Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, this is a modest amendment that is grouped with around 58 other amendments which deal with unexplained wealth orders, a new form of legislation in this country. Those 58 other amendments have been proposed by a bevy of talent, including several by my noble friend on the Front Bench, so after a few introductory remarks I propose to focus on the narrow issue which is the subject of my particular amendment. Before doing so, I should remind the Committee of my interests as declared in the register. I understand that it is now no longer approved procedure just to make a general reference and that we are supposed to be more specific. I should also remind the Committee that, while I am no longer an authorised person under financial services legislation, I remain the chairman of two companies that provide services to the financial industry.

At Second Reading I said that I strongly support the direction of travel of this Bill. I am well aware of the impact and the deleterious effect of the worm of corruption on society as a whole. However, I pointed out then and I point out now, as we begin Committee, that new regulation is by no means always the answer. Better use of existing regulation may well be equally effective, as encouraging and rewarding better behaviour to create the right climate may be. We need sticks but we also need carrots. The most important carrot is that people believe that what they are being asked to do is proportionate, fair and worth while, and that the information they are being asked to provide will be used and used effectively.

That should not be taken as my being in any way lukewarm about what we are discussing in the Bill and its purpose, but I shall want to be reassured now and as we go through Committee on three things: that the new powers being sought are required and required in the form it is proposed they should take; that those powers will be used, will be used effectively and will not sit on the shelf; and that they are likely to have a proper impact on the reduction of financial criminal activity.

With those introductory remarks, I turn to my amendment. As I said, this first part of the Bill is concerned with the introduction of an entirely new power for the authorities to obtain a court order to investigate what is called in the Bill “unexplained wealth”. I am no lawyer, but that seems a fairly broadly drafted phrase capable of quite a varying range of interpretations. I accept, however, that such broad phrasing may be necessary to cover the many forms that criminal financial activity may take, but equally, when I read that the provision will involve a reversal of the burden of proof—that is, under an unexplained wealth order I will have to explain why I should have this wealth, rather than the authorities explain why I should not—I wonder whether the right balance has been struck in the drafting.

In particular, in the group of amendments that we shall discuss, government Amendment 8 in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench proposes to reduce the amount above which an unexplained wealth order may be sought from £100,000 to £50,000. If the Committee was minded to accept this amendment, quite small sums and probably quite legally unsophisticated individuals may be swept up in the new regime. It could be argued that such people need and deserve a higher level of judicial protection. With my amendment I seek to redress and improve the balance by imposing an additional duty on the court in the case of unexplained wealth orders. Clause 1 requires the court, under new Section 362A(1) merely to be,

“satisfied that each of the requirements for the making of the order is fulfilled”.

My amendment would raise the evidential bar a little by requiring the court not merely to be “satisfied”, but to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt” by inserting those three words in line 13 of page 1.

In summary, I argue that, if the authorities want the burden of proof reversed, the citizen is entitled to a high degree of protection from the court against possibly vexatious activities by regulators. My noble friend on the Front Bench may argue that government Amendment 6 would achieve the same purpose. Again, I am no lawyer, but the Government’s phrase,

“there is reasonable cause to believe”,

seems a good deal weaker than my phrase in Amendment 1, “beyond reasonable doubt”. I will await reaction from other Members of the Committee who have more legal experience than me as to whether my fears are justified or groundless. My noble friend may also argue that I should have tabled a similar amendment to deal with Scottish unexplained wealth orders under Clause 4. She would be absolutely right but my response is that, for today at least, this is a probing amendment to enable a broad discussion on the point to take place.

Other noble Lords will no doubt wish to discuss the practicalities of how the UWOs will work and whether the target category of politically exposed persons will be able to be dealt with effectively because of personal and functional immunity—we have had quite a lot of briefing on these matters. My amendment is about trying to achieve the right balance.

Before I sit down, I want to ask my noble friend one last question. It is about legal privilege and client confidentiality under the new unexplained wealth order legislation. As I understand it—again, I say that I am no lawyer—legal privilege does not exclude a legal adviser from the provisions of the suspicious activity, or SAR, regime. If a legal adviser becomes aware as a result of discussions or communications with his or her client that activities that would be capable of being caught by the SAR regime are occurring, they are obliged to report them and to do so without informing their client—indeed, informing their client would be an offence. Can my noble friend in due course make clear what the position is on a legal adviser whose client becomes the subject of a UWO? Is the construction of legal privilege changed in any way? I do not think that unexplained wealth orders or the suspicious activity regime will necessarily walk hand in hand. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has said that his amendment is merely probing. Clearly, the purpose of a probing amendment is above all directed at trying to influence the Government, but the other purpose is to see whether anyone else in the Committee rather agrees with the line of it, which may also be useful information for Ministers when they are taking final decisions on what the shape of the Bill should be.

The noble Lord made a very good case. We all know that legislation of this kind is essentially a matter of balance. On the one hand, we are imposing on people constraints and breaches of privacy and liberty. We are also imposing on them costs, because it is likely that to be able to respond to orders such as these they will have to pay accountants to do work. As the noble Lord said, we may be talking about amounts of wealth that are a substantial portion of the portfolio of the individual citizen being investigated. To respond to the investigation, the individual may need to spend significant amounts of money on accountancy or other professional advice. We should be very careful and aware of the costs of doing such things. We should also be aware that there is always a temptation for an authority, if it has a power, to use it and say, “There’s no downside. Let’s just put in a request to the High Court to have one of these investigations”. The noble Lord is therefore right to emphasise the need to protect the citizen to make it absolutely clear that an authority before making such a request, or a court before acceding to it, must be really convinced that there is a case for doing something quite exceptional—the state asking an individual to declare his or her private affairs. I therefore agree with the sense of the noble Lord’s amendment and I hope the Government take it seriously.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords—

Brexit: UK-EU Security (EUC Report)

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, particularly in a debate on Europe, on which he knows so much and has so much experience. But I thought on this occasion that he was rather more optimistic than I was about the chances of the Government coming to some satisfactory negotiation with our European partners. I find rather more convincing the analysis that we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown.

I add my voice to those who have already paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and her committee. It is an excellent report. It is not too long, thank goodness, which most reports in this House are. It is very lucid and well written, as most reports in this House are. It is decisive, which is essential, and it has given rise to a very useful debate.

Well, here we go. Not a week goes by without us suddenly having a new insight into the costs of Brexit and the wanton damage and destruction that this process will bring about for our country if it goes very much further. There is pretty much unanimity in the House this evening on the matter of the costs of Brexit in this area. I think that in their analyses everyone has agreed in principle with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who said that anything less than the status quo will lead to a diminution of the security of all our citizens. That is an extremely serious matter. We are facing the prospect of actually diminishing our security. People’s lives will be at risk, and it is quite extraordinary that any responsible Government of an ancient country like ours should seriously contemplate measures which run that risk, but unfortunately that is the truth. I think it is a truth which has been accepted by all speakers in the debate, sad and difficult though it is for many to acknowledge it, but it is a consensus to which I add myself.

I have to say that I do not share the view of most colleagues who have spoken on both sides of the House that we should just despair of this. There has been a sense of hopelessness: “Well, perhaps the British public did not look at the facts, and maybe they did not have the facts they should have had at the time. But it is too late now, it has happened and we have to make the best of a very bad job”. I have never shared that view in politics. If one is heading for a disaster, if you can see that you are sailing into a storm, you change course. Moreover, if you believe in popular sovereignty, you must believe in the right of the people to change their mind if they wish to do so, and in the right of all of us to try to persuade them to change their mind if we think it is important that they should do so in our long-term national interests. I have no inhibitions about that.

I shall go briefly over the points that are most at stake in this case. I do not ask the House to accept my words. I shall rely entirely on the testimony offered to the committee, which is now before every Member of the House, and indeed the Government’s own statements on the subject. Let us take first the issue of Europol because we all know how important it is. The report states:

“Our witnesses were unequivocal in identifying the UK’s future relationship with Europol as a critical priority. They also made clear that an operational agreement with Europol akin to those that other third countries have negotiated would not be sufficient to meet the UK’s needs”.


That is a decisive and extremely well-thought-through conclusion. The report goes on:

“Achieving it, however, may be problematic”.


In other words, we have a great asset in Europol since it is both useful and vital, but the Government are putting the whole thing at risk and we may not get any kind of deal which even begins to substitute for the utility of the asset we currently have.

Let us move on to some of the other issues about information exchange between police officers, which is obviously very important. I refer to the Schengen information system, known as SIS II. It was described by the National Crime Agency as,

“an absolute game-changer for the UK … It is linked to the Police National Computer so that officers can stop a car with French plates and Hungarian nationals in it, undertake checks and find details of stolen property, wanted people, alerts and the like”.

It is clearly an enormously useful instrument for policing which we may be on the point of losing. I turn now to the Prüm measures, which ironically came into force only just last year:

“The Prm Decisions require Member States to allow the reciprocal searching of each other’s databases for DNA profiles (required in 15 minutes), Vehicle Registration Data (required in 10 seconds) and fingerprints (required in 24 hours)”.


Here again we risk taking away from the British police. I also refer to Professor Peers, who commented on SIS II.

The report is equally clear about the European arrest warrant, stating,

“the Government suggested that ‘Norway and Iceland’s Schengen membership was key to securing even this level of agreement’, and that ‘there is no guarantee that the UK could secure a similar agreement outside the EU given that we are not a member of the Schengen border-free area’”.

The European arrest warrant, which we have heard is so important to policing, is itself at risk. The committee’s view, which it is giving to the House this evening, is that there is no real likelihood of our being able to get anything as good as we have at present in any of these three areas.

In those circumstances, I put to the Government two questions. First, what is stopping us remaining part of this home affairs and justice system—of Europol, the Prüm system, the information exchanges and part of the European arrest warrant? Secondly, if nothing is stopping us, why do the Government not want to remain part of it? Is there a pragmatic reason in terms of national interest why we should not remain part of a system that, in the views of everybody who has expressed a view this evening, including some very expert people, is clearly essential to our security in those areas? If the Government are saying there is no practical reason why we cannot be a member of the system and it is simply that we do not like the European Court of Justice or the politics, I am afraid they are contradicting themselves. This has already been quoted many times, but the Government said in 2014 that they would,

“never put politics before the protection of the British public”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/14; col. 1224.]

If they are saying, “We have a very good system here protecting the British public—the best we have ever had. We want to get rid of it not for practical reasons, but mainly for political reasons”, by definition they are in contradiction of their own commitment. I could use non-parliamentary language to describe the situation in which they proceed directly in contradiction with the description of their activities that they have given to the public.

Those two questions are very important. What is stopping us remaining full members of these institutions? If it is simply because the Government do not want to join them, why do they not?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee for producing its report, Brexit: Future UK-EU Security and Police Co-operation. In answer to some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I say that the Government will respond specifically to the report. I am grateful to those who have spoken during today’s long debate and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for securing it.

A wide range of views have been expressed from across the Chamber, but I am reassured by the broad consensus across the House that the Government should continue a high level of co-operation with our EU neighbours on security and policing matters. The Government are committed to strong practical co-operation on security, law enforcement and criminal justice now and after we leave. We will work with our European partners as we negotiate our exit to find solutions that promote security in the UK, across Europe and beyond. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Wasserman is optimistic about the future.

The perpetrators of crime and terrorism do not respect borders, and the threat that they pose is becoming increasingly transnational. We know that international organised crime groups exploit vulnerabilities such as inadequate law enforcement and criminal justice structures. Furthermore, threats such as cybercrime and online child sexual exploitation are by definition international in a technically interconnected world. In the face of these common threats, it is difficult to see how it would be in anyone’s interest for exit negotiations to result in a reduction in the effectiveness of security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation.

Our relationship with the EU currently centres on a number of practical co-operation measures that have been developed in response to the changing shape of the EU and the evolving threat of international crime. We continue to value our co-operation and information sharing through measures such as the European arrest warrant, which so many noble Lords have mentioned, together with Europol, the European criminal record information system and the second-generation Schengen information system, in our effort to fight crime and prevent terrorism. The UK will continue to participate fully in all these measures while we remain a member of the EU.

Leaving will of course mean that our relationship with the EU will have to change. In the UK we are examining the mechanisms now in place to support practical co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism, to help to identify potential options for how we might work with our EU partners in future. Looking ahead, we need to negotiate the best deal that we can with Europe, including thinking about the tools and mechanisms for co-operation with EU member states that help to keep all European citizens safe. The UK’s future access to the practical mechanism through which we co-operate with the EU will form part of the wider exit negotiations. The UK is in a unique position, having taken a leading role in developing—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The Minister says that when we leave the EU our relationship with the institutions in the justice and home affairs field will have to change. Will they have to change because the Government want them to change, or in her view will it be because our European partners will insist that they change?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, they will change because that is an inevitable fact of leaving the EU. We will no longer be members of the EU.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

That is not an answer.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Well, that is the answer that I am giving the noble Lord. Perhaps at this late hour he will indulge me until I get to the end, and he might be a bit more satisfied by the time I have finished.

Looking ahead, we need to negotiate the best deal that we can with Europe, including thinking about these tools and mechanisms with EU member states that help to keep European citizens safe. We are in a unique position, having taken a lead role in developing the practical co-operation measures now in place across the EU, and our expertise and drive for high standards are valued by our EU partners. That is why we will not seek to adopt a model currently enjoyed by another country; we are looking for a bespoke approach that works for the UK as well as for the EU.

Those negotiations will be complex and lengthy, and it would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome. I know that many noble Lords are anxious to understand the detail of the relationship that we may agree with the EU but, although the Government are keen to provide clarity where we can, it is also important that we do nothing to undermine our negotiating position.

What is absolutely clear is that this Government are committed to ongoing co-operation to keep all European citizens safe—a point that noble Lords have made—and that the desire to do what is necessary to keep our people safe is not one-sided. My ministerial colleagues have spoken to their counterparts in several EU countries, and I am reassured to hear that there is a shared understanding of the importance of effective ongoing co-operation.

I will now respond in more detail to some of the points that noble Lords have raised this evening. All noble Lords have talked about our relationship with Europol. As noble Lords have said, Europol’s prime objective is to strengthen and facilitate co-operation in preventing and combating serious organised crime and terrorism. By providing a platform for members to share intelligence and information, and through a strong analysis function, it offers unparalleled opportunities to prevent serious crime and protect EU citizens, including those in the UK. The UK plays a lead role in Europol; indeed, the UK staffs one of the largest national desks in the organisation and is one of the biggest contributors of information to Europol systems. We value our participation, and will continue to play a role while we remain in the EU. The recent decision to seek to opt into the new Europol measure is testament to that.

As I said, our future practical co-operation will be subject to negotiation, and it is too early to say what shape our relationship with the agency will take after we leave the EU. The models of co-operation enjoyed by other countries, such as the US, illustrate the breadth of agreements that can be achieved with Europol, but the UK will be in a unique position as a former EU member with our history of working with Europol, so we will not be looking to replicate any other nation’s model.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised the point that while the report was in preparation a bespoke arrangement was agreed for Denmark, and wanted to know more about it and how relevant it might be for the UK’s future. Denmark’s situation is different from the position that the UK will be in once we leave the EU. It is a member state that does not participate in the new Europol measure but is seeking a special agreement from within the EU. Obviously, that presents a different set of challenges for the parties concerned. The Government are exploring options for Europol once the UK has left the EU, but it is early to speculate on what they might look like.

The noble Baroness and other noble Lords also asked about the relevance of the 2014 opt-in decision. The justice and home affairs opt-out in 2014 gave us the opportunity to consider the value of certain measures to the UK. While that decision provides a reference point, it is important to be clear that the situation following the outcome of the EU referendum means that the context is now different. To state the obvious, we will no longer be a member of the EU so, unlike the 2014 decision, the question now is not whether we seek to rejoin certain measures as a member state; instead, we need to consider how we should interact with the EU security measures from outside the EU.

Quite a few noble Lords asked about Prüm in the context of my right honourable friend David Davis in the other place. During debate, he said that we were making new arrangements for data-sharing. The Prime Minister has been clear that one of her 12 negotiating objectives is to continue to work with the EU to preserve European security, fight terrorism and uphold justice across Europe. She is quite clear about that. As part of the negotiations, we will discuss with the EU and its member states how best to continue co-operation on security, law enforcement and criminal justice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, also asked about what we should read into the fact that the Government’s White Paper says that in paragraph 12.2 the EU institutions are listed among the entities that will be part of a “phased process of implementation”. The Prime Minister has been clear that she wants us,

“to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two year Article 50 process has concluded. From that point onwards, we”,

expect a,

“phased process of implementation, in which”,

Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that exist between us. It will,

“give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements”.

It is in no one’s interests for there to be a cliff edge for business or, indeed, for the rest of the country, as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the EU, but that does not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status. That would not be good for Britain and it would not be good for the EU. As the White Paper says,

“the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation”.

The noble Baroness also talked about the precedents for adjudication mechanisms and international arbitration in trade agreements. Again, we need to negotiate the best deal that we can for Europe, including thinking about the tools and mechanisms for co-operation with EU member states.

The noble Baroness also asked about the great repeal Bill and made the point about the Government’s intention that, wherever practical and appropriate, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after we leave the EU as they did before. She asked about how I envisaged the process of converting EU law into domestic law would work in the area of criminal justice. All government departments are currently reviewing the issues and opportunities arising from exit, including the requirements for legislation in addition to the great repeal Bill. We will bring forward a White Paper on the Bill, which will set out our approach to give effect to withdrawal on the domestic statute book, and we will ensure that it is published in sufficient time to allow Parliament to digest its contents in advance of introduction of the Bill in the next Session.

The noble Baroness also asked about Article 50 negotiations. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the arrangements relating to the UK’s withdrawal are to be made between the UK and the EU in a withdrawal treaty. The content of the treaty will be a matter for negotiation and our efforts will be focused on getting the best deal possible for the UK in negotiations with the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, made the point about needing to have a special relationship with the EU and needing new mechanisms for co-operation. As the Government have made clear, one of the 12 objectives of the negotiations ahead will be to establish a new relationship which enables the UK and the EU to continue practical co-operation with other member states to tackle cross-border crime and keep our people safe. We are in a unique position; we are a valued partner in the EU and have played a leading role in the development of a number of the EU’s security measures that are in place. That is why we will not be following any other nation’s model.

The noble Lord also asked how we will operate outside the ECJ’s jurisdiction. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that after withdrawal—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, articulated—our laws will not be made in Brussels but in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The judges interpreting those laws will not sit in Luxembourg but in courts in this country. The authority of EU law in Britain will end. Until we exit the EU, we remain a full member of the Union and the CJEU will continue its work.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about sovereignty versus security and suggested that we face a choice between the two. That is possibly overly simplistic. The UK is in a unique starting position, and we will need to negotiate the best deal we can with Europe while recognising that this process will not be brief or straightforward.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, asked how we will secure a good enough relationship on Europol—that is, better than other third countries. We absolutely value the role of Europol in helping law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate investigation on cross-border crime but, looking ahead, we need to negotiate the best deal we can with Europe. We are in a unique position, but it is very early to speculate on what that will look like.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, made the point that the EAW is worth signing up to the ECJ and surrendering sovereignty for. As always, he set out a typically forensic and well-informed analysis on the question of sovereignty and the UK’s future relationship with the EU, especially as pertaining to the European arrest warrant. I listened carefully to what he said, but it is too early to speculate at this stage on exactly what our relationship with the ECJ will be after we leave the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, asked how we create a flexible future relationship with the EU. Are we underestimating the challenge of doing so? However, as the Prime Minister has made clear, one of the 12 objectives for the negotiations ahead will be to establish a new relationship which enables the UK and the EU to continue practical co-operation with other member states to tackle cross-border crime and keep our people safe.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about trafficking and drugs and the fact that crime is international. In the modern age, we must cede some sovereignty and work with international institutions. I refer back to my answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on sovereignty versus security not being a binary choice. The Prime Minister has been clear that, after withdrawal, our laws will be made in Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast, and the judges interpreting those laws will sit not in Luxembourg but in courts in this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, identified the value of SIS II, Prüm and the EAW. He asked what is stopping us from remaining part of these and if there is nothing why the Government do not want us to join them. The UK’s exit from the EU will put us in a unique position, seeking co-operation on security and law enforcement as a former EU member. We must now work with the EU to agree the way we co-operate on both security and law enforcement after we leave. Although the Government are absolutely committed to future co-operation, I cannot set out a unilateral position ahead of negotiations.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, talked of the risk of a cliff edge on the day we leave, with no plan B. We need to agree budgetary contribution and dispute resolution and we need a living solution to avoid a static relationship. The noble Lord identified some of the issues that would need to be considered before and during the negotiations. The UK and the EU have a shared interest in effective co-operation while we remain a member state and after we leave, and the negotiations will need to consider the full range of options. It will be in all our interests to avoid any cliff edge in negotiating with the EU. We will need to reach agreement on a range of matters such as dispute resolution, and we will seek a relationship that is capable of responding to the changing threats that we face.

I am running out of time and I have three more noble Lords to respond to, which I will do in writing. In fact, it is two noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in respect of his final point.

The Government recognise the challenge in negotiating a new relationship. However, we are absolutely committed to finding innovative solutions to enable us to continue to work together to keep our citizens safe and to achieve collective security in Europe and globally. Finally, I again thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at “severe”. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning.

We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise it. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the full range of terrorist activities. The group that we now propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is National Action. This is the 21st order under Section 3(3)(a) of that Act. This is the first time we have laid an order for a right-wing group. Proscribing this neo-Nazi group sends a strong message that we will not tolerate terrorist activity here, regardless of what motivates it.

As noble Lords will appreciate, I am unable to comment on specific intelligence. However, I can provide a brief summary of the group’s activities. National Action is a racist, neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK, which conduct threatening street demonstrations and activities aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are aimed particularly at recruiting young people.

National Action’s ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent “race war”, which the group claims it will be an active part of. The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived “race traitors”. National Action has links to other extreme right-wing groups abroad, including in Europe. In May 2016, National Action members attended Buchenwald concentration camp, where they carried out Nazi salutes and posted images of this online.

The Government’s counter-extremism strategy challenges extremism in all its forms. Alongside this and our Prevent work, we will continue to monitor whether extremist groups have crossed into terrorism.

This is a relatively small group which has only been in operation in the UK for a few years, but the impact of its activities has been felt in a number of UK communities. Since early 2016, the group has become more active and its activities and propaganda material have crossed the threshold from extremism into terrorism. National Action’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language. It condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes two tweets posted by the group in 2016 in connection with the murder of Jo Cox, which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act. One states, “Only 649 MPs to go”. Another contains a photo of Thomas Mair with the caption, “Don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain. Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”. The group has also disseminated an image which was doctored to condone and celebrate the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in which 49 people lost their lives, and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit.

There are people who may have become aware of these messages who could reasonably be expected to infer that these acts should be emulated; therefore, such propaganda amounts to the unlawful glorification of terrorism. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes a number of factors into account, including the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Proscription in effect outlaws a listed organisation and makes it unable to operate in the UK. Proscription can also support other disruptive activity, including prosecutions for other offences, and acts to support strong messaging to deter fundraising and recruitment. Additionally, assets of a proscribed group are liable to seizure as terrorist assets. The Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on an organisation. This includes open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in this decision-making process. A decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the particular case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.

Proscription of this group will prevent its membership growing and help to prevent individuals who might be vulnerable to radicalisation, and possibly at risk of emulating the terrorist attacks that National Action glorifies, being drawn into the group’s extreme ideology. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the Government are doing the right thing with this organisation and the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for having set out in some detail why action is necessary. I have just one question. The noble Baroness rightly said that if an organisation of this kind is proscribed it is possible to seize its funds, but I take it that any organisation that knows it is going to be proscribed would takes its funds out of the jurisdiction, or otherwise distribute them so as to put them beyond reach. Has it been possible in this case, and would it normally be the Government’s practice, to freeze these funds in some way before the announcement of the proscription?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the purpose of the order. The order was, as I understand it, agreed by the Commons yesterday and we hope that it will be agreed in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. We welcome and support the order. As the noble Baroness said, it amends Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 by adding the neo-Nazi National Action to the list of proscribed organisations concerned in terrorism. The Minister also set out the provisions of the relevant parts of the 2000 Act, as well as the relevant part of the 2006 Act, which amended Section 3 of the 2000 Act. I do not intend to repeat those provisions.

Alcohol

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government are not saying they are not going ahead with it because that is not the situation. We are keeping the issue under review in the light of what happens in Scotland.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not entirely sure whether the Government are planning to introduce calorie labelling. I know that there is calorie labelling on some drinks. I will have to get back to the noble Baroness because I do not know the answer to her question. However, I will find that out because I certainly think that it would deter Guinness drinkers, as that is very calorific.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords—

Immigration Act

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, to answer the noble Lord’s last question first, any child at risk of sexual exploitation—that might include trafficking—will be a top priority, no matter what country they are from; ditto any child aged 12 or under. On the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, there have thus far been more than 3,000 people transferred, and half of those are children.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, what is the Government’s budgeted average cost for relocating in this country these vulnerable children? What provision is being made to support local authorities, on which the bulk of this expenditure will, presumably, fall?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have increased by a third the funding to local authorities. I cannot give a specific figure for a specific child because it will depend. It is around about £32,000 per child, but that is an average figure. I cannot give a specific figure for a specific child because it will be different in different cases, depending on whether the child is to be fostered, taken into local authority care, or here as part of a community sponsorship scheme. It is different in every case. I hope the noble Lord takes what I am saying in a qualified way.

Immigration

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we want students here who will contribute to this country the skills that we need. In fact, there has been an increase of more than 39% over the past few years to Russell group universities. We have taken successful steps to clamp down on some of the bogus colleges that do not provide that sort of training.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Why, oh why, are students classified as immigrants? They are not immigrants unless they stay here beyond their courses. When they stay beyond their degree or other qualification, they could and should be classified as immigrants. The present artificial classification is causing all sorts of quite unnecessary problems, not least, as has already been said, for our universities.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, they are classified as students because when they come here they use our services and they generally come here for more than a year. That falls within the definition.

Cyclists

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend raises the issue of identification and is right to do so. As I said, we need to encourage education for cyclists and responsibility in cyclists. When they ride on pavements or jump red lights, they break the law, and there is a need to review with the police how we can apply the law effectively to cyclists as well as to any other road users.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a continuing string of tragedies involving cyclists being crushed by lorries, often while turning at traffic light intersections. What progress is being made—I think the European Commission was considering a directive at one point—in making it a matter of law that all lorries should be fitted out in such a way that the driver has vision of the full length of his or her cab from the cab itself?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, we have seen investment being made in this. The noble Lord points to a particular type of mirror, which is being encouraged by the Government. Right here in London, we have seen separate areas created for cyclists to ensure their security and safety. As I said, any death on the roads, whoever it is—whether a cyclist, a pedestrian or any other road user—is one death too many. We should seek to ensure safety and security for everyone.

Advertising of Prostitution (Prohibition) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by saying that I totally share the horror of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the whole House, at the ideas of violence, exploitation—I think that he had in mind living off immoral earnings—intimidation and, although he did not mention it, rape, having sexual intercourse without consent. These are real horrors. We have pretty strong laws against them with pretty strong penalties, but if the noble Lord can make out a case to strengthen the penalties or enforcement, I may well be with him. I do not think that he has made a case that the solution is to criminalise prostitution itself. I am quite certain that he has not made a case that the right way to criminalise prostitution is to do it on the back of this Bill, which is ostensibly about something else.

In my view, legislation should always be open, overt, frank and transparent. It should not be carried surreptitiously, casually on the back of some other Bill. It is very important that the whole House, the other place and the public have a chance to think through the long-term consequences of new legislation, particularly radical legislation of the kind that the noble Lord proposed in his introductory speech, which is criminalising prostitution itself. A lot of perverse consequences would flow from that. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we must be in a position to consider those consequences specifically in relation to the proposal that he has now made to the House to abolish prostitution, not the proposal in the paper that he has put forward, the Bill, which is simply to criminalise advertising for prostitution purposes. There is a lack of frankness in that approach of which I strongly disapprove.

My view about legalising or criminalising prostitution is, above all, based on a fundamental principle, which is that set out so lucidly by JS Mill 150 years ago, which I think is dear to the hearts of everybody who believes in freedom. That is that the state should not restrict the freedom of any citizen except to the extent required to protect the freedom of others. It flows directly from that that acts in private between consenting adults are no concern of the state or of the law. You violate that principle at your peril.

I recognise that virtuous and respectable people, in the interests of reforming society, as they see it, are always trying to encroach on that principle. The worst case was the introduction of the legislation in the 1880s criminalising homosexuality, which continued on our statute book for 80 years. In my view, we should never have violated that principle. I would be against it even if the pragmatic arguments ran in the other direction, but actually, I see several pragmatic arguments which run very much against the idea of criminalising prostitution. In the time I have, I will mention just three.

One is a definitional problem, whether it has to be dealt with by Parliament or by the judiciary in the courts. I fear that it does not sound very romantic or edifying to say so, but I suspect that quite a lot of relationships—far more than we like to think—have some element of material interest in them. It would be extremely difficult to decide whether the material or monetary interest was decisive in one particular case. The law would make an awful fool of itself if it specified that if you hire someone for sex for a night or a weekend, you are committing a criminal offence, but if the relationship, including the financial relationship, continued for months or years, you are not—in other words, that a crime, if continued long enough or repeated frequently enough, ceases to be a crime. That would be a novel jurisprudential notion.

Equally, the law would be pretty stupid if it ended up specifying that if you pay for sex with money—cash or specie—it is a criminal offence, but if you pay by means of a diamond brooch, it is not. The law would be held up to equal ridicule and there would be a considerable sense of injustice if you targeted the poor prostitute and perhaps the relatively poor client of the poor prostitute and left the wealthy man and the successful and wealthy courtesan to enjoy themselves without let or hindrance. That would be a mistake. So the definitional problems are real, and the noble Lord needs to address them, if he wants to take further his project of abolishing prostitution by law.

Then there is the issue of the strain on the criminal justice system and particularly the police. We know that the Government are cutting police numbers in drastic fashion, which I personally think is an utterly irresponsible policy that we and even they will ultimately regret. That aside, can you imagine what would happen if the police had responsibility for chasing up every act or alleged act of prostitution in this country? Here for once I do feel that I am not speaking alone. I should be very unamused if I was told by the police that they did not have time or resources to investigate the burglary of my house because they were launched on a much more exciting case, because Snooks was alleged to be having sex with Fifi and money might be changing hands. We want to think very carefully about that aspect as well.

Thirdly, there is the whole issue of the prohibition effects. We all know what prostitution is conceptually. The exchange of money for sex or sex for money is the confluence of two powerful forces in human nature: the desire for sex and the desire for money. If there are more powerful forces in human nature, I am not quite sure what they are, and if you try to dam the tide against them you may have some very perverse effects. The Americans did that with prohibition, but I fear that the two forces that I have just mentioned may be even more ubiquitous and powerful than the desire for alcohol. So you get the same effects; you create a whole new seam of rich potential profits for criminals involved in the intermediation which obviously would be necessary if you criminalised prostitution. It is quite easy to envisage all sorts of opportunities for criminal activity, racketeering and so forth, such as happened under prohibition.

If you prohibit by law something that has been going on for a long time and for which there is a structural demand and existing supply system—we are told that it is quite pervasive; I have not seen these websites myself but I have heard about them and I gather that there are an awful lot of them—you will force a raft of people overnight to change their habits or give up their livelihoods or become criminals. There are enormous social implications from doing that which have to be thought through. None of this has been thought through on this occasion.

Finally, there is one extraordinary anomaly—an ironic contradiction at the heart of the noble Lord’s Bill. He set out his intention essentially to defend women in this matter, and I have some sympathy with that: but he then brings forward a Bill that criminalises advertising. But advertising is always paid for by the supplier, not the customer, and the suppliers on these occasions are largely women. So the only people who would suffer criminal sanctions as a result of the Bill becoming law, if it ever did, would be the females involved in prostitution, and not the males. That seems to me an extraordinarily perverse outcome, and I hope that the noble Lord will think a little bit further about this Bill before taking it further.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

Before the noble Lord sits down, could it be by some unimaginable stretch of the imagination that he has come into the wrong debate? We are not talking about criminalising prostitution—we are talking about advertising.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord’s Bill, as I have just said, talks about advertising—but, as I have also said, it seems not to be his real agenda. He made it clear in his own introductory remarks that what he intended to do was to abolish prostitution, and that this was just one of several legislative instruments that he has had in mind with that particular intention. I do not think that he can get away from the fact that his introductory speech was all about criminalising prostitution and that that was his preferred solution to the problems of violence and exploitation which he started off with.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

The noble Lord reminds me very much of part of the Queen’s speech—I refer to the Queen’s speech in “Hamlet”, when she says:

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Lord has brought forward a Bill which is a bit of a false prospectus. If he had talked about advertising, we would all understand that we were simply limited to talking about advertising. In actual fact, every economic activity involves advertising, because every supplier has to have some way of communicating with his customers or potential customers. So you could say that if you ban advertising you ban the activity that is advertised, anyway. We did not get into any of that at all, and I think that—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I shall give way in just one second, after I finish my sentence. The noble Lord has brought forward a bill of goods that is not exactly, when you open up the content, what you find on the label outside.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may calm this a little. I have absolutely no intention of supporting the abolition of prostitution for a number of practical reasons. It is one of the oldest businesses in the world, and it is likely to go on regardless of what Parliament might say. I am here today, when I would much rather be at home, to support a Bill which deals exclusively with advertising. I did not really hear a word in what the noble Lord said about advertising and its evils in relation to victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. That is my line, but the noble Lord, for some reason—and I found it very difficult to understand what he was saying—seems to think that support for the Bill is support for the abolition of prostitution. They are separate subjects in today’s debate.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

When I read the Bill, I thought that it was slightly curious because, for the reasons I have just set out, if you succeed in abolishing the right to advertise, you kill the economic activity underlying it—and therefore, surreptitiously, there might be an intention to abolish prostitution, not directly by coming to the House with an explicit Bill to do that but indirectly as a result of the Bill before us.

I have to say in all honesty that the introductory speech of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, confirmed me in my suspicion that that is his long-term agenda—but we shall all have to read Hansard and make our own judgment on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and the Minister for his kind remarks about me. However, I should like to draw attention to the amazing work that has been done by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. A big team has been at work.

It has come through clearly in this debate that advertising facilitates the exploitation in prostitution of people who are trafficked and some who are not. I shall not respond directly to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because they do not relate to this Bill. However, I should like to address briefly one point that he raised. He suggested that my Bill will further criminalise women who are placing adverts. The Bill was drafted with the intention, courtesy of Clause 1, to address those who facilitate and publish the advertising, such as newspapers and website operators. I shall certainly look into the question further and if I receive legal advice that Clause 1 could be interpreted to apply to an individual placing an advert rather than only to the entity publishing it, I shall certainly look into bringing an amendment in Committee.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I was guided in my remarks by the phrase in the first line of the noble Lord’s substantive Bill:

“A person who publishes or causes to be published”.

It seems to me that inevitably the supplier of prostitution services would be causing to be published any advertisements that appeared on her behalf.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich]

I shall certainly take legal advice about that and see whether we can tighten things up later on.

The Minister referred to the importance of minimising the harm of prostitution and I agree that we want to do all we can to reduce the harm experienced by people in prostitution. Indeed, that is the aim of reducing demand. By addressing the proliferation of advertising and reducing the demand it fuels, we can reduce levels of prostitution and thereby reduce the harm that is caused.

We should of course be working with the police, the courts system, the NHS and social services to try to prosecute those who commit acts of violence against people in prostitution and to help people access support to exit prostitution and build a new life for themselves. However, unless we address the demand, for each person who is assisted out of crisis, another will take their place. We need to look at the bigger picture.

I find myself in a rather difficult position because there is much I would like to respond to but we are out of time. I should like to put on record that I completely reject the suggestion that the Bill is unenforceable or that it will make life more dangerous for people in prostitution. I feel very frustrated that time does not allow me to explain why.

Mediterranean: Migrant Trafficking

Lord Davies of Stamford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Part of the issue is to deal with the immediate crisis and stop the deaths that are occurring in the Mediterranean, but there is a bigger part, which is how you build stability within these countries so that people do not have to embark on this perilous journey. That is why we are so proud of our overseas aid budget, which of course is the second largest, in cash terms, in the world.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Government are serious about breaking the link between being picked up in the water and getting permanent access to live in the EU, which is the phrase the Government always use and which the Minister used today, why do the Government not instruct the Royal Navy that when it picks up these poor people, having saved them, to ship them back to Libya or where they come from? If that requires some negotiation in advance with the powers currently controlling the ports of Libya, why are such negotiations not already in progress?

[Lord Bates]

Because we have an agreement with our EU partners that when people are picked up under international maritime rules they will be taken to reception centres in Lampedusa or Italy. That is the current plan.