Criminal Finances Bill

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

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

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will certainly put that suggestion to officials. My view would be that pre-suspension of the Assembly is the place we are at, and although there has been a change of a leader, I am not sure that we have had any signal that it has gone backwards. The date of 2 March gives me some good hope. I have never known the other place move at the speed of light, so I hope we shall have time to make sure that this gets through.

Finally, this group includes two proposals concerning unexplained wealth orders: new clause 5, in the name of a number of the officers of the all-party parliamentary groups on anti-corruption and responsible tax, and Opposition amendment 1. I will allow hon. Members the opportunity to speak to those amendments and will respond to them in my closing remarks.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

The Opposition support the spirit of the Bill and broadly support this group of amendments. We welcome new provisions to prosecute those professionals who fail to prevent tax evasion, as well as welcoming unexplained wealth orders, under which assets can be seized if owners are unable to explain how they were funded. We, of course, support the Government’s effort to tighten up state powers against white-collar crime, but we have concerns that they are squandering the opportunity that the Bill provides to stamp out the everyday corruption of the super-rich who are getting a free ride at the expense of the wider society, thereby fuelling inequality.

Another problem is that, amid the Government’s cuts to public services, the Bill could be very difficult to enforce. Although I understand the giving of new powers to HMRC, are the Government not concerned about how HMRC will carry out its new duties? Given that the coalition Government decimated HMRC’s budgets by £100 million and that HMRC is set to lose 137 of its offices by 2027, there seems little point in creating laws that cannot be enforced—unless, of course, it is to give the impression that the Government are doing something. This, I fear, is a theme that has sadly run through our proceedings on the Bill so far.

We Opposition Members argue that it is crucial for the agencies involved in civil recovery powers to have sufficient resources to do their jobs properly. We therefore request a distinct and clear annual report that details the resources allocated to the agencies that are concerned solely with the task of carrying out these recovery powers.

In previous stages, the Government objected on the grounds that the asset recovery incentivisation scheme would allow frontline agencies to keep 100% of what they recover, but this argument is seriously flawed. In theory, yes, the agencies could retain the total value recovered, but as the Public Accounts Committee made clear in its progress review of confiscation orders and as the Home Affairs Select Committee made clear in its review of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, these agencies’ recovery rates have been typically poor. Consequently, it remains to be seen how these agencies will improve their rate of recovery to benefit from the new incentivisation scheme.

Another reason that the Government gave is that anyone who wanted to find out this information could in theory obtain it by going to a number of different sources. Yet again, this is flawed. We previously argued for a detailed reporting of resources, specifically for these agencies, in the exercise of the powers laid down in the Bill and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The Government have already blocked a number of measures that Labour has proposed to make this a meaningful and effective Bill. We proposed a corporate probation order. If a company was found to have committed a failure to prevent offence, it would have been subject to an independent review of its compliance procedures and it would have had to pay the full costs of such a review. This was coupled with allowing for the removal of directors from companies who failed to ensure that proper procedures were in place to prevent UK and foreign tax evasion offences from taking place. The Government believed that this was unnecessary because UK law could already deal with such cases of negligence. Although there may be a case for some UK law to be used to a similar effect, it would not be an identical effect.

While there is an implied threat to the EU that the Government could change the UK’s economic model into one of a tax haven, there is a strong case for legislation to protect both UK citizens and citizens from around the world. With the potential for a race to the bottom and the destruction of workers’ rights and the slashing of corporation tax, it could be argued that a Brexiteer Government would foster an environment where tax evasion was implicitly encouraged.

As my colleagues have said, and will no doubt say again, the Bill must do more to tackle the deeply entrenched and extraordinarily costly phenomenon of tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is, in effect, living to the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the law. Repeated investigations of companies that sail close to the wind but know that they have bought the lawyers and accountants to make their tax abuse legal is both very frustrating and extremely costly. As the UK general anti-abuse rules show, there are ways to minimise the risk of corporate abuse of the tax system, and these should be absorbed into the Bill.

Spain, Canada and Australia each have a single agency responsible for supervising and enforcing anti-money laundering regulations—Britain has 22. Worse still, according to Transparency International UK, 15 of these 22 supervisors also lobby on behalf of the interests of their sector, creating clear conflicts of interest and a system inefficient to its core. The Government raised this problem in their action plan that preceded the Bill, but they were not concerned enough to convert this into proposed legislation. The system needs reform and the Bill needs to reflect this. Unless the Government accept all these concerns and indeed all the changes suggested in the Opposition amendments, the Bill is likely to fail on the intention to clean up money laundering and tax evasion.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 5, which, as the Minister said, stands in my name and those of colleagues in the all-party parliamentary anti-corruption group. The reason for tabling new clause 5 was to probe the Government on the issue and make sure that we make full use of the unexplained wealth orders and the interim freezing orders that we envisage in passing this Bill. I fear that if we are not careful, the various authorities that can use the orders may be a little concerned about the possibility that the people against whom they want to use them—who, in some cases, will no doubt be very rich and powerful and will not take the freezing or restriction of their wealth lightly—will seek to frustrate the process and oppose the orders with every means available to them. They might, for instance, incur huge costs—perhaps well above what could be considered reasonable in the circumstances—and try to force them on to the taxpayer at a later date if they succeeded in resisting the orders.

Although it is absolutely right for people to be able to recover reasonable costs if the state tries to impose orders and fails, it would be unreasonable for them to engage numerous very highly paid barristers and incur costs that were wholly disproportionate, which the taxpayer would end up having to pay. The real risk is that bodies trying to use these powers would be deterred from doing so, because they would fear that very rich people might take large chunks of their budgets for a long period while resisting the orders.

The aim of new clause 5 is to establish whether the existing powers for the courts to restrict the amount of costs recovered can be described as applying to efforts to obtain the orders that are specified in the Bill, so that it is plain to everyone that the various state authorities, acting competently and reasonably clearly in trying to use the orders, cannot be unreasonably opposed and end up with excessive costs. It would be helpful if the Minister explained how he thinks the orders would work and what he thinks about the interaction with the existing capping rules for the courts.

This is not an entirely theoretical issue. In the past, very significant costs have been awarded against the Serious Fraud Office. I am not pretending that the circumstances were similar to those that we are discussing in this instance—I think that that may not have been the finest hour of the Serious Fraud Office—but there is clearly evidence that the sort of people with whom we are dealing might try to obtain costs that would have a deterrent effect on the use of the orders. It would be useful to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that the courts can and should use various cost-capping measures to ensure that we are not unreasonably exposed to very high costs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said in response to the previous question, the response to house fires and building fires has improved in the last year. It is important that we all bear in mind that any death as a result of fire is unacceptable. We all want there to be no deaths whatsoever, which is why the work done by fire authorities, and the health and safety work in our homes and on products over the years, which has improved safety, is important. We must always stay vigilant, which is why people should have, and test, smoke alarms. I say to all fire authorities that they must be sure to find those efficiency savings, so that they can make sure that the money is in the frontline to deliver for people every day.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

According to the Home Office’s own figures published last Thursday, deaths from house fires are up by 18% on previous years and response times are slower. Fire crews are being deprived of resources and fire service jobs are being lost. Will the Minister now accept that the current round of cuts is putting the public at risk and demoralising hard-working, dedicated fire officers?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said earlier, we need to be very clear about the actual figures. The reality is that there has been a 52% reduction in the total number of reported fires over the last few years. Fire-related fatalities are down 22%, while response times to house fires and building fires are also slightly down and improved. We need to be vigilant on this, but we also need to be clear about the facts.

Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2016

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 General Committees

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Mr Nuttall.

The order brings into force proposed revisions to the codes of practice that govern how the police should treat potential suspects, the public and their property prior to any conviction. The relevant legislation is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which states that the code must cover how the police exercise their powers not just of arrest, but of search prior to arrest, and how suspects are treated throughout their contact with the police, including during detention, treatment, questioning and identification.

Obviously, the important issues under discussion relate to an individual’s liberty. On the one hand, we must ensure that potential suspects are treated fairly under the law, and at all times respect the principle that a member of the public is innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, however, we have to ensure that police officers have confidence that they can go about their duties without being accused of acting improperly, including in a discriminatory way.

Many organisations made representations to the Government’s consultation—representations that have been taken into account and incorporated into a revised programme. The Opposition thank all those organisations that gave their time and expertise to get those proposals right. We support the Government’s approach, but we still have concerns about how the changes to the codes will affect the rights and freedoms of suspects. I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.

Our concerns fall into four broad areas: the use of remote live-link communications to provide translation services; the provision for appropriate adults to be removed during questioning; the replacement of pocket books with electronic recording devices; and the deletion of parts of the code relating to the process of conducting witness identifications. Before turning to those concerns, I want to place on record our support for the changes to the codes that arise from the change to primary legislation to raise the definition of “juvenile” by one year, from 17 to 18. We wholeheartedly support that move, which provides additional protections for those on the verge of adulthood who find themselves in the criminal justice system.

On remote translation services, the proposed change would enable police to use live-link electronic communication systems to provide interpretation services for suspects. That means that the interpreter would not need to travel to the police station. The aim of the proposal is to enable more efficient questioning—there are similar measures in the Policing and Crime Bill, which is in its final stages—but we have questions about how it will be implemented in practice.

Will the Minister write to me, if necessary, to set out how she intends to review whether the expected efficiency gains have indeed occurred, and what mechanisms are being put in place to ensure that non-English-speaking suspects are satisfied with the new arrangements? What evidence will the Department use to assess whether the new arrangements deprive suspects of their rights? Will the suspect or their solicitor be allowed to say that they would prefer a translator to be present? Are there any circumstances in which the suspect’s vulnerability, in the opinion of the police, would make the physical presence of an interpreter more appropriate? Those safeguards need to be a matter of public record.

A change to code C permits an appropriate adult to be removed from an interview if they prevent proper questioning from taking place. In this context, “appropriate adult” means one who is there to support a vulnerable individual in police custody, be they a juvenile or an adult who is considered vulnerable due to impaired ability to comprehend what is happening, for whatever reason. I accept that there needs to be a mechanism whereby an adult who would otherwise be permitted to attend questioning can be removed if they obstruct the process. There is also a precedent for that approach elsewhere in the code. I would be grateful, however, if the Minister could explain in more detail the safeguards that are in place to ensure that the person being questioned is fully supported in such circumstances. The Government’s response to the consultation cites a new safeguard that requires

“having an inspector to inquire into the circumstances before a particular adult can be excluded”,

and states that the appropriate adult should have an opportunity to modify their behaviour. That is welcome, but it seems weak without detail on the face of the code of the criteria that should be used to determine whether the appropriate adult should be excluded; otherwise, in the words of Liberty in its response to the initial consultation:

“At the very least, there is a real risk of over-hasty exclusions of appropriate adults leading to interviews in the absence of the required support for the suspect.”

Liberty proposed, in response to the original consultation, that before the appropriate adult could be excluded, the suspect’s solicitor should be present and have an opportunity to explain the matter to the suspect and, if needed, the adult in question, before a final decision was made about the exclusion. What is the code to determine the grounds that an officer may use to exclude an adult? What are the best practice guidelines in that regard, and will the Minister publish them? Particularly given that there are widespread concerns over a shortage of appropriate adults available to support vulnerable suspects, what measures are being put in place to ensure that they will always be replaced by another appropriate adult?

A proposed change to code C allows electronic recording devices to replace the age-old police pocket books in providing a time-specific record of events. Although I understand the need for police to adopt more modern technology, I am interested in the Minister’s view on what provisions would be in place to ensure that these electronic records cannot be tampered with, either from inside or outside the force.

There are changes to code D that alter the way in which witness identification procedures are undertaken. The Minister’s Department states that the purpose of doing so is to take account of significant changes and developments in case law and police practice, and to address operational concerns raised by the police. In practice, these changes include the deletion of old annexes A and E, which detail the principles applicable to video identification, and the showing of photographs to eye witnesses. Little evidence was offered to show that those deletions were necessary, and I ask the Minister to clarify the reasons for the change, and how she expects the procedures to change as a result of the proposals before us.

We will support the Government today, but I would appreciate receiving answers to my questions.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2016

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 General Committees

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Thank you for your excellent chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I would like to associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, and I congratulate him on his appointment.

Labour Members fully support the order. It is clear that MPA has become an increasingly popular psychoactive substance and, although the evidence gathered by the ACMD has been largely anecdotal, we cannot take lightly the mounting evidence that it has found of associated deaths and harm. This is one of the first orders to place new psychoactive substances under the 1971 Act that Parliament has been asked to affirm since the Act came into force. Such measures are vital, to allow the ACMD to gather further evidence on the substances and subsequently allow law enforcement officials the opportunity to take action against offenders. I note that nearly 500 people have been arrested since the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 came into force six months ago and that the first offenders have been jailed under the new powers, with more cases progressing through the courts.

We welcome the message that the order sends out to the general public: that the drugs have serious health implications. However, I recall that a five-year reduction strategy for new psychoactive substances was due to be published in the summer, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to whether, and when, we can expect to see that.

Operation Midland: Henriques Report

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and all other Members on their passionate and interesting speeches? May I also say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter?

The report’s findings are extremely serious. They relate to the poor conduct of the police investigation and the breach of the police’s own guidelines on the anonymity of suspects, which have caused the Met to be in crisis. However, people’s focus is changing, and there now appears to be more attention on the credibility of rape and sexual assault victims. There is no evidence in the report to support a blanket change in policy for the treatment of all victims, which would run counter to all the evidence and the positions of all stakeholders.

Rape Crisis England and Wales says:

“The vast majority of survivors choose not to report to the police. One significant reason…is the fear of not being believed.”

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children carried out a series of focus groups with victims of Jimmy Savile to identify common themes that prevented those victims from reporting their abuse to the police at the time and to explore how the police could improve their management of the reporting process and subsequent interviews and contacts. In all those groups, a key reason victims gave for not disclosing abuse was their overwhelming belief that if they had done so, they would not have been believed. Those who did not report abuse cited feelings of shame, guilt and a fear of not being believed, as well as feeling intimidated by Jimmy Savile’s profile, as their reasons for not telling anyone. Status and position must not be a shield against investigation. We have heard a lot about loss of income and livelihoods. If just one case is proven, that is one child’s childhood that has been taken.

The Met has made very serious errors. The detail of the Henriques report should be used to strengthen police procedures for both investigation and the treatment of suspects. It cannot and must not be used to downgrade the seriousness of allegations of rape or sexual assault—crimes that are already woefully under-reported and have low conviction rates. Victims fearing that they will be doubted only serves to prevent reporting and to degrade those victims. There must be no move backwards by the police to make matters even worse. There must be no return to the abysmal treatment of victims or lack of seriousness in investigations, or to the police denigrating victims or denying them their rights.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Thank you. The Minister now has plenty of time to respond. I call Brandon Lewis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

On the burden put on local authorities, one of the elements to which I refer them is the controlling migration fund—a new source of funds that I hope they will be able to access to support unaccompanied minors. On the Modern Slavery Act, I will have to get back to my hon. Friend.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Child protection organisations such as ECPAT UK fear that a lack of support and resources is preventing some authorities from offering the required level of professional services to adequately protect vulnerable children from traffickers. Why are over a quarter of local authorities unable to participate in the national transfer scheme for unaccompanied children? Will the Home Secretary agree to look at this as a matter of urgency?

[Amber Rudd]

The funds that we put in place to support unaccompanied children represent a sum that we agreed after consultation with local authorities to work out the costs. It is the average cost. We acknowledge that some children will have different needs and will therefore end up being more expensive, and some less so. We hope that this is the right amount to be able to support them. We believe that it is the right amount. We are always willing to try to listen to local authorities if they have other suggestions. I particularly refer them to the controlling migration fund, which we hope will be able to give additional support.

Criminal Finances Bill (Third sitting)

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 17th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman poses an interesting question. Unexplained wealth orders are linked to serious and organised crime. Although, inevitably, some serious criminals make below £100,000, that was thought to be a useful threshold, and that is where we should look as a starting point. There will be concerns among Members that Aunt Bessie’s £25,000 appearing in someone’s bank account may trigger something like an unexplained wealth order, and we wanted the wealth threshold to be significant enough to ensure that there was a link between serious crime and the recovery of assets being triggered. I know that some people wanted that threshold to be higher than £100,000 and some people wanted it to be lower. As the Minister, my job is to try to get it in the right place, but I would welcome his suggestions on whether it should be, say, £59,000 or £105,000. It could be like “Bullseye”.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Is there a mechanism for recognising regular, ongoing transactions that are close to but always under £100,000? Will that trigger any red flashing warning lights that there may be illegal activity?

[Mr Wallace]

The cumulative wealth would of course build up. I am happy to be persuaded by the Committee about the threshold. The reality is that, given the vast number of people involved with organised crime groups across the threat picture and the staggering wealth of some of them, we will be lucky to get to £100,000. We will be going for people worth £20 million, £30 million or £40 million and all the way down. It would chill people’s bones to realise how some of the people who live among us make their money out of crime and launder that money. The bottom line is the number of those individuals. That is why we chose £100,000, but hon. Members may want to make a persuasive argument otherwise. Cumulative wealth is certainly an issue. I was in the north-east of England the other day and met an individual who is unemployed but has well over £400,000 in their bank account. I am looking forward to knocking on that person’s door.

Criminal Finances Bill (Fourth sitting)

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 17th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway for his amendment, which was set out in his party’s manifesto for this year’s Scottish Parliament elections. The Government take this issue seriously, as do the Scottish Nationalist party and the Scottish Government.

As we have heard, to avoid detection, criminals use a range of means to transfer value among themselves. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors—particularly those operating in Scotland—have made us aware of criminals’ use of gaming vouchers and casino chips to do that. There has been media coverage of drug dealers using fixed odds betting terminals to convert cash obtained from street drug dealing into vouchers issued by those machines. Those vouchers can either be converted into cash at the bookmaker, thus laundering the funds, or transferred to another person to pay the drug dealer’s debts.

The Proceeds of Crime Act contains provisions that enable law enforcement agencies to seize cash, but those provisions do not extend to the type of criminal tactic that I have just described, so clauses 12 and 13 seek to allow those agencies to freeze, seize and seek forfeiture of illicit funds held in bank accounts and other forms of criminal property used to transfer value. It has always been the Government’s intention to include gambling vouchers and casino chips in those provisions, as I made clear on Second Reading. When the Bill was introduced, we were still looking at the best way of achieving that in legislation, but I tabled new clause 10 on Monday—I apologise for doing so at the beginning of the Committee stage and not giving hon. Members more time to look at it—which will add gambling vouchers and casino chips to the definition of cash in the Proceeds of Crime Act and allow law enforcement agencies to seize those items on the same basis as they can seize cash, where their individual or aggregate value is more than £1,000.

Officers will have to demonstrate to a court that they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that vouchers or casino chips are either proceeds of crime or intended for use in unlawful conduct. That is an important safeguard that we apply to all forms of seizure. Law enforcement agencies will need to show why they seek the detention of the property, and will be able to seek administrative forfeiture of vouchers or tokens, or the agreement of a court. In all cases, an individual who believes that such vouchers or tokens are theirs legitimately will be able to challenge their detention or forfeiture.

I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s point and why we have used the term “gaming vouchers” rather than “betting slips”. In discussions with law enforcement agencies, we have identified that there is a major concern about the laundering of proceeds of crime through machines that provide a guaranteed return if they are played in a certain way. Those machines produce pay-out vouchers with a value that can then be cashed in. Betting slips, such as those used for horse racing, are used for betting with no guaranteed return and, therefore, are much more risky for use in money laundering.

However, once the points had been raised by the hon. Gentleman, I asked officials to examine whether there is potential to extend the Bill to ensure that we cover betting slips as well. As someone who likes the horses and knows his way round a losing—rather than a winning —bet, I understand that the ability to exploit that type of bet could potentially lead to such money laundering.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

The Minister may be aware that I am the Chair of the all-party group on FOBTs. I have grave concerns about bookmakers not reporting unusual and excessive activity on B2 machines by people who would not normally have that kind of disposable income. Is the Minister satisfied that leaving it up to the betting industry to self-report is adequate?

[Mr Wallace]

If memory serves me right, the Gambling Commission has the power to carry out a range of investigations and to impose conditions on bookmakers. I hear the hon. Lady’s point loud and clear. I have the same concern in my part of the world in the north-west about whether bookmakers are properly regulated and carrying out their obligation to report suspicious bets, as they currently do under the law. That is more a question of whether we are doing enough to enforce the law. Existing laws are quite strong, though some bookies’ shops—I suspect, as she does—have a way to go. If criminals know that we can seize their FOBT print-outs, they might be less likely to stick their money in the FOBT in the first place. We have put provisions in the Bill because they are pretty canny. When POCA came in in 2002, they realised that we could seize cash, so off they went. They are pretty good at moving the cash. No doubt, one day we will be back again, maybe saying that they have used telephone cards or whatever, and we will have to adapt the legislation in time.

The Government’s amendment chooses to put the provision into POCA, as opposed to the route chosen by the Scottish Nationalist party, because we believe that these items are better placed in cash provisions, because they have no real use other than to be turned into cash. The listed items of moveable property have an intrinsic use as well as being a store of value, and they need to be dealt with under the provisions that we have introduced into the Bill.

The listed items of moveable property clause also contains detailed provision about dealing with non-severable property and competing joint-owner claims that are not relevant to gambling vouchers. As I said, we are considering this as part of the Treasury’s review of regulation under the change to the fourth anti-money laundering directive when it comes to self-reporting of suspicious activity and fixed odds betting. That is under review by the Treasury as well, so I hope everyone will get their collar felt if they do not comply with one directive or another.

I hope hon. Members will agree that that would achieve the results they were after and, accordingly, I invite them to withdraw their amendment.

Calais Children and Immigration Act

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

The demographics of the children in the camp are that 90% were male and 60% of them were in the age group of 16 and above. We are determined to assess the most vulnerable children, as they are the ones whom the Dubs amendment suggests that we assess. That includes those who are 12 and under; those who are 15 and below whose nationalities are likely to qualify them for refugee status; and those at high risk of sexual exploitation, including particularly the girls who could be trafficked.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

The qualifying eligibility criteria for children from Calais are a disgrace. The children have to meet one of the following criteria: they are aged under 12; they have been referred by the French authorities as being at high risk of sexual exploitation; they are aged under 15 and are Syrian or Sudanese; and they are aged under 18 and the sibling of a child in one of the former categories. They must also all meet the following criteria: it must be in the best interests of the child; they must have been in Calais on or before 24 October 2016; and they must have been in Europe before 20 March 2016. The criteria are a disgrace, and are certainly not in the spirit of the Dubs amendment.

On the basis of the criteria, it seems that any child at medium or moderate risk of sexual exploitation is on their own. A child is a child until the age of 18, and it is wrong to restrict children’s right to transfer based on their age. It is not clear what the basis or authority for determining the additional criteria are, or whether there is any appeals procedure.

The arbitrary dates mean that children who came to Europe after 20 March are on their own, whatever their age, and that children who came to Europe after 24 October are on their own. Children are at risk of all kinds of exploitation, including trafficking, forced labour and modern slavery, but this Government do not care. [Interruption.] If Members are not comfortable with what I am saying, that is not my problem. Without a proper asylum process, we risk pushing children into taking dangerous journeys to the UK in order to get a fair hearing for their asylum claim. None of this meets the Dubs amendment, which is that any child who would benefit from asylum in the UK should be granted it—up to 3,000 children. Will the Government now meet the full demands of section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 as voted for in this House?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Lady has gone completely over the top. I am proud that the United Kingdom is the second biggest donor in the region. I am proud that the United Kingdom has agreed to take 20,000 people from the region and an additional 3,000 people, including children from the wider area. I am proud of the work that we are doing and I am proud that we are meeting our obligations under the Dublin regulations and the Dubs amendment. If she reads the Dubs amendment, she will understand that the number we bring across should be able to be accommodated by our local authorities.

I have been working very closely with local authorities. I met representatives of the local authorities at their summit on 13 October and I spoke at their conference on 3 November. We are working very closely with them to ensure that the children we bring across can be accommodated, and, as I have said, 118 local authorities are doing that.

I remind the hon. Lady that the children we do not bring across are not in Syria, but in France, which is a civilised country with a developed social system. Those children are being well supported and well looked after in France. The children about whom I am most concerned are those who are still in Syria—they are the ones we are endeavouring to help.

The reason why we do not consider children who arrived in Europe after 20 March is, simply that we do not want to introduce a pull factor that will incentivise parents to pay people traffickers to help their children make that hazardous journey across the Sahara, across the Mediterranean and, in many cases, end in a watery grave. That is why that date has been chosen and why we do not want to do anything to introduce a pull factor that would increase the number of people drowning in the Mediterranean or the Aegean.

Criminal Finances Bill (Second sitting)

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Wallace]

Q You quote the Panama papers, which was a significant leak, and there have been previous ones—Liechtenstein and others. The access that our law enforcement agencies will now get will be greater than the Panama papers. The Panama papers are not complete, and they are effectively within the control of the journalists in the sense that they were selectively leaked to them and then published. No one is able to get the full picture because we do not have open access to Panama, which is not a Crown dependency or an overseas territory; it is a place that Scotland had a bad relationship with a few hundred years ago.

What we are proposing, and what the Crown dependencies are giving our law enforcement access to, is the complete picture. In one sense, we will have a greater advantage than the Panama papers because our law enforcement agencies will be able to have full access to the full range automatically. Therefore, in one sense we are 90% there. As you said, we do not have the transparency bit, but the Government’s intention is to do that. We are doing it, first, by leadership. We are the first in the G20 to say it is our aspiration. The step that seems to be mooted is to impose the sovereign will of Parliament on them, but in 12 months we have gone 90% of the way.

Toby Quantrill: We are looking for a timeline. We must give time and support to moving in that direction and be clear about when we are going to reach it. The Panama papers demonstrated the power of making this information public, because the impact has been global. In countries all around the world, citizens have gained information about people often within their Government and judiciary, and they have been able to investigate, follow those leads and hold their Governments to account. That is the power of transparency. It should be full transparency, not just the bits and bobs. We should not have to rely on leaks to hold our Governments to account. That is the point we are making.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Q Have you ever heard of the Magnitsky clause?

Toby Quantrill: No.

[Carolyn Harris]

Okay. It is not relevant, then.

Toby Quantrill: Sorry.

[Carolyn Harris]

Q This is a blank piece of paper. If you had the opportunity to write what is in the Bill, what would be on it?

Toby Quantrill: There is already an amendment—new clause 4—that we support. The critical thing is to see action, whether within the Bill or through other means, to get the outcome we are looking for. All I would write on that paper is simply a public register of beneficial owners in overseas territories by whatever means. As I said at the start, this is a Criminal Finances Bill, and it seems odd not to include that issue in it.

David Leask: I have nothing to say on that, I am afraid.

[Richard Arkless]

Q First, David, thank you for your groundbreaking work. I was very heartened to hear what Ben, the Minister, said about reading your work and taking note of it. I was encouraged to hear that. Let me be the matchmaker in the middle here. Would you be willing to work with the Government and provide them with all the evidence you have uncovered in the past few months, based on what Ben has said?

David Leask: It is entirely published in the pages of what Mr Wallace would like to call the Glasgow Herald. It is therefore up to date. I can offer you a subscription, if you like.