Dominic Raab
Main Page: Dominic Raab (Conservative - Esher and Walton)Department Debates - View all Dominic Raab's debates with the Attorney General
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
It was widely trailed in the media, when the leader of the Labour party had dinner with the Clooneys, that the Labour party would get behind a UK Magnitsky Act. New clause 18 is the most modest step in that direction. Is it the Labour party’s position to say one thing after a glitzy Hollywood dinner, and then do something entirely different when it comes to having the courage of its convictions?
Diana Johnson
I will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about new clause 18, because it will be helpful to have the details. What I am saying to him is that we have concerns about the drafting of it. We support the principle of it.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister, and I will hold her to at least seeking parliamentary approval in time. I accept that she cannot guarantee that both Houses will vote for the code, but I should be very alarmed if Parliament were not keen to ensure that journalists were included.
The Minister also spoke about the requirement for production orders to be used in the meantime. That is welcome, because the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 currently protects journalists so that their sources cannot be sought without judicial authorisation, but may I ask the Minister whether the use of such orders is a policy requirement as of today, whether it will require legislative change, and what time scale will be involved? I hope she will confirm that she has made a policy announcement that will take immediate effect. She does not seem to wish to intervene at the moment, but I hope that she will give answers to those questions by the end of the debate, so that I can decide whether any amendments or new clauses need to be put to a vote.
The Minister said that legislation would not be possible until the next Parliament. She was right to identify a technical drafting issue. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) was also right to say that the Government could have fixed that had they really wanted to, but we are where we are, and I accept that, as things are, we will be leaving serious crime to be treated differently from other issues. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the draft clause—of which I have been handed a copy—will be published so that the whole House has a chance to look at it. It is a welcome step, but it does not seem to be clear about article 10 rights, and I think that it will need to be improved in that regard.
I hope that the Minister will make the time scale clear, so that the House can make the right decision. It is important for us to protect journalists, and I pay tribute to those who worked so hard to ensure that that could happen. I hope that we can take a full step now, rather than a slightly small, grudging step.
Mr Raab
New clause 18 was tabled by me and by 21 other members of the three main parties, including—I am not sure whether this is a first—seven Select Committee Chairmen. It would inject some transparency into the Government’s exercise of powers to impose visa bans or deny entry, all of which are non-statutory, in relation to people involved in serious international crimes such as torture, terrorism and other kinds of organised crime. It would give the public the right to know whom we are banning from setting foot on British soil, and, by implication, whom we are not.
The new clause was inspired by the House’s unanimous resolution in March 2012—nearly three years ago—following a debate that I sponsored, along with the former right hon. Member for South Shields. We called on the Government to introduce a British Sergei Magnitsky law. There is one in the United States, and other models are being touted around the world. Such a law would impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on any individual linked to the torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, or similar such international crimes, in Russia and beyond.
As the House will recall, Sergei Magnitsky was the lawyer for a British businessman, Bill Browder, and was brutally killed on orders from the Kremlin for disclosing the $230 million tax fraud—the biggest in Russian history—that had been committed by President Putin and his associates. To my regret, the Government have not produced legislation, but I should add, in fairness, that they did affirm a policy of refusing visas to individuals who were suspected of such links. Unfortunately, owing to a long-standing policy in successive Administrations, we are not told who is banned from coming to the United Kingdom when such decisions are made, so we have no way of confirming the extent to which those important powers, and the new policy that was announced by the Government in about 2012, have been exercised in practice. There are legitimate fears—which I have raised with Ministers, and with different arms of Government, on a number of occasions—that such heinous people may be making visits to Britain.
What has been the aftermath of the House’s call for a UK Magnitsky Act in 2012? Sergei Magnitsky was posthumously prosecuted by the Putin regime, and Bill Browder himself has been the subject of various legal attacks by the Russian Government. There are reports, which were documented in the BBC’s “Panorama” in 2013, that UK companies are being used to launder money related to the Magnitsky murder and other mafia-related crimes. Meanwhile, Putin has annexed a slice of Crimea and established himself as a regional menace, and is now directing his gaze to the Baltic states.
Here in the UK, we have seen the mysterious and unexplained deaths of two Russian businessmen, Alexander Perepilichny and Boris Berezovsky, who had fallen out of favour with Putin—not to mention the public inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, which Ben Emmerson QC told the inquiry was an “act of nuclear terrorism” on British soil.
I do not know for sure, but I fear that some of those linked to President Putin's nefarious activities—the persecution of Sergei Magnitsky and other dissidents, or his wider bankrolling by the mafia—may be slipping through the net and using London as a comfortable haven, a place free of the perils of living in Russia where they can enjoy their illicit profits in quiet, in peace and in secret. I also believe that, in the 21st century, the British public have a right to know whether the henchmen of despots like Putin—or, indeed, any other international dictator or outlaw—are being granted a free pass to come to this country. The Home Office has stuck to its long-standing line that it does not routinely disclose who is denied entry, but I do not think that that line withstands the slightest scrutiny. Why should the public not be told, as a matter of basic principle, how such important powers are being exercised? During the three years for which I have campaigned on the issue, no one has given me a serious, substantive explanation. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) talked about drafting. It seems to me that Home Office officials are burying their heads in a comfortable secrecy and lack of transparency. Why should the public not be told?
In any case, the policy is routinely flouted by those in the Home Office itself. When they want to make a show of banning characters who have been deemed offensive—for instance, the American radio host Michael Savage, and rappers such as Snoop Dogg—it is trailed liberally in the media. Incidentally, both those cases occurred under the last Home Secretary. At the moment the public may be told if someone who is offensive gets banned from coming here, but not those linked to crimes such as torture or terrorism. There is absolutely no explanation or justification for that double-standard. Equally there is evidently no legal or principled reason not to introduce transparency for those linked to such serious crimes. That would explain why the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has recommended that the identity of those denied entry on human rights grounds should be made public.
Diana Johnson
I am very flattered to be the focus of such attention from the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps it would be wiser at this stage if he were to direct his comments more to his own Front-Bench colleagues as they are in government and can bring forward legislation, which clearly we as shadow Ministers in the Opposition cannot.
Mr Raab
I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention and she has got half a point, but the thing is that I have been nailing those on my Front Bench on this for three years and the difference is that they have stuck to their line fairly consistently whereas literally in the last month the leader of the Labour party has gone on record—his advisers have been trailing it liberally after the glitzy Hollywood dinner with the Clooneys—saying that actually he would go for a UK Magnitsky Act, but when push comes to shove it is nowhere to be seen. This raises a whole question about the Labour party having the courage of its convictions. So I have made this point to Members on my own Front Bench, but I also think the shadow Minister needs to be responsible for her own position and her own party’s position—and, indeed, answer for what the leader of the Labour party has trailed widely in the media.
Coming back to the substance of this, it is also worth remembering that in cases of extradition or deportation there is already a huge amount of transparency over both the policy and who is being removed. As a result, there is intense and legitimate scrutiny of Government policy. So if the public have the right to know whether the Government intend to remove the likes of Abu Qatada, why should they not equally be told whether we are banning such people from coming here in the first place? If we are serious about trying to alter Putin’s behaviour, should we not start by making sure that those who bankroll him cannot enjoy the fruits of their labour here, clandestinely in luxurious comfort? Those individuals who bankroll Putin and his like should know that when they cross the line and engage in serious international crimes, their association with him and support for him will bar their ability to enjoy the luxurious Knightsbridge lifestyle that so many of them crave. To ensure that message hits home consistently and publicly, we need transparency over such visa bans.
This new clause does not single out Russia. It would apply to any individuals linked to terrorism, violent extremism, gross violations of human rights law, money laundering and other serious organised crime, whatever their nationality and wherever they take place.
Stephen Barclay
Is a further reason why we need transparency that there is very little transparency around the beneficial ownership of multimillion pound property in London? For example, a respected non-governmental organisation estimates that 45% of London property valued at above £2 million is owned offshore where the beneficial owner is opaque. If those who have profited through torture and corruption are able to own London property, it is even more important to be transparent about whether they are travelling here.
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to shine a light on the murky mafia-related activities that are infecting our country through the acquisition of property and also by the physical entry of individuals into this country.
This amendment would also make an important statement about British foreign policy, particularly as inevitably in the 21st century we have to rub along with, deal with and engage with Governments who do not respect the same standards of liberal democracy as we do here in Britain. I am a realist and I recognise that we will have to engage with regimes with a dubious commitment to human rights or the rule of law, but there ought to be some moral red lines here. People carrying dirty money and individuals with blood on their hands should not be welcome on the streets of Britain. This is not just a question of moral principle. Sooner or later, if we keep allowing such unsavoury characters into the UK, bringing all their baggage and vendettas with them, we risk finding that it is British citizens who are caught in the crossfire or worse. After all, the Litvinenko inquiry has already heard that Putin’s thugs were willing to engage in nuclear terrorism here in public, so the threat to the British public is real and serious.
I remain convinced that Britain should enact a Sergei Magnitsky law, like the Americans, with mandatory visa bans and asset freezes imposed on people linked to the worst international crimes. In the meantime, at the very least we need to shine a light on the exercise of existing UK powers to deny entry or visas to the shady characters who prop up Putin, or indeed any other despot around the world.
This new clause does that. It would allow a temporary delay in disclosure of the identity of anyone banned if necessary for national security or law enforcement, and it would not alter the substantive scope of any existing powers, but it would ensure that they are exercised consistently, and it would ensure that the public are told whom we ban from Britain. I commend new clause 18 to the House.
Stephen Barclay
I rise to speak to new clause 28, tabled in my name, which is much more modest than the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). It is simply about giving law enforcement more time in respect of multimillion pound money laundering cases.
At present around 316,000 suspicious activity reports are filed each year with law enforcement agencies. Those are cases where the banks, the lawyers or the accountants have serious concerns around money laundering. According to the Home Office’s own figures, between £23 billion and £57 billion are being channelled through the UK economy each year, so we know the scale of money laundering is significant. At present, when a suspicious activity report is filed the law enforcement agencies—the National Crime Agency has now taken on this responsibility —have just seven days to say whether they give consent to those multimillion pound transfers going ahead. That is just seven days on a case that might well have been built over many years, often involving jurisdictions where information is difficult to obtain, and if law enforcement decides it does not wish to give consent to these transactions, which the financial institutions themselves have said look suspicious, they have just 31 days to build the case to the satisfaction of the courts. If they fail to do so, they risk the penalty of costs against them, which sets a strong disincentive to law enforcement to take those cases forward. To put that in context, the proceeds of crime unit investigated only 110 cases from the 316,000 suspicious activity reports filed with it, so clearly the system is not working.
I thought I would give just one case to bring this to life. The Nigerian case OPL 245 has a bit of a jargony name, but it involves $1 billion paid by a British oil company for some offshore land in Nigeria with oil assets. To put this in context, $1 billion was paid for this land for drilling—they do drill offshore, I should point out for the benefit of any Members who might be confused as to how they obtain the oil—yet 14 years earlier this land was granted to a company owned by the then Nigerian oil Minister. In essence the land was granted by the Nigerian oil Minister to a company that he owned and for which $1 billion was then paid 14 years later. In investigating that case that had developed over many years involving complex financial arrangements over different jurisdictions, law enforcement has just 31 days to build a case that would block the transfer of $1 billion that is going to a corrupt official and his henchmen.
New clause 28 simply seeks to give law enforcement agencies more time to build their case. I shall not press it to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government believe that the current arrangements provide sufficient time, or whether they accept the substance of the new clause, which is that the current arrangements are insufficient and that they load the dice against law enforcement, meaning that corrupt assets can be transferred from the UK to criminals. If the Government accept my proposal, I hope that they will change the law at the earliest opportunity to create a more level playing field by giving more time for these complex, multi-jurisdictional cases to be investigated.
Karen Bradley
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way, because I need to finish by 8 o’clock, and I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak.