Migration and Economic Development

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

The judgment is very clear that our arrangement, under which people will be relocated to Rwanda for their asylum claim to be processed and for them to be resettled there, has been found to be lawful. There was an extensive analysis of all the potential legal claims that could render it unlawful, and the Home Office won.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for responding to questions for more than 50 minutes.

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

With the leave of the House, I wish to thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. It is incredibly pleasing to have secured the support of everybody who has spoken, including, not least, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on behalf of the Opposition, as well as Members on the Conservative Benches. I will not rehash the arguments that I made earlier, other than to say that I really think that the Bill will make a difference when it comes to combatting rural crime and other forms of equipment theft into the future. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Minister to make that happen and to get the Bill on the statute book.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) for his support and back-up on this. He has worked alongside me, not least in the discussions that we had the other week with farmers from our respective constituencies. His roll-call of equipment that he used in his farming days was insightful. I just hope that, given recent controversies, no one felt the need to google any of it during the course of the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), in her clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill, gave the perfect audition for the Bill Committee. Many other hon. and right hon. Members spoke in this debate, and I am grateful to each and every one of them for their support. To finish, from the multiple references to Fabergé eggs from my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy), I think we know what is on his list to Father Christmas this year. I thank the House and look forward to continuing to pilot this Bill through Committee and beyond.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Congratulations, Mr Smith. Having represented an agricultural constituency for more than 30 years and had many reports of theft of equipment from farms during that period of time, I know that the farmers of the Ribble Valley will be very interested in this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

National Security Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Offence of failing to declare participation in arrangement required to be registered.—

“(1) A person who carries out an activity, or arranges for an activity to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to—

(a) a foreign activity arrangement required to be registered under section 61(1), or

(b) a foreign influence arrangement required to be registered under section 64(1)

must declare that they are party to the arrangement, when making a communication to those in section 65(2)(a)(i) to (vi).

(2) A person who breaches the requirement in subsection (1) commits an offence.”

This new clause makes it an offence for a person to engage in activity pursuant to a foreign activity or foreign influence arrangement which is required to be registered, if the person does not declare that they are party to the arrangement when communicating with those in section 65(2)(a)(i) to (vi).

New clause 2—ffence of carrying out activities under a foreign activity arrangements: Disqualification from Parliament—

“(1) A person who is a Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords commits an offence if—

(a) the person carries out an activity, or arranges for an activity to be carried out, in the United Kingdom pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement, and

(b) the persons knows, or ought reasonably to know, that they are acting under the direction of a specified person.

(2) A person who is found guilty of an offence under subsection (1), and is a Member of the House of Commons, is disqualified from membership of the House of Commons.

(3) A person who is found guilty of an offence under subsection (1), and is a Member of the House of Lords, is disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords, and sitting or voting in a committee of the House of Lords or a joint committee of both Houses.

(4) In this section, “foreign activity arrangement” has the same meaning as in section 61(2).”

This new clause would automatically disbar Members of the House of Commons and Lords who are found guilty of engaging in an activity pursuant to a foreign activity arrangement, where the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that they are acting under the direction of a specified person.

New clause 3—Reviews of Parts 1, 4 and 5—

‘(1) The operation of Parts 1, 4 and 5 of this Act must be reviewed by a person, or people, appointed by the Secretary of State.

(2) The operation of Part 4 must be reviewed by the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006.

(3) The operation of Parts 1 and 5 must be reviewed by either—

(a) the person appointed by the Secretary of State under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006, or

(b) a different person appointed by the Secretary of State.

(4) Reviews under this section must be carried out in respect of—

(a) the 12-month period beginning with the day on which any section in this Part comes into force, and

(b) each subsequent 12-month period.

(5) Each review under subsection (1) must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the period to which it relates.

(6) The person or people mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.

(7) On receiving a report under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.

(8) Section 36(6) of the Terrorism Act 2006 shall be read such that the “expenses” and “allowances” mentioned therein may include the discharge by the person or people of their functions under this section.’

New clause 4—Reporting on disinformation originating from foreign powers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person or body to review the extent of disinformation originating from foreign powers which presents a threat, or potential threat, to national security.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the extent of foreign interference in elections.

(3) A review under subsection (1) may include—

(a) examining the number and scale of offences committed, and estimating the number and scale of instances where an offence is suspected to have been committed, under—

(i) section 13, where Condition C is met, and

(ii) section 14,

and,

(b) any other matters the person or body considers relevant to the matters mentioned in subsections (1) and (2).

(4) The person or body appointed under subsection (1) may be the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, or another person or body the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) A review must be carried out under this section in respect of—

(a) the 12-month period beginning with the day on which section 13 comes into force, and

(b) each subsequent 12-month period.

(6) Each review under this section must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the period to which it relates.

(7) The person or body must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under this section as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.

(8) On receiving a report under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.

(9) The Secretary of State may pay to the person or body—

(a) expenses incurred in carrying out the functions of the reviewer under this section, and

(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines, except where financial provision is already made to the person or body for the discharge of the person or body’s functions, of which this section may form part.”

New clause 5—Proceedings relating to safety or interests of the United Kingdom—

“(1) This section applies where a court is considering proceedings under Part 1 of this Act, where the proceedings involve the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

(2) In proceedings to which this section applies, the court must take account of how the interests of the Secretary of State or of the Government of the United Kingdom may differ from the interests of the United Kingdom, in order to satisfy itself that the interests of the United Kingdom have been appropriately identified and considered.”

New clause 6—Ministerial conduct—

“(1) This section applies in relation to any Minister of the Crown who engages with, or intends to engage with, or ought reasonably to know that they are about to engage with, a person who is a part of a foreign intelligence service.

(2) A Minister of the Crown may only engage with such a person if either of the following conditions are met—

(a) a senior civil servant is formally present at or party to the engagement, and a formal record of the engagement has been made by the senior civil servant; or

(b) a senior civil servant is not formally present at or party to the engagement, and a formal record of the engagement has not been made by a senior civil servant, but the written consent of the Prime Minister has been sought by the Minister of the Crown, and has been granted and formally recorded in writing.

(3) In this section “engagement” includes meeting in person or via electronic means, and corresponding in writing or via electronic means.”

New clause 7—Requirement to inform public of prohibited places—

“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision so as to ensure that the public are given sufficient notice—

(a) that a location is a prohibited place within the meaning of section 7;

(b) of the circumstances in which an offence may be committed under sections 4 to 6 in respect of that prohibited place.”

This new clause would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the public to be given notice of prohibited places and the conduct which would amount to a criminal offence in relation to them.

New clause 11—Home Office review of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa scheme—

“Within two weeks of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish any findings of the Home Office review of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa scheme which relate to foreign influence activity.”

New clause 12—Report on actions taken in response to the ISC report on Russia—

“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the effect of the action taken by the Government in response to the recommendations of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament on Russia (HC 632 of Session 2019–21).”

New clause 13—Ministerial appointments: official advice—

“(1) The Cabinet Secretary must publish a memorandum in respect of any ministerial appointments made by the Prime Minister, where advice or concerns were communicated to the Prime Minister by civil servants that the appointment may be counter to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

(2) A memorandum under this section must set out that advice or concerns were communicated to the Prime Minister by civil servants, and in respect of which ministerial appointments.

(3) A memorandum under this section may not include details of the advice or concerns, where the Cabinet Secretary considers that inclusion of those details may be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”

New clause 14—Report requirement: Protecting democratic institutions and processes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report, as soon as practicable after the end of—

(a) the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and

(b) every subsequent 12-month period,

on his assessment of the impact sections 13 and 14 of this Act have had on protecting the integrity of the UK’s democratic processes.

(2) In this section “democratic processes” includes local democracy.”

Amendment 116, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “safety or” insert “critical”.

This amendment seeks to clarify the tests to be met before the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information is committed.

Amendment 17, page 1, line 15, after “article” insert “with a Government Security Classification of Secret or Top Secret”.

This amendment would confine the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information to information that has been classified as secret or top secret (rather than to all information access to which is restricted in any way).

Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert “(ca) the person’s conduct is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and”.

This amendment would narrow the scope of the offence of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets so that it applies only to trade secrets that would prejudice the safety or interests of the UK.

Amendment 117, page 3, line 1 , after “national” insert “, a UK resident, or a person in the employment of a UK person as defined in paragraphs (b) or (c)”.

Government amendments 40 to 42.

Amendment 19, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, after “Kingdom” insert “which are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

This amendment would narrow the scope of the offence of assisting a foreign intelligence service in respect of activities within the UK so that it applies only to assistance that would prejudice the safety or interests of the UK (rather than to assistance of any kind).

Government amendment 43.

Amendment 119, page 4, line 7, at end insert—

“(aa) with the knowledge and consent of the UK security and intelligence services,”.

This amendment would clarify that activities undertaken with the knowledge and consent of the UK security and intelligence services would not constitute a criminal offence under this clause alone.

Amendment 120, in clause 4, page 5, line 17, at end insert—

“(7) No offence is committed under (1) if the conduct is for the purposes of protest, unless the conduct is prejudicial to the safety of the United Kingdom.”.

This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which access to a prohibited place for the purposes of protest would amount to an offence under this clause.

Amendment 20, in clause 5, page 5, line 25, at end insert—

“(ba) the conduct is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom,”.

This amendment would confine the offence of unauthorised entry etc to a prohibited place so that it applies only to entry etc that is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK.

Amendment 133, page 5, line 33, leave out “includes” and insert “may, depending on the circumstances, include”.

This amendment would mean taking a photograph or other recording of a prohibited place was not automatically a criminal offence of inspecting that place, but would depend on the circumstances.

Amendment 21, in clause 6, page 6, line 17, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment would remove the power of the police to order a person to leave an area “adjacent to” a prohibited place.

Amendment 22, page 6, line 28, after “(2)” insert “, (a)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 23.

Amendment 23, page 6, line 30, after “Kingdom” insert “, and (b) without prior authorisation by an officer of at least the rank of Inspector, unless obtaining that authorisation is not reasonably practicable”.

This amendment would impose a requirement that a police officer obtains authorisation from a more senior officer before exercising powers under clause 6.

Amendment 24, page 6, line 32 at end insert “which was necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom and proportionate to that aim.”

This amendment would narrow the offence of failing to comply with an order made by a police constable in relation to a prohibited place so that it applies only to an order that was necessary and proportionate to protecting the safety or interests of the UK.

Amendment 25, in clause 7, page 6, line 37, after “means” insert “a place, entry to which could pose a risk to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and which is”

This amendment would narrow the definition of prohibited place so that it applies only to locations relevant to the safety and interests of the United Kingdom (rather than any Ministry of Defence land).

Government amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 121, in clause 8, page 8, line 21, leave out “or interests”.

This amendment would restrict the power to designate additional prohibited places by regulation to where it was necessary to protect the safety of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 10, line 8, leave out paragraph (c).

Government amendments 46 and 47.

Amendment 14, page 20, line 35, leave out clause 27

Government amendments 48 and 49.

Amendment 124, in clause 28, page 21, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) However, the conduct in question, or a course of conduct of which it forms part, is not to be treated as carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power if financial or other assistance of a foreign power under (2)(c) is provided otherwise than specifically for the conduct or course of conduct.”

This amendment ensures that organisations that receive funding from foreign powers are not guilty of offences under this act if that funding was not for the conduct or course of conduct that would otherwise amount to the offence.

Amendment 30, in clause 30, page 22, line 40, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment would narrow the definition of foreign power threat activity to remove giving support and assistance (including that unrelated to espionage activity) to a person known or believed to be involved in offences under the Bill (but would retain conduct which facilitates or is intended to facilitate such offending).

Government amendment 50.

Amendment 118, in clause 31, page 23, line 25, at end insert—

““critical interests of the United Kingdom” include security and intelligence, defence, international relations, law and order, public health and economic interests;”.

This amendment seeks to clarify the tests to be met before the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information is committed.

Amendment 125, in clause 37, page 26, line 25, leave out “reasonably believes” and insert “believes on the balance of probabilities”.

This amendment would apply the usual civil standard of proof in relation to decision to impose Prevention and Investigation Measures.

Amendment 126, in clause 38, page 27, line 35, leave out “four” and insert “two”.

This amendment would mean the Secretary of State could seek to extend a part 2 notice on two occasions rather than four.

Amendment 31, in clause 43, page 30, line 21, leave out from beginning to “before” in line 22 and insert “The chief officer of the appropriate police force must confirm to the Secretary of State that the condition in subsection (2) is satisfied before”.

This amendment, together with amendments 16 to 18, would require the Secretary of State to receive confirmation from the police that prosecution is not realistic before imposing a PIM, rather than requiring only a consultation on the subject.

Amendment 33, page 30, line 28, leave out “The matter is whether there is” and insert “The condition is that there is not”.

Amendment 34, page 31, line 14, leave out “responding to consultation” and insert “providing confirmation”.

Amendment 32, page 31, line 26, leave out “(1) or”.

Amendment 35, in clause 53, page 38, line 13, leave out “this Part” and insert “Part 1 and Part 2”.

This amendment would extend the review function of the Independent Reviewer to cover Part 1 of the Bill in addition to Part 2.

Amendment 3, in clause 58, page 41, line 8, at end insert—

“(2) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out how the Secretary of State intends to exercise the power under this section. The statement must include a list of illustrative examples of the kinds of contracts or other arrangements this power relates to.”

Government amendments 61 and 62.

Amendment 130, in clause 61, page 43, line 19, after “P” insert “, whether directly or through intermediaries”.

This amendment would make clear that those making a foreign activity arrangement via intermediaries, would be required to register the arrangement.

Government motion to transfer subsection (2) of clause 61.

Government amendments 63 to 65.

Government motion to divide clause 61.

Government amendments 66 to 74.

Government motion to transfer subsection (2) of clause 64.

Government amendments 75 to 83.

Government motion to divide clause 64.

Government amendments 84 to 94.

Amendment 15, in clause 68, page 48, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 16, page 48, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).

Government amendments 95 to 101.

Amendment 131, in clause 70, page 51, line 10, at end insert—

“(3A) The information required of the person to whom an information notice is given must be limited to information the Secretary of State deems reasonably necessary to ensure the person is complying with the requirements of this Part.”

This amendment would place restrictions on the type of information the Secretary of State can require under clause 70.

Government amendments 102 to 108.

Amendment 1, in clause 75, page 53, line 39, at end insert—

“(h) an offence under section [Offence of failing to declare participation in arrangement required to be registered] committed in relation to a foreign activity arrangement required to be registered under section 61(1).”.

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

Government amendment 109.

Amendment 2, page 54, line 23, at end insert—

“(h) an offence under section [Offence of failing to declare participation in arrangement required to be registered] committed in relation to a foreign influence arrangement required to be registered under section 64(1) .”.

This amendment is consequential on NC1.

Government amendments 110 to 112.

Amendment 8, Page 56, line 4, leave out Clause 79.

Amendment 9, Page 56, line 26, leave out Clause 80.

Amendment 36, in clause 80, page 56, line 31, at end insert—

“(ba) the court is satisfied that any damages awarded to the claimant in those proceedings are likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism,”.

This amendment would remove the duty on the court to consider reducing damages in clause 58, unless the court considered the damages were likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism.

Government amendments 51 to 53.

Amendment 37, page 57, line 18, at end insert “or which it would award under section 8 of that Act had the claim been brought under it.”.

This amendment would prevent the reduction of damages in claims that could have been brought as a human rights claim under the HRA 1998 but were in fact brought on other grounds.

Amendment 10, page 57, line 30, leave out clause 81.

Amendment 11, page 58, line 5, leave out clause 82.

Amendment 12, Page 59, line 10, leave out clause 83.

Amendment 38, Page 59, line 14, leave out clause 84.

This amendment, together with Amendment 39, would remove the proposed limits on access to legal aid for persons with a conviction for a terrorism offence and the consequential power to make information requests related to those limits.

Amendment 5, in clause 84, page 59, line 29, leave out “F” and insert “G”.

Amendment 6, page 60, line 11, at end insert—

“(7A) Condition G is met where the offender is seeking legal aid for the purposes of—

(a) pursuing a civil order, where the purpose of the order is to protect a victim of domestic abuse, or

(b) participating in family court proceedings, and where the offender is a victim of domestic abuse.”.

Amendment 7, page 61, line 6, at end insert—

“”domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;”

Amendment 39, page 61, line 15, leave out clause 85.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 38.

Government amendment 113.

Government new schedule 1—Control of a person by a foreign power.

Government new schedule 2—Exemptions.

Amendment 128, schedule 3, page 88, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

This amendment would prevent a disclosure order from having effect where disclosure is protected by an enactment.

Amendment 129, schedule 4, page 94, line 29, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (b), and insert—

“(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that information which may be provided in compliance with a requirement imposed under the order is likely to be of substantial value, whether by itself or with other information, to the investigation; and

(c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the information to be provided, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the information is obtained.”

This amendment would require the court to be satisfied of the same tests for customer information notices as set out in relation to disclosure orders in Schedule 3.

Government amendment 54.

Amendment 4, schedule 6, page 100, line 19, at end insert—

“(1A) A place designated by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (1) must be subject to an independent inspection by—

(a) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, or

(b) a different person or body appointed by the Secretary of State.”.

Government amendment 55.

Amendment 27, page 104, line 12, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).

This amendment would prevent it being permissible to delay informing a named person of an individual’s detention under clause 21, or that individual consulting a solicitor, for the purposes of asset recovery.

Amendment 123, page 112, line 13, leave out from “if” to the end of line 20, and insert “the person has previously been convicted of an offence under this Act.”

This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which fingerprints and samples from someone detained under clause 25 could be retained indefinitely, instead of the usual 3 years under paragraph 20(5) of Schedule 2.

Government amendments 56 and 57.

Amendment 28, page 124, line 13, leave out sub-sub-paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment would prevent it being permissible to postpone reviews of detention without warrant on the basis that the review officer is unavailable or, for any other reason, the review is not practicable.

Amendment 127, schedule 7, page 144, line 17, leave out paragraph 12.

This amendment would remove the power for the Secretary of State to impose participation in polygraph sessions as part of provisions in relation to Prevention and Investigation Measures.

Government amendments 58 and 59.

Amendment 13, page 175, line 1, leave out Schedule 13.

Amendment 132, schedule 13, page 176, line 29, leave out “there is a real risk that”.

This amendment would ensure the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that damages were to be used for terrorism purposes before frozen funds could be forfeited entirely.

Government amendment 60.

[Tom Tugendhat]

It is a pleasure to stand before the House today to introduce not just new clause 9, but many other new clauses that I and many others in this House have argued for at different times and in different places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have already had four points of order, and we have limited time, so I ask Members to please be mindful of the length of their contributions so that we can get as many people in as we possibly can.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber at the Report stage of this hugely important piece of legislation. Bill Committee colleagues will join me in saying that it was not straightforward, for all the reasons that were highlighted in the multiple points of order. The Committee had no less than four Ministers and three Government Whips, and was forced to adjourn twice. Since Second Reading, the Bill has been the responsibility of three different Home Secretaries in—remarkably—the Governments of three different Prime Ministers.

We got off to a shaky start on the first day of the Bill Committee when the Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who I am pleased has joined us this afternoon, was asked to act up as a Minister only minutes before the start. On one day, the Committee had to be adjourned because the second Minister was missing in action—the circumstances are still a mystery to this day. It was something of a relief, then, when the current Minister took office and we could turn to the serious detail of scrutinising and delivering long overdue and incredibly necessary national security legislation.

As we have said before, many of the new measures in the Bill have been born out of recommendations in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 Russia report and in the Law Commission’s “Protection of Official Data” report. With those solid foundations, we have been keen to work with Government to move the legislation forward and close the gaps in our defences. That could not be more timely in the light of stark warnings given by the director general of MI5 today, including about the fact that there have been at least 10 attempts to kidnap or even kill UK-based critics of the Iranian regime since January of this year.

That is not to say that we do not have some outstanding concerns about the detail of the provisions. In speaking to all the amendments grouped with new clause 9, I turn first to amendment 14, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I will spend some time discussing the detail of this amendment, because it is so important.

The original clause 23—now clause 27—was a big focus for hon. Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading. Crucially, it did not have the support of Opposition members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has statutory responsibility for oversight of the UK intelligence community. We will always look to work with the intelligence services to find solutions to any barriers they face in undertaking their invaluable work to keep the UK safe. As things stand, however, we have been unable to get an operational understanding of why the clause is necessary.

The security services have told me directly why they believe that they need clause 27. They say that schedule 4 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 allows for a risk of liability to individuals conducting their proper functions on behalf of the UK intelligence community, and that an offence can arise when support—for example, intelligence shared in good faith—later makes a small or indirect contribution to unlawful activity by an international partner. The security services are keen to convey that their caution in this regard is having an operational impact, which requires resolution. We are sympathetic to that view; we recognise that for perhaps quite junior members of staff to face that burden of potential liability when carrying out their proper functions under instruction does not feel quite right. However, we have sought throughout the process to find a way through that does not involve what feels like gold-plating of exemptions for the security services, which could erode entirely appropriate safeguards and due diligence when considering the risks and consequences of sharing information with partners.

As the Minister knows, there is a reasonableness defence under section 50 of the Serious Crime Act, which recognises that there may be occasions when it can be shown that an individual’s actions were justified in the circumstances. Of course, a prosecution would also have to be deemed to be in the public interest. On further probing of these defences, it seems that it is not the case that the reasonableness defence is not strong enough; rather, it is untested, as no such case has been brought. We do not believe that the fact that an apparently robust defence is untested makes a strong enough case for the proposals in clause 27. We hope that properly authorised activity to protect national security should and would be interpreted as reasonable.

We have sought legal advice, including from a King’s counsel who undertakes a great deal of work in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and engaged with a range of stakeholders who feel genuinely involved in this space. Given that we already have section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which allows the Secretary of State to give immunity from civil or criminal liability for pre-authorised crimes abroad, why do we need the changes proposed in clause 27? Crucially, the existing scheme requires the UK intelligence community to secure permission in advance from the Secretary of State, requiring the Secretary of State’s personal approval, with safeguards in the decision-making process and oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is a senior judge. None of those safeguards are present in clause 27; it simply removes the relevant criminal liability. There would be no need to go to a Minister for approval; there would be no warrant for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to consider.

Thirdly—the Minister and I have debated this—the Bill as drafted diminishes the role of a Minister in decision-making and accountability structures. Ministers will no longer need to make the difficult judgement, reviewed by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, of whether to grant an authorisation under section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act. The Government have been keen to stress their commitment to the Fulford principles—“The Principles relating to the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees”, making it clear that:

“The UK Government does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone unlawful killing, the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment…or extraordinary rendition. In no circumstance will UK personnel ever take action amounting to torture, unlawful killing, extraordinary rendition, or CIDT.”

However, those commitments are not on the face of the Bill.

With the understanding that there will be operational elements to these provisions, the details of which have not been and cannot be shared, we have pushed for engagement with the ISC, which is entirely the right place for those operational examples to be considered further. Were ISC members to be convinced of the case for clause 27, we might be in a different place. On that basis, we cannot support clause 27 and will vote for it to be deleted by amendment 14.

On a similar point, although we welcome much of the Bill, it is right that any provisions that include new and substantial powers are constantly evaluated for their efficacy and proportionality. Clause 53 recognises that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I will now announce the results of the ballot held today for the election of the Chairs of the Education Committee and the Transport Committee. Due to the compressed time in this Report stage, I will not take any points of order until just before the Adjournment at the end of business today. I hope everybody will be happy with that.

In the Education Committee Chair election, 452 votes were cast, one of which was invalid. The counting went to two rounds. There were 436 active votes in the second round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 219 votes. Mr Robin Walker was elected Chair with 228 votes.

In the Transport Committee Chair election, 448 votes were cast, none of which were invalid. The counting went to five rounds. There were 369 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 185 votes. Iain Stewart was elected Chair with 192 votes.

Both Chairs will take up their posts immediately. I congratulate Mr Robin Walker and Iain Stewart on their election. The results of both counts under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet. Congratulations once again.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He has our full support, both in relation to amendment 14 and to what he said about clause 83.

A Bill of this nature is absolutely necessary and overdue, but I share the concerns of colleagues about the amount of time provided for debate and scrutiny. So short of time do we appear to be that the Minister, much as I respect and like him, did not actually even seem to speak about any of the amendments he has tabled today, including Government amendment 60, which is, frankly, absolutely outrageous, but I will come on to that shortly. It is essential, yes, that we update our espionage laws, but it is also essential that we update them correctly. If we do not do it correctly then: first, we risk severely criminalising behaviour that was not intended to be criminalised; secondly, we leave loopholes to be exploited by those who mean us harm; and thirdly, we confer powers way beyond what is reasonable or required. Our amendments seek to address all three dangers.

First, we have concerns about behaviour that should not be caught in the provisions. We have concerns about the impact of the legislation on protesters, journalists, non-governmental organisations, whistleblowers, those acting in the public interest and, now, victims of trafficking. In some cases, that is because of how some of the specific offences have been framed. For example, by catching someone who might

“approach or be in the vicinity of”

a prohibited place, clause 4 risks seriously criminalising protesters at Faslane for example, assuming the Government still consider nuclear weapons as essential to the

“safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

Similarly, the National Union of Journalists is concerned that clause 5 risks a chilling effect on its photographers by criminalising any photo of a prohibited place as “inspecting” it. We tabled amendment 120 to protect protesters who are simply in the vicinity of a prohibited place, and amendment 133 to ensure that taking a photograph of a prohibited place is not automatically considered an inspection of it and therefore an offence.

Other groups risk being caught in the Bill, because some of the overarching terms and the framework for deciding when there is foreign influence is perhaps not as tightly drafted as it should be. For example, the very important notion of the

“interests of the United Kingdom”

is central to quite a few offences, yet that is a nebulous concept and appears to be whatever the Government of the day choose it to be. Depending on which day of the week it is and which Prime Minister is in office, fracking might be something the Government think is in the

“interests of the United Kingdom”.

That is an unsatisfactory way to describe a criminal offence, so we have offered a way to try to fix it. Amendments 116 and 118 list specific critical interests, above day-to-day political agendas of the Government, which need protecting. The Minister complained in Committee that the list was not long enough, so we added the ones he complained were missing. It is important to say again that the reason why we included those particular interests is that we are mirroring a scheme under the Official Secrets Act 1989, where specific interests requiring protection are set out: security and intelligence, defence, international relations and crime. The key point is that

“interests of the United Kingdom”

is too broad and too wishy-washy.

We also have concerns about the “foreign power condition”, which is pivotal to deciding whether behaviour is caught by some of the new offences. In particular, as we have heard, there are many NGOs and other institutions with financial links to other Governments. That is why we tabled what is now amendment 124 in Committee to propose that the condition is made out only where the finance was specifically for the act that will be criminalised. However, we welcome Government amendments 48 and 49, which aim to address a similar problem.

Ultimately, like others, I think that the best answer to all these questions is not to make various tweaks here and there. If anything, our scrutiny of the Bill has convinced us more than ever of the need for an overarching public interest defence. We share the regret that we will not have that chance today.

Finally on this group of amendments, we also need to worry about trafficking victims who could be prosecuted as spies or foreign agents. I agree that it is outrageous for the Government to have introduced amendment 60 less than one week before the final stages of the Bill without explanation or evidence. Frankly, I dread the modern slavery legislation that seems to be coming down the track if this is a foretaste of it. People trafficked, enslaved and coerced into activities under this Bill, such as photographing a prohibited site or stealing information, could be punished as though they are guilty of espionage.

I alerted various trafficking charities and experts to the amendment on Monday. They were all completely and utterly unaware of it and certainly had not been consulted on it, despite some of those organisations being on Home Office working groups and the like. They have a million questions to ask about it. Frankly, I am so irritated about how the amendment has been sprung on us that I am absolutely determined that we have the chance to vote on it this evening.

Turning to the loopholes for those who would seek to harm us, I will mention a couple of amendments. On clause 2, on the theft of intellectual property and so on, we queried why that should be an offence only outside the UK in very limited circumstances, even though UK trade secrets were being protected and stolen under the offence. We tabled amendment 117 to ensure that there is also an offence not just when a UK citizen is a victim, but when a UK resident or person in the employment of a UK person is. Government amendment 40 addresses that point insofar as people who live in the UK, but it does not cover employees.

Most significantly, we worry about the rules on registration in relation to the foreign influence registration scheme. If a specified Government seek to direct activities directly in the UK, the operation of the foreign activity regime seems clear. However, it is hard to imagine that that is how things will generally operate. Surely intermediaries will be used much more often. If that intermediary is in the UK, again, the scheme should work, but what if the intermediary is still in a specified country? In theory, it seems as though the intermediary will be under an obligation to register the agreement, but that will not happen. Meanwhile, those doing the activities in the UK seem to have no obligation to register anything, as they have no direct agreement with the specified Government. That seems a possibly significant loophole, so we tabled amendment 130 to flag up the issue of how we deal with intermediaries.

Thirdly and lastly, let me turn to amendments that seem to grant excessive powers to the Government. Amendment 121 places restrictions on the additional sites that the Home Secretary can deign to be prohibited. Prohibited places have always previously related to security, so we think that new sites should also relate to security and that the nebulous concept of “interest” should not be enough to justify allowing a Home Secretary to add extensively to that list.

Clause 70, which is part of the registration scheme, creates ludicrously broadly drafted powers for the Secretary of State to ask for pretty much any information that she wants from any body or organisation that is or should be registering a scheme. That will be a huge number of bodies. However, if we look at clause 70, we see that there is no limit on the type of information that can be requested or the purpose of the request. There is no means to challenge or appeal against a notice. In Committee, the Minister said that the clause’s purpose was to allow the Home Secretary to seek such information as is necessary to make sure that people comply with the registration requirement. None of that is in the Bill, however, so amendment 131 would put that restriction in it. It is the bare minimum protection that we require.

The major overreach has been described by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden: clause 27’s carve-out for the security services in relation to the Serious Crime Act. I echo what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), said. We approached this with an open mind. Officials and staff have been successful in persuading us of the need for many parts of the Bill, but not here. As was remarked on Second Reading, other protections are in place. I have not heard any suggestion that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have been persuaded by the services, so we, too, remain concerned that the proposal provides an enormous and unwarranted protection from prosecution, even where Ministers or officials provide information that leads to torture overseas.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has also addressed the powers provided to courts in relation to the award of damages, which rather stink of Ministry of Justice virtue signalling and politics. There are already powers to deal with those dangers, as the Minister sort of accepted today in his letter to members of the Bill Committee. Amendment 132, which is directly informed by the comments of Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, would at least mean that there has to be proof on the balance of probabilities before damages can be permanently confiscated—a modest proposal, and one that the right hon. Member has advocated. We are also sympathetic to the right hon. Member’s amendments to take the relevant provisions out altogether.

The Bill’s legal aid provisions are, frankly, utterly farcical. It is the criminal justice system that should be used to punish people, not the civil justice system. Our amendments 125 to 127 would clip the wings of the state threat prevention and investigation measures by ensuring that the normal civil test applies before they can be imposed, by reducing the number of times they can be extended, and by taking out provision for polygraph testing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As hon. Members can see, there is quite a bit of interest in the debate. I am introducing an initial six-minute speaking limit, which I am sure will be reduced to accommodate everybody.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not take that long.

Before I speak to the amendments in my name and those of other hon. Members, which are quite narrow, I want to address Government amendment 60, which I am quite surprised to find in the Bill. Peculiarly, it sets out a series of offences to which it is no longer a defence to claim modern slavery. I am surprised that many of them are not already captured elsewhere. Some of them are very general, such as “entering a prohibited place” and “foreign interference: general”. I always get worried when I see the Government tabling amendments that say things like “in general”, because it really means that they want to do something else that we do not know about. I accept that the amendment will make it into the Bill today, but I want to see what comes back from the other place once the Lords have managed to probe it and find out about it. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government suddenly needed to put it in the Bill.

My amendments would strike out subsections (1)(b) and (2)(b) of clause 68. The Government seem almost to have cut and pasted some of the US legislation and possibly the Australian legislation. I know that the exemption for legal services appears in that legislation, but I am concerned. My amendment is a tightening-up exercise. I really wonder why we think it necessary to provide such a general exemption for legal services. I am sorry if there are practising lawyers present in the House, but if I know anything at all about how lawyers work, they will find ways to exercise the process of lobbying on behalf of organisations and individuals with no right to be here. They will not call it lobbying; they will find some term that is covered by “legal services” and then get on with it. That will also be a way of getting around the Crown prerogative.

I would be grateful if the Minister looks at the issue carefully and understands that there is a problem. I have talked to a lot of lawyers, and most of them believe that the exemption for legal services is not necessary. There is no reason why they should be exempted; the rules should apply directly to them. Either the definition of what constitutes legal services needs to be tightened up very carefully, or the exemptions should be struck out as the amendments require. I would like some indication from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the Government will look seriously at the matter in the Lords and act on it. An exemption for legal services is unnecessary and will lead to lobbying by the back door; I am sure that all sorts of terms will be found that are covered by “legal services”.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. After the next speaker, the speaking time limit will be five minutes. I call Dan Jarvis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I have miscalculated—this is one of the reasons I was never made a Treasury Minister—and I want to give the Minister an opportunity to respond at the end. Sir Robert Buckland, you can have five minutes, but then we will go to four minutes.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not be able to emulate the admirable record of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), but I will do my best to be as succinct as possible. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is right when he says that we have to strike a balance here: we need to protect our way of life but not protect ourselves out of the very values that we seek to defend—or, in other words, diminish the very rights that we want to protect. That is at the heart of all the national security legislation that I and others in this House have dealt with over the years. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security for our conversations about these issues.

I cannot conceal my disappointment at the non-selection of new clause 8, in the name of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which was signed by me and others. It is inevitable that this issue will be revisited in the other place. There are two issues that arise from it that are of general application to the Bill and to the future reform of the Official Secrets Act, which has to come. The first is the potential creation of a public interest defence, which in my view is an essential substitute to the rather random guessing game that we have at the moment, with jury trials—however well directed the juries might be—ending up with verdicts that, to many of us, seem perverse.

The second relates to the recommendation to create a statutory commission to allow people to raise their concerns—to whistleblow, if you like—through an approved process. The Law Commission’s report of September 2020 made those very clear and cogent recommendations and I commend them strongly to my right hon. Friend the Minister. I think they go hand in hand. The time is here for the Government to start addressing these issues and to adopt those recommendations. To quote my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne in another context: if not now, when?

Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important short service commission this summer. We are very grateful for the work he did. He is right to say that the staff at Manston have behaved heroically. I was hugely impressed by the Border Force officers I met, the contractors, the cooks, the armed forces personnel and my Home Office officials. They have moved heaven and earth over the course of the past week to ensure that that site is returned to a safe and legal method of operation. They have always treated people with great care and courtesy, and we should all be proud of that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and answering questions for one hour and 20 minutes.

RETAINED EU LAW (REVOCATION AND REFORM) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the Order of 25 October (Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: In paragraph (2) of the Order (conclusion of proceedings in Public Bill Committee) for “Tuesday 22 November” substitute “Tuesday 29 November”.—(Michael Gove.)

Question agreed to.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

You may remain seated, if you wish, to ask your question, Allan. I call Allan Dorans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

In the words of the Home Secretary, “The system is broken.” After 12 years of Tory Government, the asylum system is broken. If she is saying that we have no solutions, she can press on the Prime Minister the need to call a general election and let the electorate decide who they trust more. The recent revelations—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. All hon. Members can see what time it is. We have five hours of business ahead, plus votes. We need questions, not statements—a question, please, Mr Ali.

[Tahir Ali]

The recent revelations of conditions at Manston processing centre highlight the complete and utter failure of leadership at the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary do the decent thing once again, as she did on 19 October? Will she resign from her position because of the conditions at Manston?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am trying to get everyone in, but Members are going to have help me. I ask them please to focus on the question rather than a long preface.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her endeavours to deal with a truly difficult and complex situation. May I ask her what steps are in place to ensure that asylum centres are able to provide a basic standard of mental health care for those affected by the disgraceful action that took place at the weekend? Can she ensure that asylum seekers are safe while they are waiting for the determination of their applications, as is the law in this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. Ultimately, he is right. We need to be straight with people. There is an influx, an unprecedented number of people coming to this country. They are claiming to be modern slaves, they are claiming asylum illegitimately, and they are effectively economic migrants. They are not coming here for humanitarian purposes. We therefore need to change our laws. We need to ensure that there is a limitation on the ability to abuse our asylum laws, and we need to ensure that our modern slavery laws are fit for purpose and cannot be exploited by illegitimate claimants.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I remind the Home Secretary to face the microphone? I cannot quite hear everything that is being said, and Hansard may have difficulties as well.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary’s letter today outlined six breaches. She used a personal device to send official emails, using a personal Gmail address. When I receive emails through Gmail, I assume that they are personal emails. What assurances can the Home Secretary give the House that none of those emails was forwarded to third parties, and what investigations have been made to establish that those personal Gmail emails were not hacked by any foreign powers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Of course we have moral obligations to asylum seekers, and it may well be the case that conditions at Manston are unacceptable, but what is totally unacceptable is the fact that every month thousands of young men arrive in this country from a safe third country and that many of them have set off from a safe third country in the form of Albania. There have been 40,000 this year alone, which is half the size of the British Army. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend shares the dismay at the situation felt by those on the Government Benches, unlike those on the Opposition Benches, who seem from their questions today to be concerned only to advocate an open border policy and to take pot shots at a Minister who is uniquely committed—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Please, Mr Kruger —a question.

[Danny Kruger]

My question is: will the Home Secretary assure the House that she will not be deflected from her strategy of deterring the illegal migration that we are seeing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Braverman]

I will not bore the Chamber by repeating my answer to a question that I have now been asked on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman will be able to check the record for the specific number of hotels and beds procured during my tenure. I am very glad that we have taken urgent action to deal with this issue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for answering questions for 18 minutes short of two hours.

Public Order Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I advise the House that I will be calling Anne McLaughlin to start the wind-ups no later than 4.12 pm, but she can be called earlier. The debate on Report must finish at 4.37 pm.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Frankly, there is so much wrong with the Bill that it is difficult to know where to start. It basically needs a line striking through the vast majority of it, and I am therefore pleased to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) seeking to do exactly that.

Peaceful protest is a fundamental right protected in international law, and this Bill is just the latest in a concerted attack on our rights by this dangerous and populist Government. It is a draconian rehash of measures resoundingly voted down just months ago. As I have said previously in this House, the Government are pursuing policies and legislation that are deeply dangerous in the threat they pose to our fundamental and universally acknowledged human rights. People who vote in favour of this Bill tonight need to be fully aware and honest about what they are endorsing and what is occurring on our watch.

Defending the right to peaceful protest matters, especially to me, because it is one of the time-honoured ways in which people from all walks of life have sought to protect our natural world, and it is particularly critical right now. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke eloquently about the wider context of austerity and economic suffering that so many of our constituents are facing. I want to widen that context and talk about the attack, frankly, that Ministers are unleashing on policies to protect nature, from issuing new oil and gas licences and lifting the moratorium on fracking to scrapping 570 laws that make up the bedrock of environmental regulation in the UK, covering water quality, wildlife havens, clean air and much else.

Ministers may hide behind endless repetitions of their promise to halt the decline of nature by 2030, but their actions are taking us in precisely the opposite direction. Those who oppose this direction of travel must have the right to take action themselves, and they must have the right to protest. Rather than plunging more and more people into the criminal justice system, the Home Office could be doing all manner of much more useful things, including properly supporting and resourcing community policing.

We should not be giving the Government the ability to create new public order offences as and when they choose, yet that is precisely the combined effect of new clauses 7 and 8. As colleagues will know, injunctions may usually be applied for only by affected parties. New clause 7, however, allows the Secretary of State to apply for a so-called precautionary injunction against people who might go on a protest or who might carry out protest-related activities. This might occur if there is reasonable belief that particular activities are likely to cause serious disruption to key national infrastructure or access to essential goods and services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I am so disappointed that we are debating a piece of legislation that should have been resigned to the scrap heap, along with the previous Cabinet’s regressive legislative programme. We are firefighting an economic crisis on an unprecedented scale and valuable Government time in this place is being wasted on draconian legislation that nobody, with the exception of selected Government Members, actually wants. I include in that the people who will be sent out on the streets to try to enforce this nonsense. Representatives from police forces have said time and again, throughout the consultation and Committee stages of the Bill, that this is not required.

The powers already exist to police protests in an effective and proportionate manner, and that is what I will focus on—proportionality. After all, this is a balancing act between the fundamental rights that allow us to protest, for whatever cause and whatever reason, and the rights of those who might be inconvenienced or affected by a protest.

At what stage does the scale tip? Government Members will undoubtedly cite cases where protestors glued themselves to the M25 or threw tomato soup at a priceless artwork, albeit one that was behind protective glass, but at what point does their right to stand up and say, “Wake up! The world is on fire,” become less important than someone’s right to get to work on time or to gaze upon a painting? The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that people standing shouting at people outside abortion clinics were “just raising awareness”. Well, he cannot argue that such protestors are doing anything other than trying to raise awareness.

Throughout the stages of the Bill and repeatedly during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, it was made clear to the Government that the whole point of a protest is to make a noise and get noticed. I am sure that when Muriel Matters and Helen Fox chained themselves to the grille in the Ladies’ Gallery of this place in 1908, shouting,

“We have been behind this insulting grille too long!”,

they intended to be heard. Thanks to protests like that, not only can I now vote, but I can stand here and represent the voices of my constituents—as long as my own voice does not pack up soon.

Let us imagine this Bill had been in place in 1908. Muriel and Helen might have been stopped and searched on the way here, and a chain or lock may have been found on them. Maybe they would be serving 51 weeks in prison, or maybe the chilling effect of knowing this might happen would have stopped them altogether, so maybe women would not have got the vote. Do you see where I am going with this, Mr Deputy Speaker? I am not even delving into the vast number of ways a person could be snared by the Bill.

We have a new Home Secretary, who has taken the wheel and veered further into the realms of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” in a way that brings to mind that iconic lyric from one of my favourite bands, The Who:

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Her scant regard for human rights, the European convention on human rights, and our obligations under international law are well documented, so any lip service to the claim that the Bill is somehow compliant with the ECHR is exactly that.

Like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I will take some time to focus on part 2 and serious disruption prevention orders. I much prefer the colloquial name given to these orders by civil liberties groups including Liberty and Big Brother Watch: protest banning orders. That is what they are. I have talked to a lot of people about the Bill, and the conversation usually starts with locking on and tunnelling. They are headline grabbers, and rightly so, but when the discussion moves on to protest banning orders and just how far and wide the net spreads to catch people, jaws visibly drop. People just cannot believe that this could happen to them. I can hardly believe it, and I am a really cynical person.

We are talking about an order placed on a person—it could be you, Mr Deputy Speaker—that can restrict where they go, who they see, what they do and how they use the internet, and could result in them having to wear a GPS tag for an indefinite period. It can be slapped on someone who has not even attended a protest. I am hoping for an intervention from a Member trying to claim that I am oversimplifying this, but I doubt I will get one, because I am not. As others have said, all somebody has to do to be served with a protest banning order is to participate in at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have been convicted of a crime. An order can be placed on a person who has carried out activities or contributed to the carrying out of activities by any other person related to a protest that resulted in, or was likely to result in, serious disruption on two or more occasions. Wow!

This provision could not be broader. It could apply to anyone. Take me for example. What if I let my partner borrow my mobile phone to tweet about a Black Lives Matter protest? Could it be claimed that I am inadvertently contributing to the carrying out of activities by another person related to a protest that is likely to result in serious disruption? What is serious disruption? Members should not bother flicking through the Bill, because the definition is not there. The closest definition we might be able to rely on is in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, under which—rather conveniently—the Home Secretary has discretion to redefine it any time she sees fit to do so.

We had hours of debate on this in Committee. The issue has been and always will be that “serious disruption” is wholly subjective, so it sets an incredibly low threshold for these draconian measures being placed on individuals who are simply exercising their human rights. I agree with the Labour amendment that states we must have a definition of serious disruption, but let me be clear: my position and that or my party is that we must get rid of these provisions all together.

When I get my SDPO, I have to fulfil a host of obligations, and if I do not, I cross the line into criminal behaviour for breach of a civil order, ending with a 51-week stay in prison, a fine, or both. Not that civil after all, it appears. I might not be able to attend future protests. I might be stopped from using the internet in ways that might encourage people to carry out activities that are related to a protest, or that are likely to result in serious disruption—again, there is no definition of the term. I do not even have to have been at a protest to be banned from any future protest—a point not lost on Lord Paddick when the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was on Report in the other place.

Why do we find ourselves in the realm of preventive justice? On Second Reading, I referred to the movie “Minority Report”, where precogs could look into the future and predict a crime before it happened. That is a movie; it is not supposed to be a template to base actual laws on. The police have roundly rejected the concept of protest banning orders and have claimed that they

“would neither be compatible with human rights legislation nor create an effective deterrent,”

so why are we doing this?

We cannot electronically tag people who have committed no crime and claim that we are respecting their human rights, although shamefully the Government have no qualms about doing that to asylum seekers. A GPS tag’s data can carry the most personal and sensitive information, such as who someone’s GP is, where they shop and who they visit. It is a massive invasion of privacy that marks a new era of state surveillance.

We very much support of amendment 1, which removes SDPOs from the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) for his work on the amendment, for his fantastic speech today—I never thought that I would hear myself say that about someone on the Conservative Benches, but it hit the mark—and for his collaborative approach to the amendment, which was in his name and is now in my name. I hope to press it to a vote tonight.

I have spent much of the time available to me discussing SDPOs, but I reiterate the SNP’s complete opposition to the Bill in its entirety, because it is draconian. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, we need only to look at the JCHR report to find the list of powers that already exist and can be used—the hon. Member for Broxbourne listed them for us.

Our opposition to the Bill in its entirety is made clear by our amendments not to amend the Bill but to remove all but one little clause. That is a radical step, but it attracted much public and cross-party support. I thank the hon. Members who put their name to those amendments. Unfortunately, as SNP spokesperson, I cannot realistically press more than one of my amendments to a vote—if I could, I would press them all to a vote. In particular, in addition to amendment 1, I would press amendment 12, which would remove suspicion-less stop and search. I hope that Labour will move that amendment so that we can vote on it and, clearly, support it.

We support many amendments from other hon. Members, including all those in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West on behalf of the Joint Committee. We also agree with the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) about the need for a public inquiry into the impact of the policing of public order on black, Asian and minority ethnic people.

I support new clause 11 on buffer zones in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) but, in answer to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), it will not surprise him or the hon. Lady that we will not vote on it if it is pressed to a vote, because it applies only to England and Wales. The Scottish Government are progressing work on it for Scotland. I agree with everything she said on it and I pay tribute to the work that she and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) have been doing on it for some time.

In closing, we do not need this Bill—nobody needs this Bill. Our right to protest is fundamental. It is the only tool available to many people—most people—to effect real change. The Bill comes on the back of photographic voter ID, restrictions on judicial review, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that we are yet to feel the full force of. When will the Government stop? When will they put their hands up and say, “We’ve got this wrong”? They need to realise that, instead of slamming their hand down on people who are protesting because they are desperately worried, they should extend a hand of solidarity to them and fix the problems that people are protesting about in the first place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am expecting four Divisions when the Minister resumes his seat.

[Jeremy Quin]

I hope that we will have fewer, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that hon. Members will be withdrawing their amendments during my remarks.

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and all hon. Members who have contributed to this lively debate. I know that all hon. Members treat this debate and these issues with the great seriousness and concern that they deserve. With the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the points made throughout the debate and to some of the key amendments.

I will start with the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East—appropriately—which seek to remove the serious disruption prevention orders from the Bill. My hon. Friend said that he was cold when he turned up today. I think he misheard me from a sedentary position; I merely said that he had certainly warmed up during his speech.

Our experience of some of the recent protests has shown that the police are encountering the same individuals who are determined to repeatedly inflict disruption on the public. For example, as of July this year, 460 individuals had been arrested a total of 910 times at Just Stop Oil protests, while during Insulate Britain’s campaign, 268 individuals were arrested a total of 977 times. It cannot be right that a small group of individuals can repeatedly commit criminal offences against our roads and railways, to name only a few places, and not face appropriate restrictions.

--- Later in debate ---

Before I conclude, I would like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions today. I call on the House to back the Government amendments and to reject any amendments that would make it more difficult to tackle the selfish minority of individuals who are intent on wreaking havoc on the lives of ordinary people.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As I said earlier, I am anticipating four Divisions. The first one will, I believe, be on new clause 4. If somebody from the SNP could inform the Chair who their Tellers might be, should they decide to have a vote on their amendment, I would be extremely grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

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

New Clause 8

Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: power of arrest and remand

(1) This section applies to proceedings brought by the Secretary of State under section (Power of Secretary of State to bring proceedings) (power of Secretary of State to bring proceedings).

(2) If the court grants an injunction which prohibits conduct which—

(a) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person, or

(b) is capable of having a serious adverse effect on public safety,

it may, if subsection (3) applies, attach a power of arrest to any provision of the injunction.

(3) This subsection applies if the Secretary of State applies to the court to attach the power of arrest and the court thinks that—

(a) the conduct mentioned in subsection (2) consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence, or

(b) there is a significant risk of harm to—

(i) in the case of conduct mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the person mentioned in that provision, and

(ii) in the case of conduct mentioned in subsection (2)(b), the public or a section of the public.

(4) Where a power of arrest is attached to any provision of an injunction under subsection (2), a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom the constable has reasonable cause for suspecting to be in breach of that provision.

(5) After making an arrest under subsection (4) the constable must as soon as is reasonably practicable inform the Secretary of State.

(6) Where a person is arrested under subsection (4)—

(a) the person must appear before the court within the period of 24 hours beginning at the time of arrest, and

(b) if the matter is not then disposed of forthwith, the court may remand the person.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), when calculating the period of 24 hours referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection, no account is to be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday or any Sunday.

(8) Schedule (Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: powers to remand) applies in relation to the power to remand under subsection (6).

(9) If the court has reason to consider that a medical report will be required, the power to remand a person under subsection (6) may be exercised for the purpose of enabling a medical examination and report to be made.

(10) If such a power is so exercised the adjournment is not to be in force—

(a) for more than three weeks at a time in a case where the court remands the accused person in custody, or

(b) for more than four weeks at a time in any other case.

(11) If there is reason to suspect that a person who has been arrested under subsection (4) is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 the court is to have the same power to make an order under section 35 of that Act (remand for report on accused's mental condition) as the Crown Court has under that section in the case of an accused person within the meaning of that section.

(12) In this section—

“harm” includes serious ill-treatment or abuse (whether physical or not);

“the court” means the High Court or the county court and includes—

(a) in relation to the High Court, a judge of that court, and

(b) in relation to the county court, a judge of that court.”—(Jeremy Quin.)

This new clause contains provision for the court to attach powers of arrest to an injunction granted in proceedings brought in the name of the Secretary of State in accordance with NC7. This new clause also contains related provisions in connection with the remand of arrested persons .

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services

“(1) Upon an application by a person under subsection (4), an injunction may be ordered by a Judge of the High Court against ‘persons unknown’ in order to prevent a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services occasioned by a public procession or public assembly.

(2) The “persons unknown” may be—

(a) anonymous persons taking part in a public process or public assembly who are identifiable at the time of the proceedings; and/or

(b) persons not presently taking part in a public procession or public assembly protest but who will in future join such a public procession or public assembly.

(3) The conditions under which such an injunction may be granted are as follows—

(a) there must be a real and imminent risk of a tort being committed which would result in a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services;

(b) a method of service must be set out in the order which may reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to the attention of the “persons unknown”;

(c) the “persons unknown” must be defined in the order by reference to their conduct which is alleged to be unlawful;

(d) the acts prohibited by the order must correspond with the threatened tort;

(e) the order may only prohibit lawful conduct if there is no other proportionate means of protecting the effective movement of essential goods or essential services;

(f) the terms of the order must set out what act(s) the persons potentially affected by the order must not do;

(g) the terms of the order must set out a defined geographical area to which the order relates; and

(h) the terms of the order must set out a temporal period to which the order relates, following which the order will lapse unless a further order is made upon a further application by the applicant.

(4) An applicant for an injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services may be—

(a) a local authority with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates;

(b) a chief constable with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates; or

(c) a person resident in, or carrying on a business within, the geographical area to which the proposed order relates.

(5) A “serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services” includes a prolonged disruption to—

(a) the effective movement of the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel;

(b) a system of communication;

(c) access to a place of worship;

(d) access to a transport facility;

(e) access to an educational institution; and

(f) access to a service relating to health.”—(Sarah Jones.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell]

I note the hon. Member’s comments. I will look into that further and follow up with more detail if required.

I thank all those across the House who have spoken. If I did not mention them, I apologise; and if I did, I hope that I covered their responses as best I can. I want to collaborate and listen, and I think that it is important that we as parliamentarians work together as best we can. It has been great to see the best of the House today. When we debate based on knowledge, experience and the ability to work together, we get the best legislation and the best outcomes, so I thank all hon. Members for that.

I look forward, based on the support that has been pledged, to working with all the hon. Members on the Committee. We have had an excellent and informative debate and I look forward to further discussion in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Congratulations on your first outing, Minister.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 29 November 2022.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the charging of fees under the Companies Act 2006 at a level that takes into account a broader range of functions; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her persistence in bringing forward such an important Bill. I share her view, as I am sure we all do, that the treatment of the Hillsborough families is a stain upon this country. Action must be taken to ensure that we never again see families and survivors having to fight for decades to get to the truth.

This Bill would provide a better way of responding to large-scale public disasters on behalf of bereaved relatives and survivors. It would facilitate transparency about what has happened at an early stage, which would not only give answers for those involved, but allow learning to be implemented to prevent further victims from being created. The Bill would be a lasting legacy for the 97 lost in the Hillsborough disaster and would give real protections to victims and families of future public disasters. I look forward to seeing it progress through the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call the Minister now. We are pressed for time, but we will see how far he gets in his speech.

--- Later in debate ---

Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 9 September.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Minister may resume his speech when we return to the debate.

Economic Crime: Law Enforcement

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thank you. On that basis, only if it can be proven that the directors had a guilty mind and were actually participating in the fraud can they go to jail. That is the wrong approach, and is not what the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 said. The Act said that those who fail to prevent accidents in their workplace could go to jail, and construction deaths dropped in the following year by 90%. We need to put in place an offence such that those who fail to take reasonable steps to prevent and clamp down on fraud can go to jail, without it also being necessary to prove that they deliberately facilitated the fraud. That would make a fundamental difference.

We must support whistleblowers, too. Most of the information on these offences will come not from our enforcement agencies or investigations by regulators, but from people within the organisations. Currently, those people are not protected—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the mover of the motion that the guidance says they have up to 10 minutes, and the hon. Member has now spoken for longer than that times two. Perhaps, with a bit of focus, he will now bring his remarks to a conclusion.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have so much to say on this; I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Finally, as well as beefing up the numbers, we should consider doing what we have done on unexplained wealth orders. Welcome Government legislation that was brought forward in the last Session capped costs for UWOs, and we should consider capping costs for all prosecutions of economic crimes to stop very wealthy individuals preventing our enforcement agencies from taking them to court merely because they have huge financial firepower that is much stronger than ours.

On that, I will conclude. I am very sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have taken so long, but, as I said, I could talk for much longer on this given the chance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I remind the hon. Member that, at the end of the debate, he will have two minutes to conclude, not four. [Laughter.]

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

It is a bizarre day to be debating a really important issue. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it, and it is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), with whom I am working closely on many of these issues. I will say something a bit general before moving on. Have I got 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, or a little bit more?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You are not constrained. All I would say is to focus—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will keep it tight.

It is shocking but true that it was the tragedy of the war in Ukraine that got our Government to start thinking about the serious threat that the country faces, in both our economy and our society, from the spiralling menace of illicit finance and all that goes with it. I have said many times in the House, and I repeat today, that we will never enjoy sustained, good economic prosperity on the back of dirty money. We earned the reputation on which our superb, successful financial sector was built by being a trusted jurisdiction, and we must maintain that. Today, we are in danger of losing that trust.

The US sees us as a high-risk jurisdiction similar to Cyprus, and Londongrad is becoming a popular term among many. We have moved off our perch as the world’s leaders in fighting economic crime. Moody’s has downgraded us, and we are slipping down the ranks of Transparency International’s corruption perception index. Everything is moving in the wrong direction. That is no surprise because, as the hon. Member said, economic crime is now massive. It costs the country £290 billion annually—more than a quarter of the Government’s total public expenditure—and all of us who are concerned with this area know that that figure is conservative. The latest figures from UK Finance that came out last week suggest that in 2020 there was an 8% increase in fraud, which of course is the biggest component of economic crime.

Much illicit finance, but not all, comes from Russia, through Russian companies and Russian individuals. As various Select Committee reports on the subject show, for too long we have turned a blind eye to the threat that Putin’s kleptocratic regime poses to our economy. Why did we do nothing after the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, or after the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in 2018? Those were two brutal attacks on British soil.

We must add to that the findings of a recent report by Buzzfeed News investigations, which established that between 2003 and 2016, there were 14 more suspicious deaths in the UK of individuals who were hostile to the Russian state. I will mention just three of them. Stephen Curtis, the British lawyer who helped the laundering of money—potentially billions of pounds—in the UK for wealthy Russian oligarchs, died in a helicopter crash in 2004. Alexander Perepilichnyy blew the whistle on a multimillion-pound Government fraud in Russia. He flew to Britain, and died of a so-called heart attack when jogging near his home in Surrey in 2012. The coroner’s inquest said that he died of natural causes, but evidence given, I gather, behind closed doors for national security reasons said that there was no natural cause determined. Some suspect that he was poisoned. Boris Berezovsky, who made his wealth during the collapse of the Soviet Union, was famous because he was key in supporting Putin and getting him into power in Russia. In 2013, he was found hanged in his home.

Those are only three of 14 cases, but in all of them the police concluded that the deaths were not suspicious. There was no investigation, or indeed any suggestion that those were Russian state-sanctioned murders, although the US intelligence services told our police that they thought the deaths were likely sanctioned by the Kremlin. Were the police just incompetent? I doubt it. Was there pressure from somewhere else—from either our security services or our Government—to turn a blind eye to the possibility that those were state-sanctioned murders? American intelligence officials told Buzzfeed journalists that Russian killers had been able to kill in Britain with impunity. They said that one of the reasons for the reticence of enforcement agencies to act was

“a desire to preserve the billions of pounds of Russian money that pour into British banks and properties each year.”

As we debate the failures of our enforcement agencies in tackling illicit wealth, we should bear in mind that the problem goes well beyond the funding, the skills and the effectiveness of the enforcement agency. If we are really to eradicate dirty money, we require action on a wide number of fronts, as the all-party parliamentary group for fair business banking and the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax have said. We have put together a good manifesto that could form the start of concerted action to rid us of this terribly bad thing. We talk in the manifesto about action on four fronts. We need smart regulation, much greater transparency, proper accountability and enforcement. We are debating enforcement today.

All those measures are interdependent, and I worry a lot that the Government’s response through the economic crime Bill, which should be with us in the autumn, will be too little and too fragmented. Reform of Companies House, for which we have argued for a long time, is necessary but not sufficient. So are reform of anti-money laundering regulations, and an open register of property owned by foreign countries. We need co-ordinated action on many fronts if we are to clean up dirty Britain.

Today, we are focusing on enforcement. Our performance is abysmal, our record in successfully bringing bad players to account is miserable and our commitment to doing the job properly is questionable. The evidence—the hon. Member already talked about some of it—is overwhelming. The Bribery Act was introduced in 2010, and in the UK we have had 99 criminal convictions and six deferred prosecution agreements. The USA, with a similar legislative framework, has had 236 convictions in the same period. As I understand it—I could not find one, but if I am wrong, I stand to be corrected—we have never pursued a criminal prosecution against a bank for money laundering or sanctions busting. We use civil measures, but never criminal ones. In 2019, we had civil fines of £260 million. In the same year, the Americans pursued criminal action against and secured £2.5 billion from just six banks, and they secured £5 billion in civil fines.

As the hon. Member said—it is worth repeating, because it is so shocking—the Financial Conduct Authority fined HSBC £64 million in 2021 for AML failures, but nearly a decade before, it was fined £1.4 billion in America for AML offences. Standard Chartered is a British bank, so we ought to be the ones who are really responsible for ensuring that it behaves itself. What do we get from it? Fines for wrongdoing under anti-money laundering regulations of £102 million. What do the Americans get? Over 800% more: £842 million. Yet we know from the FinCEN—the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network—files that too many of our banks and too many individuals who work in our banks either passively collude with economic crime, or actively promote and facilitate money launderings. The banks that are implicated are so often the biggest British-based banks: HSBC, Barclays, Standard Chartered.

What we do in Britain is pursue the little businesses, the little men and women who are trying hard to establish new businesses here. That came home to me very much when I chaired the Public Accounts Committee and we had the leaks relating to HSBC—they were called the Falciani leaks. There were more documents relating to British accounts than, I think, for any other nation. There were 3,600 British accounts. At the time, the tax authorities said to us that there was cause for concern with about a third of those. Out of that third—about 1,200—they finally found 150 cases. How many did they pursue? One individual was charged. I could not find, in my search of Google, whether that individual was ever convicted. Look at how other countries dealt with it: every other country managed to charge more people, fine more people and get some compensation. The only thing that happened with us was that Rona Fairhead, now in the House of Lords, was on the board of HSBC at the time and was responsible for the audit committee. I cannot understand how anybody with that responsibility could not have seen a red flag when looking through the accounts from the Swiss branch of HSBC and seeing the profits being secured. The only thing she said was that she declared that the whistleblower was a criminal and that the only thing that HSBC should do was pursue the whistleblower and try to get him imprisoned.

Fraud is the crime that now affects one in 11 adults in the UK, yet convictions for fraud have collapsed by two-thirds in the past three years—cases up and convictions down. The number of criminal cases the Serious Fraud Office, in which we had great confidence, has under investigation has halved over the past three years. There have been some disastrous failures in the courts through the SFO with Serco and Unaoil, where it lost cases simply because it did not share information in a proper way—it failed to disclose relevant material to the defendants. There are lawyers in the Chamber. I am not one, but I cannot believe that it actually did that.

Business without Debate

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Policing Minister for checking the records and the emails, as I requested him to do at the end of the statement earlier, and for correcting the record. Clearly, it was not a last-minute addition, as he had said, to put so many additional deliberate political attacks into the statement. Obviously, it should not have taken my asking such forensic questions to elicit this and to elicit this apology in the first place. Given that this is such an incredibly sensitive and serious subject—the future of the Metropolitan police—and that we have had repeated examples of this, could you use your offices to urge other Departments not to add in these political statements that are not included in the statements that are given to the House? In addition, will you urge Ministers to see this as a lesson to stop playing political games with something so important?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank both right hon. Members for their points of order and their forward notice of them. Clearly, both stand on the record and I am grateful as well that the correction has been made at the earliest possible moment. As for what the right hon. Lady has said, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her comments and will make sure they get noted and followed by all Departments.