furness to see 1,000 young people starting in the submarine and shipbuilding skills academy to learn the skills needed to equip our armed forces and engineering capacity into the future.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I get very angry when I hear people such as Mick Lynch of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers suggest that it was the EU that effectively led to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and that there were lots of people who were fascist and Nazi in Ukraine. That infuriates me, so I am glad to hear what the Secretary of State has said today. It also infuriates me when I hear people suggest that this has only been going on for six months; it has been going on since 2014, and we in the west did not take it seriously enough. The most shocking statistic of all is that 10 people who have now been sanctioned by the UK were given tier 1 visas to live and work in this country. When are the Government going to honour their pledge to publish their review of the tier 1 visa scheme?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has visited the sites, but I am delighted to have visited one of the sites twice. The first course completes this week, and it has been a learning experience for both sides. We will continue to invest in improving the course, and I am delighted that the international community has now joined us. The Dutch have declared that they will send people to support the training, and the New Zealanders were already here to help the Ukrainians on 105-mm artillery. We are talking with a number of other international partners about delivery.

It is amazing to see men aged from 18 to 50—some women will soon be part of the deployment—who sometimes got on the plane in tracksuits, being trained in basic battlefield skills, the law of armed conflict and so on. It is quite sobering that they will go from here to a war zone, where many of them will tragically make the ultimate sacrifice.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Putin obviously thought the west would fracture at the beginning, and it is good that the west has not fractured so far. It is also good that lots of different countries in the western alliance are providing military hardware, some of it lethal, to Ukraine, but one problem Ukraine is facing is that each country has procured something slightly different, and Ukrainian personnel have to be trained in how to use each of those different pieces of equipment. If we really are to stay in this for the long haul, will we not have to start developing military equipment that we can all give together so that Ukrainian personnel need only one training session rather than 34?

[Mr Wallace]

Yes. One strength of NATO is its adherence to standards across all the nations in it. At the moment, Ukraine is transiting from using Soviet era calibres and so on to using western weapons systems, which is why it is important to help train Ukraine in their application; they are not one in, one out—they need to be used differently. Having helped establish the international donor co-ordination centre near Stuttgart, Britain has added training into that, so we co-ordinate that properly. Most countries use that and engage, so that this is co-ordinated: we do not double book and we get this in the right place. I urge any other international partner who is thinking of offering training to co-ordinate through that system.

Ukraine

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Russia’s malign activity—we have packaged it up and called it that—has been a long-running challenge that we have seen in the likes of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In all of this, we should not forget that Bosnia and Herzegovina is in a fragile position, because it is in an impoverished state, the minorities are already starting to agitate, and Russia’s influence on some of the separatists could send us all back to the early ’90s. Russia’s malign activity does no good. It challenges not only our European values, but the wealth of those states, seemingly for no reason other than to weaken people who think differently.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I fear that things have moved on yet further today. Mr Medvedev has said two disturbing things: that it would be perfectly possible to recognise the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk; and that there might be sanctions, but Russia could wear them, because, after the 2014 invasion of Crimea and the military action in Georgia, it wore whatever the west threw at it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that only a third of those areas are presently held by separatists, and that recognising, or trying to enforce, some independence in those areas would therefore mean a significant invasion of Ukrainian territory, including areas not held by separatists at all? Will he also confirm that Ukrainians are, if anything, more determined than ever to face towards the west, precisely because of what President Putin has done over these years, and that if there is an invasion of any kind—any troops, as he said—the reaction will have to be a damn sight harder than it was in 2014?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is right on his last point; the reaction absolutely has to be harder, and unified; and we need to stick to it. Often, the calculation in Russia is that we will all get bored, and that six months later, everything will go back to normal. Minister Shoigu said to my face that sanctions cannot harm the Russians; they will just go elsewhere, and are resilient. Unfortunately, that is the view of some of the leadership in the Russian Government. I doubt it is the view of the Russian people, who have to suffer the consequences.

We should also recognise the consequence for the wider world of this invasion. Yemen gets about 20% of its food from Ukrainian grain; for Libya, the figure is 44%. What would happen to those countries if there were rising food prices? A shortage of food is a horrible consequence that we must do everything to avoid. This is a global problem. Ukraine matters. Our strength of resolve matters, because, as the hon. Gentleman and I know, there are other, bigger countries looking at how much resolve we have to stand by our values.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Our armed forces right now are providing support in covid, in the channel, in eastern Europe, and in Ukraine and elsewhere. We are currently running at about 78,000 for the strength of our Army, and the hon. Gentleman will not have noticed, although he is obviously in agreement with me, that we increased the original commitment up an extra 500 from 72,500 to 73,000. I have always said the size of our armed forces and defence budget should be threat-led: if the threat changes we should always be prepared to change it. At present, I am minded to stay where we are, but we should also reflect that what we see in Ukraine is that our real strength is our alliances: 30 countries in NATO is the strongest way to achieve mass against a force such as Russia. That is why NATO remains strong and united.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is very difficult to know what is going on in President Putin’s mind. Does the Defence Secretary spot a difference however between the perceptions of General Gerasimov and the other generals about the wisdom or otherwise of an invasion of Ukraine and those of the Kremlin? Secondly, given that President Putin has stated that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people, would it not be phenomenally hypocritical to launch an attack on people he considers to be the same people?

[Mr Wallace]

I regret to say there was absolutely not a slither of difference between the President and General Gerasimov and Minister Shoigu when I met them a few weeks ago; they are some of his closest advisers and supporters and it is clear that their vision of Russia matches that of their President. The hon. Gentleman is also right to point out that they claim the Ukrainians are their brothers—in fact they are their “kin”, rather than brothers—to launch attacks on people who were part of the Soviet Union for decades together has a retrograde effect. As we know now, Ukrainians who probably were not that bothered 10 years ago about which way they faced are absolutely determined that they are going to stand for Ukraine and fight for their freedom.

Ukraine

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If the aim of President Putin is to de-escalate, or push back NATO from his borders, he should reflect on why so many people have wanted to join NATO. It is predominantly a consequence of his actions, whether that is in Georgia or Crimea, or the sub-threshold actions that are putting real fear into countries such as Sweden and Finland. It is no coincidence that, in the Finnish and Swedish Parliaments, a sense of being closer to NATO than they have been in the past is growing. That is not because of NATO—there is no secret plot—but because of the actions of the President of Russia.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Defence Secretary is absolutely right. When Putin talks of trying to bring together ethnic Russians into the motherland, it does remind one of the 1930s, when Hitler referred to trying to bring all Germans, including Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, back into mother Germany. Of course we are right to be very cautious. When the Defence Secretary says he has offered this invitation to his Russian counterpart, I hope that does not mean that we are announcing that we are normalising our political relations with Russia. The all-party parliamentary group on Russia has been keen to ensure, as have the House and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, that we are not normalising our political relationships until such time as Russia is able to hand over the evidence that is clearly needed in relation to Salisbury.

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on his last point. I was the Security Minister when Salisbury happened. This is not about normalising relations, but about opening a line of dialogue so that we can hopefully address a range of issues. The GRU belongs to the Russian Ministry of Defence, and I will not be forgetting that in any way, but I do not fear anything by engaging with my counterpart. On his point about ethnic nationalism, it is something that in the UK is against our DNA, because of the lessons we have seen over hundreds of years. People would be wise not to believe that that article that the President wrote is the right course of action; the course of action is through dialogue and addressing the here and now, not harking back to snippets of history.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The false narrative is that, somehow, NATO is surrounding Ukraine, when only one 16th of Russia’s border is shared with a NATO member. It is also a false narrative to say that NATO, as some sort of single entity, looks to expansion. People seek to join NATO often as a result of other issues. The question for the Kremlin is why so many countries have sought that membership.

On what I am doing to counter that information, I think we all have a role to play. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has engaged the media, and I will continue to do so as well. This House had an extremely good debate on the subject, and I listened to many Members’ speeches. I urge anyone who has not read the debate, to read it. It is important to call out the false playbook. I also urge right hon. and hon. Members to read the article written by President Putin himself in July last year in which he exposes his real views towards the people of Ukraine.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Lots of people spoke in the debate last Thursday about the hybrid warfare that Putin is effectively waging against the west at the moment. Is the Secretary of State for Defence convinced that the UK is doing enough to tackle the dirty money that comes from Russia into London? Is he convinced that we are doing enough not just on the misinformation that Russia perpetuates here, but on the number of dodgy companies that are functioning here?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman will know from my time as Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime that I was always pushing to do more—and there is always more to do. The unexplained wealth orders were one step, but more transparency and more rigorous checks in places such as Companies House are also important steps. I think that he is right that Russia goes after a whole range of our vulnerabilities. Perhaps, in the way that we function as an open liberal society, we should make sure that we protect those places and not just the more obvious places, such as the military.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows that lots of armed forces personnel have suffered brain injuries while they have been on active service. The temptation is always to try to deal with that solely within the Ministry of Defence, but when they leave the services they often have to rely on the Department of Health and Social Care, local government and many other Departments of Government, so is it not time that we had a whole-Government strategy for dealing with acquired brain injury? The good news for the Secretary of State—I am sure he will be answering now I have said that—is that he will be able to join the campaign for a whole-Government approach to acquired brain injury by supporting my Acquired Brain Injury Bill on 3 December.

[Mr Wallace]

First, I would be absolutely delighted not only to talk to the hon. Member about this, but to look at his Bill. He is right: obviously some of these brain injuries are with people for life. We should therefore make sure that they are managed when they leave service and are dealt with outside, and make sure that that is a seamless changeover. I would be very happy to look at the Bill, and he can explain the details to me.

Foreign Fighters and the Death Penalty

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on foreign fighters and the death penalty.

[The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Thank you for your patience, Mr Speaker; I apologise. You were even more efficient in the conduct of the previous urgent question than normal, so I have had to run to the House to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.

The management of Syria travellers is not a new or emerging issue. Since the conflict began, approximately 900 people have travelled from the UK to take part, of whom 40% have returned and 20% are thought to have been killed. There have been several high-profile convictions in this country for terrorist activity linked to travel to Syria.

The Government take seriously their responsibility to protect the public. We have been consistently clear that where there is evidence that crimes have been committed, foreign fighters should be brought to justice in accordance with due legal process, regardless of their nationality. The appropriate process will always depend on the individual circumstances. Everyone who returns from Syria or Iraq can expect to be the subject of an investigation to determine whether they pose a threat, and they should be in no doubt that we will take the strongest possible action to protect our national security.

We have planned and prepared for the risk posed by British returnees as Daesh is defeated in Iraq and Syria, and we are using a range of tools to disrupt and diminish that threat, including prosecution under the full range of existing counter-terrorism legislation and the use of other powers such as terrorism prevention and investigation measures or temporary exclusion orders to help to manage the risk posed. We are going further by introducing new measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill that will help to deal with the scourge of foreign fighters.

Our long-standing policy on the death penalty has not changed. We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle, regardless of nationality. Decisions to provide assistance are taken in accordance with the Government’s overseas security and justice assistance, or OSJA, guidance, introduced in 2011. The guidance clearly sets out the UK Government’s policy in respect of the death penalty.

[Chris Bryant]

I like the Minister, but that was a load of sententious guff that has nothing to do with the question in hand. Yesterday, the Government marked World Day Against the Death Penalty by declaring, as the Minister has again today, that they are committed

“to oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle.”

In the past, that has always meant that before co-operating with a foreign judicial system where the death penalty is in operation, we seek assurances in every case that the suspects will not face the death penalty; yet, as the Minister admitted on 23 July, the Government secretly decided earlier this year not to seek such assurances in the case of two foreign fighters. I want to see those fighters face justice, but the people who lost family members to those people do not want them to face the death penalty.

The Minister claimed on 23 July that there was precedent for not seeking such assurances and he undertook to write to us; his precise words were that that would be our “summer reading”. I got his letter late this Tuesday afternoon. He clearly does not understand the word “summer”, but does he actually understand the word “precedent”? His letter says that this has happened on two previous occasions since 2001, but it point blank refuses to give any details whatever. According to the dictionary, a precedent is meant to be

“an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.”

So we cannot cite a precedent without citing any of the details, because we cannot consider whether it is a precedent unless we know what actually happened on the previous occasion.

Will the Minister give us any details of the two cases that he says happened since 2001? Can he confirm that one relates to a case in Thailand in 2014? If so, it is exactly the opposite of a precedent—it is an anti-precedent—because the courts then decided that the police had acted unlawfully and failed to have regard for public policy, and the Government’s decision was struck down. The Minister also told the House in July:

“There was no request from the US Administration for us to vary our assurances.”—[Official Report, 23 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 728.]

I am sorry, but I do not think that that is true. Can the Minister confirm that, when the Home Secretary met the US Attorney General in May, Jeff Sessions made it absolutely clear that any request from the UK for the customary assurances was likely to result in political outrage in the Trump Administration and that is why the Home Secretary decided not to seek any assurances?

Will the Minister also confirm that the then Foreign Secretary wrote to the Home Secretary to say that this case was “unprecedented”? The truth is that the only thing that was unprecedented about this case was that the US Government barked and the UK cowed.

Mr Speaker, you know what I think really happened? The Government got the collywobbles. Jeff Sessions huffed and puffed and blew the Home Secretary down. The Prime Minister decided to kowtow to Trump, and the Government changed the policy secretly without telling this House.

[Mr Wallace]

I am old enough to remember “Jackanory” and I think that I have just heard a “Jackanory” narrative from the hon. Gentleman. Let me deal with his questions. He asserted that, in every case previously, we have always sought assurances. That has not been the case. I apologise for not getting back to him in time for his summer reading. We did have to go back into the previous Labour Government to find a number of cases; I am talking about a Government in which the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the very Department where this was taking place. We discovered that one of the cases took place in a Labour Government after 2001.

Secondly, the details of mutual legal assistance arrangements, as the hon. Gentleman will know, are subject to strict confidentiality, because they are often about individuals involved in an investigation. However, I can help him in his “Jackanory” story: the 2014 Thailand example that he has cited is not a case where this has happened; it has not been brought to my attention. Perhaps he has raised another case, but, certainly, the two of which I am aware do not relate to that case.

Furthermore, when the hon. Gentleman comes to talk about the policy of successor Governments, he should know that, in 2011, this Government brought forward, for the first time, through the OSJA, written guidance. It was very clear in paragraph 9 that, on some occasions, there were strong reasons for not seeking assurances in such cases. The policy before 2011, including the time when the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government, was that a Government could exchange evidence without seeking assurances on the death penalty in “exceptional circumstances”—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that his Government did do it. Certainly, he was a member of the Government when one of these cases took place.

The reality is that the two individuals in question, who are suspects and innocent until proven guilty, are charged, or effectively viewed, as having been part of very, very dangerous and heinous crimes, including torture and beheading, against many, many people, and that they are held in a place of detention, effectively in a war zone in north Syria, by non-state actors. That means that the choices are stark for any Government charged with keeping people safe and trying to deliver justice for the victims.

We are guided by the overseas security and justice assistance. The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary considered this guidance strongly, found that there were strong reasons and took the necessary decision that in this case we would share with the United States evidence on the condition that Guantanamo was not part of the process, but in this case we did not seek death penalty assurances.

Foreign Fighters and the Death Penalty

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Yes. Citizenship is not a factor. If we have the evidence and we can try them, we will. However, the point was made earlier about rendition and so on. It is one thing to share evidence with an ally or international partner, but the question arises about how you bring them back. The individuals we are talking about, and foreign fighters in general, are currently being held by non-state actors in Syria. How those people are brought back is a big challenge for all European states—and indeed the United States.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Government have quite rightly tried over the past year to persuade China, Russia and Pakistan to suspend the death penalty. Is that not going to look like arrant hypocrisy if we adopt a different standard when it applies to the United States of America’s request? Will the Minister now please answer—if he does not have the detail now, will he write to all of us?—the question that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) asked: when did the Government last choose not to seek such assurances?

[Mr Wallace]

In my time as Security Minister, they have not. I will write to hon. Members and let them know on how many occasions we have done that. It will be for their summer reading.

Money Laundering

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I think that I did answer that question and the one asked by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). I made the point, as the hon. Gentleman has, that the vast majority of such arrangements are being used not by Scottish companies but by overseas companies. We are working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that we get this right, but I am keen for measures to be introduced to stop their use by organised criminals around the world.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

There does not seem to have been very hasty action by the Government in relation to the Magnitsky Act. Members on both sides of the House have been calling for that for a long time, and, indeed, the House signed up unanimously to an agreement many years ago.

Has the Minister ever tried to do a little piece of elementary research on a trust fund? Has he tried to find out who is the beneficial owner, or, for that matter, the controlling interest? Who actually benefits from any of these trust funds? Having had to do quite a lot of research myself recently, I know that it is impossible to find out anything. It is all tied up. No one can even find out who has appointed the trustees. It is a complete mystery. Let me say to the Minister that until he deals with that issue of trust funds in this country, we will never manage to deal fully with the money laundering or the corruption in the City.

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. The hiding of identity is a big challenge for law enforcement agencies, and we must do more to tackle it. We expect 150,000 trusts to be on the register by this March, starting with the public register of beneficial ownership.

As I have said, there is more to be done about Scottish limited partnerships. On most occasions, we manage to find out who is behind them, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it takes a lot of effort, which I believe could be reduced. Once we know who is behind these shadowy organisations, we can sometimes take even more action against them.

Jamal al-Harith

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Not on my Benches. In fact, I do not have a Bench but a very comfortable Chair.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Basically, the Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, and/or the Justice Secretary, agreed £1 million or thereabouts for a man who went on to commit a significant terrorist act that killed many people. Why the Minister thinks that he can hide behind legal confidentiality and security so as not even to assuage any of the basic concerns that all our voters will have is a mystery to me. The man is dead, for a start, and secondly the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached or questioned by any court of law or any other place. The Minister can tell us everything he wants today, if only he had the courage to do so.

[Mr Wallace]

They always save the best for last, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman uses the word himself: it is the word “legally” that is important and seems to have missed his attention. This is a legally binding confidentiality clause between parties. If he wants to investigate more, I refer him to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has all the powers given by this Government and the coalition Government to make sure that it gets to the bottom of the issues.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point. I have to respect the boundaries of our law enforcement agencies. As a Minister, I cannot direct them to take action; they have an operational freedom and independence that we value greatly in this country. They have said to me that should actionable evidence be presented to them, they would be free to follow that up and enforce the law. Speaking as the Minister, where actionable evidence of gross human rights abuses or other criminal offences is presented, of course we would like to see action taken. This is not about trying to shelter people who have been involved in those offences; it is about trying to make sure that the appropriate action is taken when the correct evidence is presented. I absolutely concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s point: it is important to understand that we need to act on the evidence. If there is evidence, we could take action, even without this legislation. I certainly urge our law enforcement agencies to take action to make sure that people are held to account for the atrocious murder in Russia of Mr Magnitsky.

We have tried to come some way towards meeting many of the concerns of hon. Members by tabling new clause 7 and the consequential amendments 58 and 59. They would widen the definition of “unlawful conduct” in part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to include torture or

“the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”

of those exposing corruption, or obtaining, exercising, defending or promoting human rights, including in cases where that conduct was not an offence in the jurisdiction in which it took place. That would allow any assets held in the UK that were deemed to be the proceeds of such activity to be recovered under the provisions in part 5.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Government’s new clause 7 contains no duty on the Government to act at all; they can simply ignore the provisions. That is one of the key differences between new clause 7 and new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab).

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman talks about duty, but there are lots of criminal offences on the statute books on which the Government do not have a duty to act. We leave it to the interpretation and freedom of our law enforcement agencies to act. Are we to say that the duty in this case is greater than the duty on the police to act on burglary or on a whole range of other criminal offences? The fundamental issue is that the hon. Gentleman wants to put a duty on the Government for one specific type of criminal offence, which would, I am afraid, hinder the freedom of our law enforcement agencies to take the appropriate action when the evidence was presented to them.

[Chris Bryant]

But in the Government’s new clause, as opposed to new clause 1, there is no provision for third parties to bring a case to the courts to allow the seizure of assets, so, yet again, the Government are closing off the options for tackling money laundering in London and the UK.

[Mr Wallace]

I am afraid we are not. The National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are not full of people who do not want to do their job. They want to enforce the law: they want to go out and catch the criminals and stop money laundering. It is slightly insulting to imply that if we did not put a duty on them, they would not do it. They would do it. The problem with new clause 1 is that it would allow non-governmental organisations and individuals—it does not define whether those NGOs or individuals are foreign or from the UK—to go to the court, with limited liability, to force the Government to take action, without a high threshold at all.

For example, under new clause 1 a Cuban exile living in Florida who does not like the rapprochement with the Cuban Government could come to our courts to allege human rights abuse and make an application against the Cuban ambassador’s assets in this country, and actually confiscate or freeze those assets. It would not only preclude us from making peace or moving on with some countries, but would allow massive amounts of vexatious claims based on gimmick politics. That is why we have to respect the professionalism and independence of our law enforcement agencies and allow them to make the case based on the evidence presented to them.

[Chris Bryant]

That is simply not the case. For example, we already regularly have lots of vexatious applications from Russia for the extradition of Russians who are now resident in the United Kingdom, but the court decides. New clause 1 would not allow an individual to decide that somebody’s assets must be frozen; a court would decide.

[Mr Wallace]

First, the hon. Gentleman misses the point that courts do not like vexatious complaints. They do not like time-wasting applications with what would be in the case of new clause 1 limited liability for those people who want to use the court’s time to make a statement. Secondly, applications for deportation are often made by the state. The hon. Gentleman would open it up to individuals all over the world to come to our courts, without liability, to make the case for or to make a gesture out of freezing individuals’ assets, without any recourse to the state or even necessarily to evidence. That would open up a whole can of worms for countries around the world.

I shall give another example. We have sponsored and supported the peace deal in Colombia. Should the Colombian Government at some stage choose to send somebody with a background in the FARC to represent them or to be a cultural attaché in their embassy or something, and somebody in Colombia does not like that, under new clause 1 they could, as an individual, come to a court here and make a tokenistic application. The judiciary might throw it out, but there is capped liability, so the court’s time could be wasted writ large by lots of people making statements and blocking the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I will have to check and get back to my hon. Friend, but any court action is a matter of public record. If someone is prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or has their assets frozen, that will become a matter of public record available to all—that is very important.

To reiterate the point about sanctions, the Government are undertaking an assessment of existing sanctions policy post-Brexit to ensure we can continue our proactive approach. It is right that any changes to our sanctions regime are considered in that context, rather than making changes at this point. We will of course continue a dialogue with parliamentary colleagues on this work, and I will absolutely ensure that the spirit of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, is carried forward in those discussions. The time to do that, however, is not with this legislation; it is when an assessment is made post-Brexit to consider sanctions in the wider picture.

I want to talk about the duty of law enforcement agencies to use the powers. Part of the rule of law and the strength of our system, as opposed to perhaps some other regimes we have talked about today, is that our agencies are operationally independent. As a Minister, I do not sit behind a desk and use the agencies to pick on people or political rivals I do not like. We leave the agencies, as much as possible, to be operationally independent. That is a part of the balance and safeguards in our society.

[Chris Bryant]

But if the prosecuting authorities were, for a corrupt reason, to choose not to prosecute, there are powers, through the courts, to ensure that they do so.

[Mr Wallace]

I am afraid I have too positive a view of the integrity of our law enforcement agencies to say—or even allude to the fact—that there could be some corrupt reason they may not use their powers. We all have constituents who write to us and say, “I made a complaint to the police and they didn’t take any action.” Sometimes that is valid and we try to get a better result for them. Hon. Members who have met Bill Browder have brought their evidence to this House and made representations to the National Crime Agency. They cross-examined a National Crime Agency witness in Committee. However, we also have constituents who do not like the outcome of their complaint—that a crime has not been judged to have been committed. That is a disappointment they sometimes have to live with and it is our job as Members of Parliament to tell them, “I’m afraid it does not constitute a crime.” Sometimes the police have to make that case. Sometimes constituents may seek to deal with that by changing the law to create a crime that may be appropriate or up to date. However, it is important to respect operational independence, tempting as it may be sometimes to wish to reprioritise their priorities to suit the issue of the day.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Wallace]

I really do have to press on. Hon. Members have made a considerable number of valid queries and I have a small book, handed to me from the Box, to get through.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) raised a number of issues relating to the unlimited nature of retrospective offences. Torture is an offence where the UK applies universal jurisdiction. On that basis, the provisions are retrospective in so far as they relate to torture, even where it occurs prior to the enactment of the Bill. However, the Government new clause would cover conduct constituting cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment only after the Act comes into force.

We have already taken significant legal steps to suspend the requirement for dual criminality; that is, providing for civil recovery to be pursued against property not necessarily unlawfully obtained in the country in which the conduct took place. We think this is a suitably proportionate approach. We have already gone further than we do in some other areas. We can take action where the unlawful event took place when it was not in this country. That is something we have to balance.

The recovery of proceeds of crime is generally subject to a 20-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980. The hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Dumfries and Galloway asked about the timescale for claiming the proceeds of crime. Under POCA, it starts when the property is obtained through unlawful conduct. Under new clause 1 it seems to run from the date of the conduct itself, so that could possibly mean a shorter timescale than that under Government new clause 7. I reassure the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway that new clause 7 covers conduct linked to torture, such as: assisting it, directing it, facilitating it or profiting from it even when that linked conduct is not conducted by a public official. It therefore goes wider than some have feared.

We must also consider what evidence is needed to allow for assets to be recovered. Any civil recovery would be subject to all existing processes and legal safeguards in the Proceeds of Crime Act. The court would need to be satisfied, on the balance of probability, that the property in question was the proceeds of crime or was likely to be used to fund further criminal activity. Law enforcement agencies would, as ever, need to consider which of their powers to utilise on a case-by-case basis. It would also apply to inherited wealth. That would not be excluded. Inherited wealth would be covered by the ability to recover assets, so I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Rhondda on that point.

I reiterate to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton that the Government agree with the spirit of his new clause. We want to say loud and clear that organised criminals, crooks and corrupt individuals are not welcome in this country, and neither is their money. I was pleased to contribute to the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010, introduced by the last Labour Government, and its statutory guidance, under the previous Conservative Government. That is part of this whole package: the Bill comes alongside the Bribery Act and some other measures. I do not want London and the UK to be fuelled by dirty money, and I do not want people to be profiting from it. One of the best ways of making London and the UK open for business is through the rule of law—and, I would say, a competitive tax base. People should want to come to the UK for those reasons, not because they can hide or launder their money. It does not make us a better host for these individuals. I hope that the new powers in the Bill will help us tackle the problem, and I am keen to ensure that upon its enactment we start to deal with these individuals and get the money back to where it belongs.

There was little in the well-articulated speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) that I did not agree with. He is absolutely right about sending a message. There are regimes around the world that deliberately take advantage of Britain’s openness, the quality of places to live and what we have to offer, and they need to be sent a message that we are serious and that they should go elsewhere—although we would like to catch them first and put them in prison, to be brutally honest.

I think I have clarified the point from the hon. Member for Rhondda about inherited wealth. On the worries about the London property market, I must add that it is not just nice townhouses in Knightsbridge being bought up, but huge portfolios up and down the country, and it does not just apply to overseas citizens either. For instance, other parts of the Bill deal with drug dealers, including those in my part of the world, in the north-west, the north-east and Northern Ireland, funnelling money into property.

As part of the Government’s work on the implementation of the fourth anti-money laundering directive, they have consulted on whether estate agents should carry out checks on the buyers of properties as well as the sellers. I was surprised, as I suspect were colleagues, to find out that currently they only carry out such checks on sellers. We intend to publish the response to the consultation “imminently”—that is what my note says—and I think that we will all be looking at it carefully.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about freezing orders and people quickly moving the money. Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides for interim freezing orders, allowing for the freezing of property while the courts consider the case. I recognise that the Home Affairs Committee report on the proceeds of crime and the recovery of assets pointed out some valid problems in the system, however, and I have asked that the Department set about being timely when making cases for the confiscation of funds and assets so that the gaps do not allow criminals and bad people to move the money beforehand.

The hon. Member for Rhondda and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), the anti-corruption tsar, will recognise that within Government we always have to satisfy the competing concerns of Departments. They will both know—the hon. Gentleman was a Foreign Office Minister and my right hon. Friend is a former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—of the competing interests within Government when it comes to legislating, and inevitably amendments have to walk a fine line between several challenging diplomatic and political issues, but I trust that the House agrees that the Government have taken a constructive approach. I have been determined to listen to colleagues and produce something that sends a strong message while also providing powers to allow us to act against people who abuse human rights.

I want to finish by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton on tabling new clause 1. It was important that we have this debate. He is a formidable campaigner and has successfully articulated the case and imbued the Bill with the spirit of his new clause. I hope that the House will support Government new clause 7.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: removal of restrictions

‘(1) The following provisions, which impose restrictions on the exercise of certain powers conferred on officers of Revenue and Customs, are amended as follows.

(2) In section 23A of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (investigation of offences by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs), omit the following—

(a) in subsection (2), the words “Subject to subsection (3) below,” and the words from “other than” to the end of the subsection;

(b) subsection (3).

(3) In section 307 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (interpretation), omit the following—

(a) in subsection (1), in paragraph (ba) of the definition of “officer of law”, the words “subject to subsection (1A) below,”;

(b) subsection (1A).

(4) In the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 omit the following—

(a) in section 289 (searches), subsections (5)(ba) and (5A);

(b) in section 294 (seizure of cash), subsections (2A), (2B) and (2C);

(c) section 375C (restriction on exercise of certain powers conferred on officers of Revenue and Customs);

(d) section 408C (restriction on exercise of certain powers conferred on officers of Revenue and Customs).

(5) In the Finance Act 2007, in section 84 (sections 82 and 83: supplementary), omit subsection (3).”

This new clause, together with amendments 20, 25 and 28, removes restrictions on the exercise of certain powers by HMRC officers. The restrictions prevented the powers being exercised in relation to certain former Inland Revenue functions.—(Mr Wallace.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Many Russian nationals who were involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and the corruption that he unveiled have harboured their assets in the UK. An opportunity to deal with that issue has been provided by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and 27 other Members in the form of an amendment to the Criminal Finances Bill. Will the Government now support that so that we can keep Russian corruption out of London?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I met his colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) to discuss that matter. The Department is looking at the amendment as tabled. We already have a number of powers to deal with people who have been accused in this area. However, we will look at the amendment and reflect on it. We will get back to Members on Report.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I do, of course, recognise the strength of feeling about press regulation, but I also recognise the strength of feeling about making sure we give our security services and our police forces the tools to tackle the paedophiles, the serious and organised criminals and the terrorists who threaten the state and my constituents.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am wholly in favour of most of the other provisions of the Bill, but that is not the point we are debating now; we are debating why the Government are reneging on their promise, made on 18 March 2013 as part of a package, that we would commence section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Does the Minister not realise that if we keep getting statements such as the one we just had from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, suggesting that the Government intend to kick this issue down the road yet further, their lordships are simply going to send the proposals back again, and again, and again, with probably even larger majorities?

[Mr Wallace]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is an impatient individual, but 10 weeks is not a long time to wait in engaging in a consultation. [Interruption.] He says, “Three and a half years”, but what is 10 weeks on top of that?

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

One reason I do not oppose the Bill is that I do not live in a fantasy world in which Parliament and others have never interfered with the succession. In fact, if Parliament had not, we might still have a Stuart king. I, as a Scot descended from Jacobites, would probably have been quite happy with that.

[Chris Bryant]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not listen to his Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). If Henry Bolingbroke did usurp the throne, the present monarch is not the right monarch. I think it was decided by Parliament that Richard II had already abdicated and relinquished the throne and that therefore there was a vacancy, much as happened in 1688.

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. However, Henry IV’s first act on the throne was to pass the charter of duchy liberties, in which he asserted that the duchy was his possession, separate from those of the sovereign and the Crown. That was confirmed by Henry VII in 1485, and for the benefit of officials and Whitehall it is important to note that there has since been no fresh settlement. Perhaps the clarity we are looking for is found way back in 1485.

This is why clarity is important. The Bill, with which I agree, could create an eldest daughter as sovereign, who will take precedent over a younger son. Perhaps that is where the problem lies. If a monarch has two children, the eldest a daughter and the youngest a son, the Bill empowers the eldest to become the next sovereign. It makes no mention of the Duchy of Lancaster or the title of Duke of Lancaster, separate from the Crown, and nor does it mention what will happen to the assets. Without clarity, the Bill might mean that we have today stripped Her Majesty the Queen of £300 million-worth of assets from her inventory.

I do not believe that that is what is intended, but clarity is needed. It is easy to ensure that the income is diverted to the sovereign. It is highly likely that existing statute provides that income from the Duchies of Lancaster and of Cornwall will continue, but the question of ownership and the title requires clarity.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Ben Wallace and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

You are the Parliamentary Private Secretary.

[Mr Wallace]

PPSs are allowed to make points of order. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill Opposition Front Benchers, particularly the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), have made points about the perceived failure of Government Front Benchers to declare their interests. However, the hon. Gentleman has failed to point out that on 119 separate occasions the Labour party has received donations from lawyers who make their money from success fees.