Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, I say for the record and from the outset, and for the avoidance of any doubt in the mind of the Minister, that we on this side of the House recognise the importance of such a Bill coming into being. We are leaving the EU. The Government’s position is that EU jurisprudence will no longer apply and therefore the Bill becomes an imperative. That is not the same thing as saying that everything in the Bill is rosy and we support it all, and that is why we are here. We strongly support the case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.

This amendment is the starting point of the Bill: it concerns the power for a Minister to act. Should it be when the Minister considers it appropriate or should it be when it is provably necessary to do so? One is an opinion, the other an evidential absolute. Does it weaken the Government’s position? No, it makes it more robust to have “necessary” replacing “appropriate”. Will it inhibit the Government? No, it will make for greater certainty as other clauses in the Bill are debated. Does it strengthen the Bill? We believe that it does: it will become more bullet-proof and less able to be challenged.

On Friday, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the Delegated Powers Committee considered this and concluded:

“In the light of the width and significance of the powers, we take the view that the Minister should only have power to make sanctions regulations if doing so is considered ‘necessary’ to achieve the purpose”.


That is where this amendment ends. Does the Minister accept this? Will he reflect on this and come back on this point?

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, was very quick off the mark: the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and I wanted to make brief interventions. It seems that the case made for these amendments is a pretty strong one, but of course I will listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say. It might be said, I suppose, that the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is more or less understood by the other two amendments. I simply say to the Minister that it might be helpful if he could give some example, prospectively, of where a Minister might think this action “appropriate” but not “necessary”. That would help to clarify the Committee’s thinking.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, was a bit quick off the mark. Just have a glance behind you occasionally—you might find that somebody wants to come in.

I was rather diffident about putting my name to such illustriously signed amendments. My noble friend Lady Northover spoke about the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I am not sure that I would trust the country solicitors “Judge and Pannick” or “Pannick and Judge”; I am not sure whether it is best to panic after you have judged or judge before you panic. Nevertheless, any sensible Minister who sees those names on an amendment thinks very hard about it. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said, this will be a very necessary Bill if the Government succeed in their Brexit aims, but that does not mean that every Bill that comes before us has to be given a nod through because of the pressures of the Government’s own making. There is a real danger.

I can almost imagine the discussions in the Cabinet Office: “How on earth do we get this shedload of legislation through?”. Then somebody says, “The only way you can do it, Ministers, is by lots of Henry VIII clauses and lots of powers by secondary legislation”. “Okay, we will do it that way.” The irony of that, as I have said before from these Benches, is that an exercise that was intended to return sovereignty to this Parliament is becoming an exercise in returning power on an unprecedented scale to the Executive. I fear that, unless the Government come up with some new and ingenious proposals for dealing with this flood of legislation short of these broad powers, they will run into trouble time and again.

Of course, we want to get the bad guys, and there is always a temptation, especially if you are the Minister, to go for the Eliot Ness solution—how do we kick down the door and get at the bad guys?—but we cannot ignore a report such as that referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Go through every page of it. There is reference to the Henry VIII powers, but then:

“We do not consider it appropriate for ministers to have powers … We are concerned about the breadth of the power … We are deeply concerned that the power in clause 16”,


et cetera. It goes on right through the report. This is a really serious warning to Ministers and to Parliament from a very well-respected committee.

Of course, Whitehall does not have a pure record on this. Even in the days when we were simply transferring European law into our own law, there was a well-established practice in Whitehall to do a bit of gold-plating on the way and dig in a few regulations that people had wanted to get anyway. We have to resist this gold-plating. As I say, when someone such as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talks about “unjustifiable breadth”, and someone such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, talks about “a bonanza of regulations” and “extravagant powers”, it is not only the Committee that would be wise to take note; the Minister should as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I regard this amendment with considerable interest and look forward to hearing what the Minister says about it. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said that one of the reasons for inserting the words,

“the prevention of acts breaching human rights”,

was because the Government might in due course consider repealing the Human Rights Act or even departing from the convention. The Minister may confirm that it has always been the Government’s policy to protect human rights through a huge number of treaty obligations, whatever might be the position vis-à-vis the European convention. I am a little concerned that these amendments appear to constrain foreign policy objectives, which necessarily have to vary from time to time according to the particular objective that is sought. For the most part, they will comprehend and include the matters included in the amendment but it would be unwise to constrain foreign policy through these sorts of amendments.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I did not want to tempt myself to get up too soon. I appreciate what the noble Lord has just said but I was struck by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said—namely, that when using these powers the Government should proceed only with the fullest scrutiny. The amendments in this group, particularly those in my name and that of my noble friend, are designed not to limit the Government’s powers but to ensure that we scrutinise the Government’s actions. We want clarity on our commitment to humanitarian law and that we are implementing the international treaties to which we are signed up.

I am sure that the Minister will again ask whether these amendments are necessary, as he did on the first group of amendments. It could be argued that they are not. However, I argue that it is important that we state our beliefs in fundamental values, particularly human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance. A number of our allies and friends do not comply with those principles and we should be seen to be doing so. That is why we have tabled these amendments. We do not seek to limit but rather to empower Parliament and others to be able properly to scrutinise the powers that are used and measure them against the principles set out.

Amendment 7 asserts that when these powers are used the appropriate Minister must set out how sanctions are consistent with the UK’s objectives. Again, this is to enable effective scrutiny. The problem with executive powers is that often Governments simply assert them; they do not allow for proper scrutiny to measure their actions against the principles we set out. I hope that the Minister will put up a cogent argument. If he simply says, as the noble Lord did, that these amendments might be restrictive and are not necessary, I ask him to look carefully at Amendment 7 and ask what mechanisms can help improve scrutiny of the exercise of these powers and how we ensure that we can scrutinise them.

We heard in the previous debate that everything is going to be hunky dory because the House of Commons and the House of Lords will have a vote on statutory instruments, but we know that is a case of take it or leave it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, you can agree with 90% of something but how do you measure the other 10%? I want the reasoning to be set out more fully, not just in terms of having a vote on statutory instruments. I hope noble Lords will understand that we do not seek to include these words simply to make us feel better and that we are not doing so unnecessarily. We seek to include them to aid proper scrutiny of the powers exercised by the Executive.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 29th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is useful to have more precise definitions within the Bill, and it seems that the amendment seeks to tighten up the subsections which relate to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories, so that instead of a Minister being able by an Order in Council to add these areas, they are included in primary legislation. It makes sense to clarify that now and in primary legislation in this way to ensure that those whom the UK wishes to sanction cannot evade that sanction by association with these areas. If the UK is to leave the EU, it makes sense to tighten in this way.

The Minister will know that there is a meeting today of the Joint Ministerial Council at the Foreign Office with the overseas territories. Perhaps he could assure us that they would be content to be clearly within the same sanctions regime. I know that they will be less keen on aligning themselves with the UK on anti-money laundering measures; we will of course come to that later.

I also flag to the Minister that, in addition, the Law Society emphasises that guidance should be given on the terms in Clause 17, as well as those in Sections 2, 10, 15 and 46. It points out that in Clause 17 it is unclear whether the UK sanctions regime would apply,

“where UK currency is used, where a non-UK subsidiary of a UK company is involved, or where a UK person on the board of a non-UK company is present when a decision is taken in breach of the UK sanctions regime”.

It suggests that Clause 17 should be renamed “UK nexus” as its current subject matter does not deal sufficiently with “Extra-territorial application”.

It seems that further clarity is required on such issues. Clearly, it would be useful if stakeholders were properly consulted to assess the impact of the scope of application of the UK sanctions regime, simply to identify any unintended consequences. Clearly, intended consequences are fine. So this is a complicated area, but I hope that the Minister will take on board this advice.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I note the nature of the amendment and the final provisions in the Bill in Clause 51(3). I was at one stage a Minister with responsibility for the Crown dependencies, so I am acutely conscious of the particular constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies. As I understand it, we do not normally legislate without their express consent. I wonder whether that is why the Bill is framed as it is. However, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, talked about the Joint Ministerial Council; as a Minister for the Overseas Territories, today has been one of those days when I find myself shuttling between the Joint Ministerial Council and your Lordships’ House. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that this issue—and other elements that relate to the departure of the UK from the European Union—is very much on the agenda of our discussions with the overseas territories. Indeed, as we speak, my honourable friend Minister Walker is hosting a session with them on the implications of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. The noble Baroness raised issues on guidance and I will certainly take back the issue of where we can clarify certain elements.

I will pick up on a couple of points so I can clear them at the start. In his intervention, my noble friend Lord Faulks—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

The width of this power seems extraordinary and constitutionally offensive. As I understand the drafting of the Bill, it is open to a Minister to pass regulations which allow him to identify individuals on whom he can impose a sanction or prohibition that he has invented. What is more, the only restriction on him is that it must be for the purposes set out in Clause 2(1). If the Minister honestly believes that the invention of a new sanction or prohibition is justified by “a foreign policy objective” of the Government—for example, gaining support from one country by attacking its nationals in this country—the power given by Clause 39 would entitle them to invent a new prohibition and impose it by regulations. Furthermore, should any primary legislation stand in the way of a Minister inventing such a new prohibition that he or she believes is designed to promote a foreign policy objective, that primary legislation can be amended to get rid of an objection by the very same regulations under Clause 44(2). That a Minister could do by secondary legislation such a thing—for example, restrict somebody’s spending their own money, prevent them leaving their home, take away their car or stop certain sorts of bank account being used—without primary legislation strikes me as well beyond what any responsible Government would think should be done by secondary legislation. Can the Minister confirm that my analysis of what could theoretically be done is right, and explain why it is appropriate that that be done by secondary legislation?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble and learned Lord puts a rather sinister construction on this clause. I do not want to add to my noble friend’s discomfort, but I need some persuading that Clause 39 is necessary given the width and nature of the sanctions and the purposes. It was important that the Government resisted the attempt to narrow “a foreign policy objective”, which was an amendment that we debated on the previous occasion, but “a foreign policy objective” gives the Government quite a lot of room for manoeuvre having identified an appropriate sanction. While I suspect that Clause 39 was inserted as a “just in case” provision rather than to give Ministers extraordinary power of the sort that has been discovered, it nevertheless remains at least open in theory to a Minister to exercise power in a way I think all noble Lords find difficult to accept.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I intervene only to say this: I did not suggest that the motive of the Government was to do this. My experience as a Minister is that you put through legislation and many years later, after emollient assurances given in the House of Lords, those pesky lawyers look at what is possible under the Act. What I have described is possible. Let us imagine if those very same pesky lawyers said, “Well, you might have difficulty getting that through with primary legislation because of the extraordinary width of the powers, but actually we’ve found these rather clever powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill which allow you to do it without primary legislation”. That is the danger.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his comments. He has set me a test here: normally I rely on his powers of persuasion and arguments rather than my own, but on this occasion I will take up the challenge and hope to persuade the Minister why Amendment 3 is important. I was rather hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, would jump up before me; I am sure he will jump up after me, because he made comments about this in Committee.

I stress that this is not just about adding words for words’ sake; it is not just about being nice, kind and positive. These words are very important in one vital respect. The Bill—we have heard much criticism of this—is heavily reliant on regulation and the Executive taking powers. We have received many assurances from the Minister that they will use these powers wisely and that Parliament will anyway have the opportunity properly to scrutinise secondary legislation.

These words are important because, when Parliament scrutinises secondary legislation, it must know what it is judging the Government’s actions against. It cannot have vague definitions. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said in Committee: that we do not want to limit the powers of the Executive when it comes to foreign policy matters. These words do not limit, they enable. They enable Parliament to do its job of properly scrutinising regulations proposed under the Bill. Is it meeting the clear objectives that we set ourselves, which we all share, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said in relation to human rights?

The Minister assured the Committee that the Government,

“do not take their human rights responsibilities lightly … the UK has been a bastion and a beacon for human rights. That should and will remain a cornerstone of British foreign policy in years to come”.—[Official Report, 21/11/17; col. 123.]

That is a powerful argument why we should include these words, because it is about being consistent in future. If I were to be slightly partisan—and I am not usually in these matters, as the Minister knows—there have been doubts about the Government’s commitment, and certainly that of the Conservative Party, to the European Convention on Human Rights, and I want to put it beyond doubt that we are wholeheartedly committed to this vital element of our foreign policy. It is, as the Minister said, the cornerstone. I very much hope that he will think hard about accepting the amendment. It would not cause too much pain, because he is already committed to the principle. It is about how these words can help future scrutiny. If he is unable to accept the amendment, I will certainly wish to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Collins, by not intervening, albeit briefly, in this debate. My difficulty comes not with the way that the noble Lord and others have expressed their various objectives, which one would expect to be part of the Government’s approach to sanctions generally. I am concerned by the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, wants to exclude the specific reference to a foreign policy objective. I return to what I said in Committee, which was that it is important that we accept that foreign policy does not remain entirely stable and standing: there are always changes in the world and foreign policy objectives may vary from time to time. The danger of including these albeit admirable objectives is that there might conceivably be a construction placed on the relevant provision which is that foreign policy is not adequately reflected by the provisions.

I prefer the way the Bill is expressed, which gives the necessary flexibility. While I do not differ on the objectives, I differ on the amendments.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Can I just ask my noble friend a question, and apologise to your Lordships that I was not involved in earlier stages of this legislation? Was there ever a time when, in deciding on sanctions policy, we did so other than in alliance with other nations? Unilateral sanctions can always be evaded, and even collective sanctions, when they are only from the west, can be nullified by actions by China, Russia and other Asian powers, for instance. Is not the practical situation one in which we have to take account of our allies and the broad consensus of agreement with them on whether sanctions are justified, or are there individual unilateral instances that I may have missed?

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, given that I have been named here and therefore have a key interest, I ought to address this in case I get sanctioned in the place of another Baroness Northover. I am sure my kids would think that was an extremely interesting situation for me, but I am not sure that I would. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has made a very powerful case on this matter, as he did in Committee. If an error is made with a designation as a result of UN sanctions being imposed then, as he said, the ECJ could, at the moment, protect that person within the EU and allow it to be challenged. There clearly should be a way of doing this. As the noble Lord said, it is a matter of the rule of law.

We have been told that the rights of British citizens will not be lessened if we leave the EU. This protection should, therefore, be carried over into British law. I clearly have an interest here and I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I was present in the Chamber and listened to the debate when this matter was debated in Committee, although the amendment has changed slightly. Since then, I have read and considered the arguments. At the time, I was persuaded that, on balance, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was right and the absence of such a power as is envisaged by the amendment was a real risk of injustice. However, I have changed my mind. It is, of course, fundamentally important that we respect our treaty obligations, particularly Article 103 of the UN charter. What higher obligation could there be?

The UN, in common with all international institutions, is not infallible. For example, we know that the European Court of Justice, which we must obey, and the European Court of Human Rights are not infallible. However, sometimes there is a need to subsume individual, national needs into the need for an overall, international understanding. It is vital that we respect the decisions on sanctions that have been made by the UN. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we can influence those. The Human Rights Council, to which my noble friend referred, can of course make mistakes, but it is undesirable that individual countries can pick and choose which sanctions they want to follow. I look forward with interest to hearing what the party opposite says about our relationship with the UN.

The Secretary of State can, and should, use his best endeavours in appropriate circumstances to try to influence matters, and can be told to do so by the court, but this goes further. Although the amendment has precursors to the exercise of the power, it does ultimately give the court the power to set aside the decision of the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, says that this is a rule-of-law issue. It is indeed; it is a rule of international law and international comity, so I am afraid I cannot support the amendment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have no legal background, but I want to intervene quickly to pick up an issue which has been treated as almost in passing. I understand that the United Nations entirely accepts that the European Court of Justice can provide the kind of protection that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has described as being contained within the amendment. If I happen to be Russia, China or some country that wishes to abuse a correct designation by the United Nations, I have the European Union and the ECJ as my example of an entity that does take upon itself the right to provide protection where it believes the UN is in error. Allowing citizens of the United Kingdom to have that same protection adds no particular strength to any such position that might be taken by some other power. We have heard a deep commitment from the Government that exiting the European Union will not reduce the rights and protections that have been provided to British citizens through the mechanism of the ECJ. There can, therefore, be no challenge to the appropriateness of the measure which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has put before this House.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Faulks Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, when I studied the amendment that my noble friend on the Front Bench tabled, I was concerned about the expression “overseas entities”, so I went to the dictionary and looked up “entities”. The Bill does not use the terminology “overseas entities” anywhere, nor do any of the proposed amendments, so it is unclear what it means except in the ordinary meaning of the words; that is, they may apply to structures or arrangements that have legal personality and are not formed in the United Kingdom. My noble friend on the Front Bench made it clear that the Bill does not intend to single out the overseas territories but would apply to all entities registered in all jurisdictions around the world.

I do not believe that it is the United Kingdom Government’s intention to allow the power in proposed new subsection (6)(b) to be infinitely broad. My interpretation is that it is an attempt to refer to entities for which the Government launched a consultation in April 2017. It was called the OCBO register at one point; it has also been called the register of OLEs. This extends to overseas entities that are legal owners of UK real estate or that enter into contracts with UK public authorities. As such, it seems aimed primarily at entities used by certain Middle Eastern investors to purchase London real estate.

However, as I understand it, the Government have yet to respond to that consultation with details as to precisely which activities should or should not be captured. There seems still to be degree of indecision. As a result, I hurriedly put down an amendment, which is why it is starred on the Marshalled List.

There is a concern on my part and, I imagine, that of others, that the Government may be attempting through this amendment to give themselves latitude to decide the precise definition at a later date. I hope that that is not the case, but there seems a possibility as the Bill stands at the moment. Either I will withdraw the amendment if I receive a reassurance from my noble friend or it may be left to the Commons to put down a precise amendment to cover this slight difficulty that I and others foresee. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I was responsible for putting down the amendment which I think provoked this amendment to the Bill. As many noble Lords may remember, the background was anxiety expressed around the House about the fact that large parts of central London and outside London were being bought up by legal entities and companies, often with money laundered proceeds of crime and corruption—it is an increasing problem. Although the Government had committed to set up a register, they were taking some time about doing it and the attempt was to bring matters forward.

I am glad that my noble friend was able to give reassurance to the House that the register would be coming forward and that a Bill would be drafted, and indeed went further by promising that there would be regular reporting about progress. That, as I understand it, is the purport of proposed new subsection (3).

I am sorry that I have banged on about this issue for some time—throughout the passage of Criminal Finances Act, through Questions and through the course of this Bill—but I remain unrepentant. I was particularly reassured about this when I attended a lecture given by the distinguished author and journalist Misha Glenny on Monday. He has spent 10 years or so studying international crime and money laundering and is the author of the book McMafia, which is now the basis of a successful television series. He outlined for the audience the scale of money laundering throughout the world, principally following the collapse of communism, and how it has spread to all sorts of jurisdictions, the United Kingdom being one in principle. He showed the audience a map of central London showing the extent to which prime London property is now owned by kleptocrats: let us not beat about the bush—that is the position. He said, however, that worldwide there is a feeling that we should be fighting back against this appalling scourge of money laundering. He identified the most effective way this country could do this as being to set up a register to make sure that nobody could hide behind the cloak of anonymity and thus be able to launder the proceeds of crime through central London property. This is why this remains an important procedure.

I am very glad that the Government are committed to doing what they said they will do. I will be keeping the Government up to the mark, as I am sure other noble Lords will. My noble friend Lord Hodgson has one query about the amendment. Subject, of course, to the clarification that my noble friend Lord Naseby seeks, I join others in thanking the Minister and his Bill team for their co-operation on this issue and on all issues. My real sense in dealing with the Bill is that it is not a party political exercise at all; there is a real cross-party endeavour to make sure that this is as effective as possible.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to various amendments on this issue, going back to the Criminal Finances Act last April, and I add my thanks to my noble friend for having listened so intently and for having tabled Amendment 3, which we are debating this afternoon. As I prepared for this discussion in Committee, I raised a couple of points with his office. As ever, he and his office were punctilious in responding, but some clarification might be helpful for those of us who are not as accustomed and learned in the law as others are.

The first issue concerns commencement. Originally, reading this through, it appeared to fall under a clause where the commencement was set by the Secretary of State and that was the trigger for the 12-month clock. I was concerned that we might have a delay in the Secretary of State triggering this clause: it was not in Clause 54. The commencement of each clause is set down, but the commencement might be delayed. The Minister’s office pointed out that Amendment 5 triggers the clock on Royal Assent. It would be helpful if he could make that clear. It would also be helpful if he could say when he expects Royal Assent to take place, although I quite understand that he cannot give a commitment. If Royal Assent is delayed, let us say through the summer, it might be nearly two years before we get the first report: if commencement were to start in August or September, it would be September 2019 before we get news of any progress whatever. So it would be helpful to the House if my noble friend, either now or by writing to those of us who have been involved in the proceedings on this Bill, will say how and when he expects the clock to start ticking.

My second point concerns an omission in the words of Amendment 3, which we are debating. When my noble friend Lord Faulks and I tabled Amendment 75 —and earlier amendments—it did not cover just a register of companies and other legal entities registered outside the UK that own or buy UK property but also covered those which,

“bid for UK government contracts”.

Those words do not appear in the amendment before us today. My noble friend’s officials have drawn my attention to, and indeed he has mentioned, the Written Ministerial Statement, tabled today, that commits the Government to dealing with a public register of beneficial owners of non-UK entities that own or buy UK property or which participate in UK government procurement. So, that is covered in the statement, but it is disappointing that we do not have it in the Bill, which is where we started and what we hoped for when we set out on this long and rather stony road.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Faulks Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on this most welcome all-party initiative and all those who have joined in with it. I hope it will not now take a long time to implement. Perhaps the Minister can give us some indication of the Government’s current thinking on this so that it can be done as soon as possible. I hope also that the Government will commit to encouraging other countries, perhaps in the Commonwealth and certainly in the EU, to follow our example and those of, yes, the US, Canada, Lithuania and Estonia.

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, rightly said. These matters were a concern across party in both the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House. The Magnitsky law was somewhat incomplete after the Criminal Finances Bill was enacted, and this is a necessary completion of those reforms. I share the noble Lord’s concern that, in our enthusiasm, we must not lose sight of the need for safeguards. This measure seems to be welcome not only here but in a number of other jurisdictions, and I agree that we should continue to do all we can to encourage its take-up worldwide.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, we, too, welcome Amendment 1 and the consequential amendments, which are the concession made by the Government in the Commons explicitly to include gross human rights abuses in the Bill, recognising the vote in the House of Lords led by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others. We also welcome Amendment 16, which deals with the concern raised by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We also welcome Amendment 17, requiring the Government to make periodic reports on the use of powers to make sanctions. How frequently may those occur and what form may they take? Most of all, I thank the Government for listening to the views expressed here and hope that we can take heart in relation to other legislation and votes we have seen in recent times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I am a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Gibraltar, which, apart from one brief mention by the Minister, has not been so far commented on. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I wondered, as between the United Kingdom and many of the overseas territories, where the mote and the beam lay. I will not pursue that any further, but I think that it may be where the noble Lord may not appreciate that it is.

Gibraltar is entirely compliant with all the current requirements. It is bringing a public register into its law early next year. It is unnecessary, unhelpful and inappropriate that Gibraltar should be held under the clause proposed in Amendment 22. It is not an appropriate way in which to deal, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, have already said, with a country that has had its own constitution since 2006 and is entirely compliant. It is sad to find that countries such as Gibraltar should be under a proposed regime that would interfere with its constitution, as has already been set out.

It is obvious that what should have happened—it seems to me that the Minister was making it very clear—is that there should be encouragement to those countries that are not yet sufficiently compliant. However, that does not apply to any of the countries that have so far been referred to. It is very sad indeed that the way in which the other place has behaved on this matter brings us to this unhappy situation, pointed out so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I think that the noble and learned Baroness is quite right with her mote and beam analogy. We must think about London, as my noble friend Lord Naseby, said. In 2016, David Cameron announced his intention in respect of anti-corruption and a register of beneficial interests. Since then we have had the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and this Bill. In both of those, my noble friend Lord Hodgson and I were keen to ensure that the Government did their best to stem the flood of dirty money, particularly into property money in London, by setting up a register of beneficial ownership which, when combined with unexplained wealth orders, might really do something to prevent what is a real obscenity about London property at the moment. So much money is flooding into the market yet so few people who start their work in London can afford to live. That is the mote that we have in London.

I wanted to press the matter to a vote, because our intention was to hurry this up, but I was met with formidable opposition from the Government, explaining how difficult the whole thing was. Finally, just before a vote might otherwise have taken place, I was reassured that there was much activity in this regard and there would be regular updates and a ministerial Statement. Sadly, the earliest the register would be legislation-ready was 2021—so five years after David Cameron’s summit. Here we have an amendment put down in the Commons after very little of the preliminaries, as has been quite rightly pointed out, with no consultation and nothing of the sort that one would expect with such a radical procedure. It states:

“The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 December 2020, prepare a draft Order in Council”.


It is a “must”, not a “may”. The only part of this amendment which is, perhaps, acceptable, is the very first part, describing the reasonable assistance to be given to the Governments of the British Overseas Territories. However, I apprehend that that is being—and has been—given for some considerable time. I disagree with my noble friend Lord Naseby on only one point: the Minister, not only today but in responding to the amendment so eloquently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on Report, vigorously defended the position of the Government and of the British Overseas Territories in their attempt to comply with the natural desire that we all have to stamp out corruption.

This amendment goes on to require an Order in Council to be laid before Parliament, but then provides that it ceases to have effect,

“if not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the end of 28 days”.

I wonder if a resolution of that sort would meet with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, having regard to the hasty way in which this amendment was introduced and to the real difficulties that it will cause to our friends in the British Overseas Territories.

This amendment is ill thought out, no doubt born out of an entirely proper desire to stem the flood of corruption. However, in so doing it damages our relationship with the British Overseas Territories at a time when we need all the friends we can get outside this country. The amendment asks them to do what is required in a timeframe which is much shorter than that for this country: the mote and beam analogy is entirely appropriate.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register of the House, particularly those in respect of financial services. I support Amendment 22A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. How well we know what a stramash would result if Westminster sought to legislate for Scotland, in a matter of devolved competence, without even consulting the Scottish Parliament. Parliament developed the Sewel convention to cope with this very situation. We have heard, in a very powerful speech, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and others just how this convention now expressly extends to our overseas territories.

The overseas territories are proud and sophisticated countries and deserve our respect. Constitutionally, our respect includes conventions. Money laundering is, rightly, a devolved matter for them. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands are large and sophisticated financial centres with well-respected regulators. Accordingly, to legislate without even consulting these Parliaments is conventionally wrong. This is why I feel that the Sewel convention should apply. Westminster has the power to intervene and should exercise this only when things are badly awry. However, evidence of “awryness” is, in fact, the other way.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, Pierre Moscovici delivered a report last year, and this was adopted by the European Council on 5 December. On page 5 of that 35-page report, the Council affirms that,

“these actions collectively taken by EU Member States are in line with the agenda promoted by the G20, the OECD and other international fora”.

None of the overseas territories is on the blacklist.

Annexe 2 of the adopted conclusions, which was updated twice in March this year, lists countries in various categories that have agreed to make changes by the end of this year; it is a large list. In other words, provided that changes are made by those countries, in the EU Council’s view they will be fully compliant with EU, G20 and OECD thinking in this area. Only four of the 14 overseas territories feature on the list of co-operative countries. The other 10 do not; in other words, they are absolutely clean in the eyes of Pierre Moscovici and his very substantial and hard-working staff. In that respect, the 10 that are clean are doing rather better than Switzerland or Hong Kong, which both appear on the list. Indeed, 29 countries are making changes to improve transparency; none of the overseas territories is listed. Twenty-seven countries are making changes to anti-BEPs measures, which are sophisticated corporate tax dodges; none of the overseas territories is listed. Twenty-eight countries, including Switzerland and Hong Kong, are making changes to amend or abolish harmful tax regimes. None of the overseas territories is listed. Nine countries, including Bermuda, Anguilla, the BVI and the Cayman Islands, have agreed to,

“address concerns relating to economic substance”.

Among those nine countries are Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, the only time their names appear in the annexe at all. Those three islands do not appear in the Commons amendment and, as other noble Lords have observed, I cannot believe that is fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. We have been talking about money flowing out. We have had debates elsewhere. I have also spent time working in Gibraltar and I know that on financial matters—Bermuda is another good example—it has built its reputation on having proper transparency and controls. That is what we need to establish: that there is a good way of doing this that will help expand the industry. Reputational interests are incredibly important.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, is absolutely right that we do have time; the point was also addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. We have had some considerable time already on this issue, but we have time to ensure that we can get everybody on board with this principle. The only way we will get global agreement is for the United Kingdom to go into those international fora and say, “No more—we need transparency”, because transparency is what will ensure that we can find all those activities, particularly tax avoidance.

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord says that we have time. I understand why he says that. But the provision of the new clause says that all this must be done—the Order in Council must be drafted—no later than 31 December 2020. Is he satisfied that that is sufficient time, given the complexities?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Since David Cameron first made this commitment in 2013, there has been a substantial amount of time. When people say, “When will this come into effect? Will it be done by regulation? What is the commencement date?”, all these things are important considerations, but what the world sees, what the public see—what the citizens of developing countries have seen—is that this country makes a declaration in 2013 and by 2020 nothing has happened. That is what Parliament decided; that is what the debate in the other place was about. I stress that the debate saw cross-party concern about this issue. They know that the court of public opinion will judge this Parliament if we fail to act on the biggest problem that the world faces.

We have had debates in this Chamber about ODA and development support. I have argued that we should create a world where people are self-sufficient; we do not want people to be dependent on aid, but we are giving the means for that aid to be spirited away. That is what we need to stop.