Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will briefly thank a few people on my behalf and on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I must thank my noble friend Lord Callanan, the Minister for Business, Energy and Corporate Responsibility, who continues to do so much to support the Bill and has been a great help. I also thank the Home Office Minister, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who is a fantastic asset to our Department.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who helped so much to prepare the Bill. Furthermore, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who ably shepherded the Bill through its early parliamentary stages, and the Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), and his team for their excellent assistance, particularly when he courageously stood in and answered on behalf of the Department in a brief moment of surprise—mostly to him. I also thank the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for their contributions.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his positive response to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and others in relation to the reform of corporate criminal responsibility. That is welcome. Will he take on board the importance of including in that the reform of the identification principle, which is a major bar to corporate prosecutions? The Justice Committee has called for that more than once in its recent reports, and it is supported by the current and previous Directors of Public Prosecutions and the current and previous Directors of the Serious Fraud Office.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee. As he knows, this is an area of great interest and for further discussion, which we are indeed looking at taking forward.

I finish by saying an enormous thank you to the Bill team, who are in the Box today—Tom Ball and the rest of the clan—who have done a fantastic job on Burns night, of all times. Because it is a time for us to find that we are no longer wee and tim’rous beasties, but are instead going to look for that fair trojan of the human race, the “puddin’-race”—forgive me—I look forward very much to being freed of the Dispatch Box and skipping off to the whisky and the haggis. On that, Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you.

Economic Crime: Law Enforcement

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The regulations are there but the penalties are not sufficient. The people within Danske Bank knew that they were doing wrong when they moved €200 billion out of Russia and into other parts of the world, but there was no incentive to do anything about it because they made a huge amount of money as it flew through their systems. A local manager, a mid-tier manager or even a senior executive would think, “Well, we’re making money and nobody’s going to find out, and if we are found out there will be a fine down the line and I will have gone by then anyway.” So where is the incentive to clamp down if they are going to make lots of money out of it? After all, everybody has budgets and targets to hit, and bonuses on the back of them. That is the problem: the penalties and enforcement need to be different.

Another key reason why money is washed through the UK is that we have the overseas territories, tax havens that work on the same basis of common law—Jersey, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands. Money launderers do not want to pay tax on their money, so they put it through a jurisdiction with low or zero taxation. That is why the UK plays a major role in facilitating this, and also why it must play a major role in clamping down on it.

We do not do clamping down very well here, however. Our enforcement agencies have success in some regards, but they are nowhere near as successful as other jurisdictions, for example the USA, which is far more focused on this. The US has similar bribery laws to the UK, introduced in 2011. In 2020 the US fined organisations in the US £1.85 billion for bribery offences, which is more than the UK has fined in 10 years. The situation for money laundering sanctions is very similar: in 2019 the UK fined our banks £260 million in the entire year for money laundering offences, while the US fined £7.5 billion, including £2.5 billion of criminal sanctions. Almost every one of our agencies is underfunded and under-resourced in tackling this problem.

What do we need to do? My colleague the right hon. Member for Barking will talk about some of the measures, but I will focus on the key things that I think we need. We must ringfence a budget for tackling economic crime right across the piece in the UK, to see exactly how much we are spending on tackling organised crime. We need fewer agencies, too; the effort must be more consolidated so the lines of reporting are less fragmented and more direct.

Action Fraud must not just be a rebadged enterprise. It needs to be meaningful, and people need to have confidence that the offences reported to it will be dealt with. I was recently nearly scammed through WhatsApp when I thought my son had contacted me, but it was another person. I wondered whether to report it to Action Fraud, but I thought, “What’s the point? It’s not going to do anything about it.” That is why people do not report such incidents. Clearly, therefore, there are many more offences than the number reported.

The No. 1 thing we need to do is something the Government have talked about. We already have a failure to prevent offence. There is corporate criminal liability in the UK if people fail to prevent bribery in their organisation—that offence was introduced some years ago, I think in 2011—and also an offence of failure to prevent tax evasion. People cannot just stop that happening; they have to put the rules in place to stop it happening. The key thing is what they can do to stop this. They therefore put systems in their organisation to alert them to certain things happening, and they train staff that they cannot get involved in bribery or facilitate tax evasion. We need to extend that to failure to prevent economic crime.

The Government have been talking about this for some time, and the Law Commission has reported on it. It said we should introduce such an offence but probably for fraud alone, not for money laundering or things like false accounting. I think that is a big mistake. It is also very mealy-mouthed on including personal liability for directors; it says it could be added if they have the mental something—what is the word?

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Mens rea.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thank you; that is right, whatever it means in English.

[Sir Robert Neill]

A guilty mind.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on securing the debate, and on the reports produced by their all-party parliamentary groups on fair business banking and on anti-corruption and responsible tax. Much of the debate so far has focused on what might be termed high-level and high-profile international and economic crime. I understand that, and I will touch on it briefly, but then I want to move on.

In relation to those very high-level matters, we definitely need to do more to tighten the rules on money laundering. I agree that the Bill that became the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 was much improved in the course of its passage, and we should certainly seek to tighten and improve the provisions of the second Bill when it comes before the House.

We also need to do more about corporate criminal responsibility and liability. The issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton relates to what, in law, is called the identification test. It concerns the mens rea, or guilty knowledge, of the “controlling mind and will” of a company, and the requirement to identify that controlling mind and will—a term which, in practice, has tended to mean only a very small cadre of senior managers, which makes it impossible to make the company liable for acts carried out by anyone who is other than part of that controlling mind and will, the very tight-knit group at the top who may be carrying out fraudulent acts for or on behalf of the corporate entity. The system is different in other jurisdictions, including the United States, and reform in that regard would be helpful and sensible. As the right hon. Member for Barking pointed out, it has proved easier in practice to prosecute small companies than to prosecute large ones, because the management structures of the large companies are often more diffuse, and under the current law it is therefore harder to identify those who constitute the controlling mind and will.

An extension of the duty to prevent offences would also be wise, and the Law Commission has recommended it in relation to fraud, but I think we should be open to going further. My one caveat, which I think the Law Commission flags up in its options paper which it published month, is that there is not always an exact analogy between health and safety at work offences and fraud offences. To convict for fraud, there has to be the additional element of dishonesty, either knowledge or “connivance”—a term that it often used—and, of course, dishonesty is not always a requisite element of the offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. A distinction may need to be drawn, and I think we have not gone as far as we could have. I am not saying that we cannot look at this, but I think it is important to bear that distinction in mind.

[John Penrose]

Would my hon. Friend care to venture an opinion on the Law Commission’s recommendations concerning the potential for fixing the “controlling mind” legislation and legal approach? Could that be improved sufficiently to provide a decent alternative to the “failure to prevent”, or is it fundamentally unfixable, and would such a path therefore not lead to success?

[Sir Robert Neill]

The Law Commission often offers a sensible way forward, and I urge the Government to adopt those recommendations and try to implement them swiftly. This involved considerable work and a great deal of expertise and advice, and I see no reason for us not to move on the “controlling mind” test quite quickly, even if we needed to look a little further at the “duty to prevent” test. Neither of those is unfixable. They offer a sensible way forward in relation to the “controlling mind” test”, and I hope the Government will act.

The other matter I want to raise in respect of larger-scale frauds is the work of the Serious Fraud Office. It certainly involves controversy, and there are some issues to which the SFO needs to respond in relation to the conduct of certain cases. I hope very much that we will see the full publication of Sir David Calvert-Smith’s report on one of those cases. On the other hand, to its credit, with a staff of 250-odd, the SFO has secured for the Consolidated Fund, through payments under deferred prosecution agreements—of which there are now 12—the recovery of some £1.6 billion. If a modest percentage of that were ringfenced, and, rather than going back to the Treasury, were held and reinvested in the budget of the SFO and allied crime-fighting agencies, that would be a massive step forward in providing it with the resources with which to deal with serious international and corporate crime.

In one of the cases that we spoke about recently when the Justice Committee visited the SFO, the disclosure material involved some 1.9 million documents. Dealing with those is a massive task. The SFO could invest in more artificial intelligence for searching documents. There are some legal complexities surrounding that, but it is doable, and is already done in commercial civil litigation. However, it is necessary to invest in it. If some of that money from the deferred prosecution agreements were ringfenced and reinvested, it would be money very well spent.

Having spoken about those large-scale matters, I hope that we will not forget that there is a great deal of “small-scale” fraud—small-scale in the global picture, that is, but very big and important to the victims of fraud. The Justice Committee recently conducted a number of hearings on fraud in the justice system. The message of the evidence we heard from Victim Support was “Do not think that fraud is a victimless crime, which is all too easy to do”. That view was supported by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, which reported that some 74% of fraud victims were emotionally impacted by the crime. At the very least, someone will feel that they have been made an idiot of; more often, they will have lost what may be a small sum of money for a bank, but is a lot of money to them. They will feel vulnerable thereafter, almost betrayed. So this is not a victimless crime, and we should never allow it to be thought to be so. This is coming from the people who have been talked to because they have reported the offence of fraud. There are estimated to be 3.7 million incidents of fraud but according to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, the majority of them are not reported. We need to do a lot more on that everyday fraud.

[Andy Slaughter]

The hon. Gentleman talks about this subject as well as about the major frauds. I was shocked to find out that in 2020-21 fraud accounted for 39% of all crime and that the average investment fraud deprived the victim of £14,000, which is a significant sum of money to an individual. Is it part of the problem that we are not taking this seriously enough? If we were, we would no longer be relying on Action Fraud, which I thought the Government had agreed to wind up and replace with something effective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

It is extraordinary that fraud accounts for nearly 40% of all crime but only about 20% of police resources go into it, which is disproportionately low. The hon. Gentleman is right about the failures of Action Fraud. Every one of us will have seen that in our own constituency caseloads. It is clear from the evidence that we heard that Action Fraud is not working effectively. The stats told us that 876,000 frauds were reported through Action Fraud, CIFAS and UK Finance in 2021. On average, about seven frauds per minute are being committed. Of those 876,000, only about 58,200 were then disseminated for further investigation, and about 28,700 were passed on to the police National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, which sits behind Action Fraud. So even if someone gets through and gets anything done, only a small percentage of the cases are acted on. Ironically, for people who can get their case to court, the conviction rate is about 85%, but only a tiny percentage get to court. We have to do an awful lot more to get these cases to court in the first place, and that means much better treatment of victims and witnesses in those fraud cases.

The chair of the Bar Council, Mark Fenhalls QC, has said that

“this country has to decide whether or not it is interested in taking on the issue of fraud.”

The chief executive officer of CIFAS, Mike Haley, said it was surprising that

“there is no national strategy for fraud. There is an action plan, but it is a plan without a strategy.”

It would not be a bad thing for Ministers to upgrade the action plan into a proper full strategy and to have a Minister with overall responsibility for that action plan.

We need to look at the role of the financial institutions in high street fraud and credit card fraud. Often they are running very profitable retail credit card operations. Perhaps they could make a small investment and show willingness as responsible business people to contribute more towards anti-fraud measures. That might be regarded as a sensible and responsible type of business activity to assist with the significant costs that people have to meet.

We have to recognise that it is not just the big frauds that are international. The CPS, giving evidence to our Committee, stated that 75% of the fraud crimes that it prosecutes have an international element. That does not mean that they are Russian oligarchs or kleptocrats. It might mean that they are coming from foreign servers, for example, or they might be foreign-based scammers hitting not businesses but individuals through insurance fraud, scamming bogus products and so on, while based overseas. We need to find ways of improving our international co-operation around tracking down those matters. This all indicates that although good work is being done, it is not being done at the scale that is necessary or commensurate with the level of the problem and the harm that is done. There is the economic harm, but I stress that there is also social and personal harm, as the Committee heard. I hope we can use the upcoming opportunities to redouble these efforts, and this debate is very timely in that regard. I commend the reports from the all-party parliamentary groups, and I hope the Government will take on board the responses that we will be sending to the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office from the evidence we drew up only recently, as a spur to further and co-ordinated action. That is the most important thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

We will set out the details in the Bill and we look forward to the debates on it, but certainly we are clear that the registrar of companies should become more of an active gatekeeper for company creation and a custodian of reliable data, including powers to check, remove or decline information submitted to it. In her contribution, the hon. Lady rightly gave the example of someone setting up a company in the name of “Donald Trump”. Clearly that was not a legitimate company being established—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members may have missed that particular example.

Some of the changes are on identity verification. In my normal role talking about immigration, we do quite a range of work on ensuring that people can validate who they are and what their status is, and we want to bring a lot of that practice into the area of company formation to remove some of the worst examples we have heard about today. I accept that many people will see that as overdue, but it needs to be done and it is something we intend to legislate on and bring forward as a key change to our enforcement structure, to ensure there are fewer opportunities to abuse the system of company registration here in the UK.

Comments have been made about the resources of the National Crime Agency. We have increased its budget year on year since 2019. Taking all NCA funding into account, its budget has increased by 32% since 2019.

In response to concerns on corporate criminal liability laws, which a number of colleagues picked up on in the debate, we have sought to establish whether there is a case for change. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) who referred to the Law Commission and the review we asked it to undertake. As he rightly says, it sets out several options for reform; he outlined his view that he would like to see us accept them, and we are assessing them. Certainly, that is something we specifically asked the Law Commission to do because we believe it is an area that needs careful consideration.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I know the Minister wants to assess the options, but he will be aware that that debate has been ongoing for a number of years now, well in advance of its referral to the Law Commission. The matter has been debated in political circles and in legal and judicial circles for a great deal of time and there is a huge amount of information there, so I hope he can come to his assessment very quickly.

National Security Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Our intention is to bring forward foreign agent registration and it will be brought forward in the Commons; let me give that assurance. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asks what is so difficult about it. There are a number of difficulties. It is not just a case of lifting and shifting what the US and Australia have done. We have been working with our Five Eyes colleagues. There have not just been many debates but we have working with colleagues who have themselves had difficulties in some parts of enforcement. We have had very close links with our Australian counterparts in terms of workability. We want to get it right. There will be an open debate about it in Committee and everywhere else, and we look forward to working with the right hon. Gentleman on that.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment because the foreign influence registration scheme is very important. May I commend to her the details of the Australian scheme, particularly the specific provision that that makes consistent with our commitment to the rule of law, which is a specific exemption for legal professional privilege? This is not a technical point. It is very important to make sure that the scheme is legally robust, nationally and internationally. The Australians make it work, so I hope that we have time to debate that issue.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. These changes and measures are not straightforward. I can say to colleagues from the Floor of the House that, having had many discussions directly with our counterparts in Australia over the past 18 months, some aspects of the scheme work, but some do not. It is in our interests to make sure that we get this right. Colleagues need to come together on this. We need to work collectively—not just on the technicalities, but on the legal points. It is the legal application that will matter in terms of making a material difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I look forward to many debates with my hon. Friend on this issue. When it comes to TPIMs, there has been a considerable journey. Based on the work of our intelligence and security services—I am privileged to see, I am afraid, too much of the threats and insights, right down to the reconnaissance on certain individuals and their characteristics and the behaviours in which they participate—as I have said, this is a tool of last resort, which will be used only when intelligence confirms that highly damaging threat activity is under way. That will mean restricting the liberty of individuals if they pose a threat to the British people, to a local community and to our country.

It is important, as I have said, that these measures are proportionate to the threat posed by an individual and are subject to rigorous checks and balances, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) will provide, and by the courts. We should never negate or ignore that, because the courts have a significant role to play.

Changes to schedule 3 powers in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 will give police officers the ability to stop individuals at ports to ascertain their involvement in hostile activity by foreign states. The authorisation process enabling officers to retain confidential information is being streamlined to match the process using counter-terrorism laws. There are other measures, not currently in the Bill, on which we have touched. We will introduce a foreign influence registration scheme that requires individuals to register certain arrangements with foreign Governments, to deter and disrupt state-threat activity in the UK. It will bring our country into line with similar schemes run by allies, but we clearly need to ensure that that is workable here. The scheme will be included in a Government amendment, as I have highlighted.

A consistent message from respondents to our public consultation last year was that any scheme of this nature must strike the right balance between highlighting foreign influence in the UK and protecting those involved in legitimate activity from disproportionate compliance and regulatory matters. The scheme will follow precedents from the US and our Australian allies, requiring registration of certain arrangements with foreign Governments. It will strengthen our efforts to deter and disrupt state-threat activity through greater transparency and the scrutiny that it requires, with penalties for those who seek to obfuscate and hide such arrangements. It will increase the risk to those engaging in covert or malign activities for or on behalf of any country, including those identified by the UK intelligence community, such as Russia, China and Iran.

That includes the type of activity described by the Intelligence and Security Committee in its Russia report, where individuals with access to UK political institutions and public officials covertly exert influence at the behest of foreign intelligence services. It also includes the activity represented by the deeply concerning case of an individual engaged in political interference on behalf of the Chinese Communist party, as touched on earlier.

The scheme will make the UK more resilient to threats. Those who work covertly will face a choice between registering with the scheme, thus exposing their activity, and risking prosecution for not doing so. Both options present risk to state-threat actors. There is no intention, however, to create unnecessary barriers or to discourage those engaged in legitimate activity in the UK. Foreign Governments routinely engage in efforts to influence UK domestic and foreign policy. Where undertaken in an open, transparent way, this will continue to be welcome.

As I have mentioned already, we intend to bring the scheme forward before the Bill leaves the Commons. Following feedback received during the Home Office’s public consultation on this issue, and following Russian attempts to undermine European stability, it is right—we welcome all views and considerations on this—that we take the time to ensure that it is an effective and proportionate tool to counter state threats activity and to protect the UK’s interest.

On measures not in the Bill, I have already touched on the Official Secrets Act 1989 and the work that needs to be undertaken. To confirm, I will look at reform of the OSA, along with other work that the Government are doing to strengthen whistleblowing practices and transparency. In the context of Russia’s terrible invasion of Ukraine, it is essential that we prioritise measures that strengthen our defences against state threats, which this Bill does. Likewise, the Government have been considering reform of the treason laws, but right now we do not have plans to do so through this Bill.

The House passed the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill in a day, because we recognised the severity of the situation, and we recognise that at a time of crisis, we must act collectively in the national interest. However, good legislation in such complex areas must be undertaken effectively as well as efficiently to achieve the desired outcome of bolstering our agencies and protecting our nation.

The National Security Bill restricts convicted terrorists from access to civil legal aid and will enable the courts to freeze civil damages awarded to terrorists where there is a risk those funds might be used for terrorism purposes. Where that risk is ongoing, the courts will be empowered to permanently withhold those funds. When an individual commits an act of terrorism, they are rejecting the democratic state that provides the benefit of civil legal aid, and it cannot be right that the same individual can then go on to receive civil legal aid funded by that very state. These changes will end that abuse of our legal aid system.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I understand the point that my right hon. Friend is trying to make on this issue, but I urge her to be careful that there is a measure of proportionality in how we approach it. In the way the clauses are currently drafted, there could be no connection at all between the matter for which legal aid is applied and the behaviour of the terrorist. It could be many years into the future. For some lower level cases of terrorism, if there be such a thing—those who have been released back into the community and whom we seek to rehabilitate—that could be counter-productive and not consistent with our commitment to access to justice. Can we look at how we work the detail of this, rather than the principle?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention on this very point. This is an area of great interest, primarily because of the type of cases we have seen. There is no question about that. I am afraid I have been subject to too many examples of cases of this nature. I am more than happy to speak to him and others about this. We need to get the approach right, and we will. People do move forward and change in life, but that is a separate issue. As was mentioned earlier, currently we are trying to address specific lacunae.

This Bill will amend the Serious Crime Act 2007 to better protect those in the security and intelligence agencies and the Ministry of Defence when discharging vital national security functions. It will also enable more effective joined-up working with international partners to improve not only our operational agility, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has already touched on, but how we can be flexible going forward to address the changing landscape of threats.

It is worth remembering that things and situations can change for the better, as well as for the worse. Some of the UK’s closest allies today are countries with whom we have fought wars in the past, and we regularly develop new tools to keep us safe. The point is that none of this happens by chance. We should all reflect that when the Berlin wall fell back in 1989, some people thought that liberal democracy had won and history as we knew it then was at an end, yet this year, as we all know, Russia launched an unprovoked war against a neighbour.

It is right that we are vigilant, and we have to be vigilant every day, all the time. We cannot think in terms of just keeping up—we have to be several steps ahead. That is why the Bill is state-agnostic, but we need to be ready to face threats from wherever they may emanate, and the threat landscape is changing.

Keeping our country safe is not exclusively a matter for Government. It is also a matter for us as legislators. It is vital to come together on these measures and, as I have said several times, the measures in the Bill were drawn up after extensive consultation. They will mean that our courageous law enforcement and intelligence agencies will have the powers they need to keep us safe. We will have the ability to bring those who mean us harm to justice and, at the same time, to evolve and respond in an agile way to those threats. I urge the whole House to send a clear message to our adversaries that we will put the safety of the British people first by getting behind the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend always raises pertinent issues on behalf of his constituents in Winchester. As the Home Secretary set out yesterday, the legal basis for the policy is the new Labour—I know it is not fashionable to talk about new Labour on the Opposition Benches—policies of 1999, 2002 and 2004, when the Labour party had a genuine and thorough position on these matters that I am afraid is not in place today, when we hear a lot of criticism but no meaningful alternative is brought forward to address the issues. For the reasons I have set out, I argue that we have to take action to address the terrible criminality that puts lives at risk. That argument underpins the legislation.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My hon. Friend asks whether there is an alternative to the Rwanda scheme, which I accept is not directly part of this legislation. The salary of an immigration tribunal judge—a first-tier tribunal judge—is £117,000. If we put on oncosts, even most generously we get £200,000. So far, £120 million has been committed to the Rwanda scheme; around 600 first-tier tribunal judges could be bought for that, or any number of hundreds of Home Office caseworkers. Given that the Cart legislation is now quite rightly being restricted, surely a constructive alternative would be to invest in the current system.

[Tom Pursglove]

I agree with my hon. Friend in the sense that that is one intervention we need to make to improve matters considerably. We all want to see cases considered more quickly and to give people certainty either way as soon as possible. We are delivering that objective through the new plan for immigration—it is front and centre—but in itself it will not solve the issues. I genuinely believe that the approach that we are taking, through the comprehensive plan, will shift the dial, change the dynamic, and, ultimately, help us to shut down these evil criminal networks.

Global Migration Challenge

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Under this agreement, as I have said, Rwanda will process claims in accordance with the UN refugee convention and national and international human rights laws. Importantly, it will ensure that individuals are resettled in the right way. Over 130,000 refugees have been resettled in Rwanda, and it is not just a safe country, but one where both the UNHCR and the EU have resettled individuals. Finally, with all partnerships—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would like to listen, I will answer the question. We have thorough discussions in all partnerships, and in these negotiations, including those on human rights, we have worked closely with the Rwandan Government on the need to protect vulnerable people seeking safety and a new life.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Home Secretary is right to deal with the issue of criminal people trafficking and to recognise the frustration of many at the length of time it takes to remove people who are here unlawfully from this country. The caveat many of us would enter, however, is whether this scheme will achieve either of those objectives. Can she tell me how she can assume that a set of criteria to determine claims, as clearly must be drawn up, is likely to be free from legal challenge, if the criteria are not published and transparently available? Would it not be much better to invest the significant amounts of money we are talking about in speeding up the work of our current immigration system, in recruiting more immigration tribunal judges and in more investigative resource for the Home Office, so that we can achieve the objectives without the financial and potential legal risks that the current scheme involves?

[Priti Patel]

We are doing both. My hon. Friend will know that the legislation for the new plan for immigration does exactly that by introducing the one-stop shop for immigration courts and tribunals, stopping the merry-go-round of various legal practices being used to prevent the removal of individuals with no legal right to be in the United Kingdom and the constant right of appeal in the immigration courts, which slows down the processing of cases. That is the purpose of the new plan for immigration. There are clauses in the Nationality and Borders Bill that, I repeat for the benefit of the House, the entire Opposition voted against, because they do not want to see the issue of illegal migration and reform of the asylum system addressed at all. Those are many of the challenges we are confronted with every single day.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an important Bill, and it is an exceptional Bill because this is not normally the way in which we go about dealing with such matters, but it is necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) spoke of it as an economic warfare Bill. Sadly, there is an element of that, because a vicious and genocidal war is being waged in our own continent and, as a law-abiding country that believes in the rule of law, we have necessarily to take actions perhaps not in the way we normally would.

Some aspects of the Bill involve, for example, the removal of a proportionality test in the seizing of assets. In the case of the acolytes, fellow travellers and hangers-on of the Putin regime that is murdering people, it is perfectly proportionate to move swiftly and immediately, but that might not be true in all the other cases in which entities are held in this form. Although none of us is going to delay this Bill today, I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether the second Bill that will come along, which I welcome, may give us a better chance to look at whether that approach is appropriate as a global provision, as opposed to one that is specifically targeted in this instance. There are legitimate business grounds for why assets may be held in various forms of entities that will be caught by the Bill. We do not want to destroy our ability to do that in this country, but at the same time, we want to prevent abuse.

I also welcome what has been said about strengthening the enforcement provisions. We need to do much more on economic crime. The Justice Committee is conducting an inquiry on fraud at the moment, but we need to look at crime internationally as well. Our reputation both as a financial centre and a legal centre depends on that, but that involves our committing the money in a way in which, for example, the United States does to a far greater degree for economic and extraterritorial matters.

The fact that, unlike us, Russia is not a country that abides by the rule of law could not have been more amply demonstrated by its non-attendance at the International Court of Justice in The Hague today. It is a measure of the regime’s arrogance that despite being party to the genocide convention and having signed up to the ICJ’s jurisdiction, it does not even bother to turn up and has the brass neck to suggest, wholly falsely, of course, that it is defending Russian speakers against genocide. It is a measure of the perversion that has taken over the Russian state. Regrettably for those of us who love Russia’s culture and history as a European nation, under Putin it has become almost as much of a rogue state as the mullahs have made Iran. We therefore have to act with exactly the same rigour to destroy it economically. That will bring awful pain to the people of Russia, which is terrible, and it will bring a considerable amount of pain to many people in this country and beyond. Sadly, however, that is the price that we will have to pay to ensure that a genocidal, homicidal dictator, who has clearly never changed from being the KGB torturer that he once was, will not be able to blackmail us going forward.

On the Bill’s specifics, I hope that the Minister will look at some of the amendments, including a number of important technical amendments that have been suggested by the Law Society and which merit being looked at in Committee. We must not forget, for example, that those who have significant control are not necessarily the same as those who have beneficial ownership. There is a risk of a loophole that needs to be tightened up. It is really important, therefore, that we ensure that the various registers that are now being created align sufficiently so that we actually get to the economic beneficiaries of the trusts, rather than the intermediaries who might be dealing with it. That is where the oligarchs, in this case, and the criminals are likely to be.

It is also particularly important to look at the timeframe. Six months for registration seems needlessly generous. Equally, 28 days is too short, because we must bear it in mind that legitimate businesses will hold their assets through these entities and formulas, and we need to give them time to register. I say to the Minister that if, in the other place, there was an amendment that brought that time limit down to three months, many of us think that that would strike the balance very sensibly. That would enable legitimate businesses to register properly, but it would still put the pressure on the villains who we would really get to. I hope that the Minister will think about that.

Subject to that, I commend the Bill to the House. This is actually a fight not just for democracy and decency, but for the rule of law, and that is why we must get the Bill through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), whom I join in welcoming this long-delayed Bill. I think I have co-chaired the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax for nearly seven years; as she says, we were promised this measure six years ago. The irony is that at the time the Government were ahead of the curve, and probably ahead of the world, in coming up with such measures. If we had only had these rules in place and these disclosures available to us now, we could have moved so much faster in this crisis. I wholeheartedly welcome them today and support them all.

I just want to take a few moments to disagree slightly with some comments that have been made. The transparent register of overseas entities is not about economic warfare; it is a perfectly normal and necessary measure to ensure that we have a clean economy free of dirty, criminal and corrupt money. It should not be seen just as a measure for this crisis, but as a measure for life. It is needed for our economy, and it is not intended to be an attack on investors who are perfectly normal and acting properly. It will catch Americans, Australians, Canadians and Europeans; anyone who has property in this country owned by a company will be caught. They are still welcome to come here. We want them to come here, invest here and create jobs.

What we do not want is dirty, corrupt money. People involved in that can sling their hook—they can go. That is what these sanctions are aimed at correcting. People who are coming here to invest have nothing to fear if they are doing nothing illegal—that is what we want. Please, let us not pretend that this measure, which has been planned as an anti-corruption measure for all these years, is solely one for this crisis. I hope it helps in this crisis and that somehow we find some property owned by an oligarch or two that we would not otherwise have found, and we can freeze or sanction it. I suspect that this measure will not make much difference on that. If we do not know what assets they have got already, through our intelligence services, and we cannot get those sanctions and freezes in places quickly, I suspect that having a register in place in a few months’ time, which these people may or may not comply with, is not going to make a lot of difference.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes a good point: this is not just for this crisis. He will have seen the excellent article in The Spectator by Professor Richard Ekins, where he and Sir Stephen Laws, the former Junior Treasury Counsel, suggest that the best route for this crisis would have been a stand-alone Bill naming all those to be sanctioned in a schedule and with power for that to be added to. That is not what we have, so the reality is that we are going to have to get this Bill through and perhaps think about that better approach, should such eventualities arise again in the future.

[Nigel Mills]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but that matter is beyond my expertise or interest; my interest is in anti-corruption measures here. I welcome the fact that we have this Bill, but I am nervous that the speed of its drafting and some of the technical provisions may lead these provisions not to work as they should. The people we are most after are not the innocent businessmen who have chosen to arrange property or a company here; we are after the really dodgy rich ones who will use every bit of machinery they have got and may well be able to find some loopholes and ways of exploiting this.

The Bill requires the registration of the beneficial owner of the company that owns the property, not the actual property itself. That may sound like a distinction without a difference, but I suspect that ways can be found, through nominees and careful shareholdings, where those two things can be distinguished. So we need to watch carefully as we bring these provisions in to ensure that they are hitting the people we think they should hit and getting the disclosures we want. If we are not getting them, we need to come back quickly and tighten the rules, changing the provisions and tweaking them. We must not just think, “We have done this today; that’s it. It doesn’t matter. We have got a few thousand registrations.” All the innocent ones may be there, but we may not have got the important ones. That is where we need a huge culture change in the City, in the government and in the law enforcement agencies, where people know that Parliament is now serious in saying, “We mean these provisions to have effect. We want you to enforce them, and we want them to work and to be resourced.” We do not want them on the statute book only then to be ignored, with their being a bit of a deterrent and it not mattering whether they are used or not. We want this stuff to make a huge culture change to our economy and we want it to happen quickly. I commend the Bill and I look forward to the rest of its stages.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Neill Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I understand it, there is a consultation ongoing about how the Cheshire police should interact with the public they serve. I would hate to jump to any conclusion about what may or may not be decided, but, Mr Speaker, you will be aware that all police and crime commissioners should be reviewing their property strategy in the light of the massive expansion in police officer numbers that they are seeing at the moment, to the extent that, in the next 12 months or so, we expect to see the highest number of police officers that the country has ever seen.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to tackle catalytic converter theft.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

We are working with police and manufacturers through the national vehicle crime working group to tackle the theft of catalytic converters.

[Sir Robert Neill]

In many areas of the country, crime is going down. It is going down in many areas in Bromley and Chislehurst, but one area where it is not is the explosion in catalytic converter thefts in my constituency. Ours has been identified by the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead as one of the highest areas for this crime. These are not opportunistic thefts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are thefts by organised crime gangs seeking valuable metals that are sold for considerable amounts of money—platinum and palladium—carried out by men armed with baseball bats, threatening violence? Will he ensure that much greater priority is given to this crime and that we clamp down on the handlers of these stolen goods by greater enforcement of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend, with his usual acuity, has put his finger on the button of this issue. It is cause for significant concern in parts of the country, and he is right that it is a product of prices in the metal market. He will be pleased to hear that just this month the British Transport Police co-ordinated a national week of intensification on acquisitive crime, looking particularly at catalytic converters, and that the work we have done on scrap metal dealers will go some way to dealing with the problem. However, we need to work much more closely with manufacturers to ensure that they do as much as they can to design out the theft of converters. Let us hope that in the years to come, as we all convert to electric vehicles, it will become a problem of the past.

Delivering Justice for Victims

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was sorry to see his announcement last week that he would be stepping down from the House at the next general election. Having been a Government Whip, I have spent many hours with him on Bill Committees, and I have always appreciated the way in which he has gone about his business here in the House. I also appreciated the constructive tone that ran through at least the start of his response to my statement.

One thing that I am particularly concerned about in the approach that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to adopt here is that he keeps talking about a Bill that he and his colleagues have prepared. I do not think that being prescriptive about all this is the right approach. This is a fundamental reform and a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver meaningful reforms and get this right, and I think the right approach is to have meaningful consultations with the sector, with victims, and with those with knowledge and experience in these matters, in order to deliver a policy that is fit for purpose and delivers on the aims that I would like to think all of us in this House agree on. At the end of the day, we are talking about the victims of crime. Some of them have been through horrendous, unthinkable trauma, and we owe it to them to come together constructively and responsibly and to debate these matters in a measured way to ensure that we get the response right for them. That is my job, and it is the responsibility of Members of this House and certainly of the ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice to get this right.

We have a strong record on crime, and of course the ultimate objective is to ensure that there are no victims in the first place. That is why we are committed, for example, to rolling out 20,000 extra police officers. We want to prevent crime from happening, and we want more police officers out on the beat catching criminals and deterring crime. That is exactly what we are doing. I repeat that our plan for victims will deliver a world-class service to them by amplifying the victims’ voice, by increasing transparency in the system—Members across the House will recognise the real importance and value of that—by strengthening accountability, by improving support for victims, including through criminals paying more towards the support we put in place, and by generally providing better tools to protect victims and prosecute criminals.

The approach that we take to these matters as a Department and as a Government is one of non-defensive transparency around the policy. Some of what we are announcing today is a starting point. This is an iterative process, for example, with the scorecards. I would welcome input from Members across the House about the scorecards and what more we can do to improve transparency so that we can drive genuine improvement.

The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the issue of the courts backlog. We have taken comprehensive action to address the backlog. As part of the spending review, we are investing £477 million in the criminal justice system over the next three years to help to reduce the backlog and to deliver the swift access to justice that victims deserve. We have taken decisive action, but the shadow team seems to have a pretty short memory. Prior to the pandemic, in February 2020, the courts backlog was 19% lower than it was in the last year of the Labour Government. Meanwhile, we have kept the wheels of justice moving in unprecedented circumstances, so the Opposition really do not have a leg to stand on in this regard. The courts Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is here in the Chamber and is overseeing this important work.

Despite the Opposition’s criticism, the funding that we are putting in place is far in excess of anything that was ever put in place by the previous Labour Government. Our £185 million package is over four times as much as was spent in the last year of the previous Labour Government. Our record shows that we are on the side of the victims, while Labour failed to support them in the way that we are doing now.

On the issue of rape prosecutions, I would just draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the data on the scorecards relates to quarter 2. That provides important context, and we are obviously now six months on from that. Our plans will significantly improve the way in which the criminal justice system responds to rape. Before the end of the year, we will publish the first ever adult rape scorecard; introduce a single source of 24/7 support for victims of rape and sexual violence; roll out a new investigatory model—Operation Soteria—that focuses on the suspects’ behaviour rather than that of the victims; and expand pre-recorded cross-examination through section 28 for victims of rape and sexual violence. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the implementation of that last policy, and it is of course crucial that we get it right and that it is delivered appropriately and sensitively. That is why we are working with our criminal justice partners and the judiciary to deliver that roll-out as quickly as possible and in an appropriate manner.

The point that I made at the start applies to how we debate these matters. We are talking about victims of crime, and I want us to have a constructive debate over the course of the next eight weeks as we consult on these measures. There is a comprehensive engagement plan in place to do that, and I would really welcome Members from across the House contributing their ideas, helping to shape this, and encouraging their constituents and the organisations that they work with in their constituencies to make their views and experiences known so that we can get this right and deliver the meaningful change that victims deserve.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I very much welcome this statement, and the tone with which the Minister has approached this matter. We need a serious and measured debate about how we best serve the victims of crime, and I particularly welcome the proposal to put the victims code on to a statutory basis. As he notes, this is something that the Justice Committee has called for, and the Committee stands ready to assist with any prelegislative scrutiny in that regard.

The Minister is right to flag up the issue of delays and their impact on victims, and one of the key causes of delay is victim attrition, particularly in relation to rape and serious sexual offences. The most important means of tackling that is sustained financial investment in the system, which, as he rightly observes, has been lacking for decades. It was lacking under previous Governments when I was in practice at the Bar, so no one party can claim a monopoly of concern on that. The current settlement is the best for decades, but will he ensure that it is applied to investment in maintaining the courts in good physical condition, maintaining the supply of good-quality judges—both full time and recorders—and, importantly, funding the legal profession properly so that we have good-quality barristers and solicitors available to prosecute and defend these important and sensitive cases. Good-quality lawyers on both sides speed up cases and give a better outcome for the victims.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sage advice. It is fair to say that on these matters I am keen to have a constructive working relationship so that we can get this right, and I genuinely believe that the Justice Committee has an awful lot to contribute to the consultation process as we shape this policy. He is absolutely right about victim attrition. That has undoubtedly been a barrier to securing the greater numbers of prosecutions that we would all like to see delivered. Of course, section 28 will play a really important part in delivering on that, informed by the work on the trials of that technology that we have seen previously.

Independent sexual violence advisor provision is also important, and engagement with ISVAs has a significant role in helping victims to sustain their participation in the criminal justice system and in bringing perpetrators to justice. My hon. Friend also makes an important point about courts, and my hon. Friend the courts Minister has heard what he said. The £477 million injection that we are making in that regard is also important.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now go to the Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Robert Neill, and the four-minute time limit comes into force for Back Benchers at this point.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and to talk on these important matters. Although I understand the motives behind the series of amendments standing in her name, I must start by disagreeing with the fundamental approach in some respects. I think it is right that this does go to the Law Commission, because these are potentially very important changes and they affect, inevitably, the balance that must be achieved in a criminal trial between the proper protection of the interests of any witness and the right of any defendant to have a fair trial in which all relevant issues—I stress that—are ventilated. Frequently, the issue of consent would not be relevant to the defence, but there are circumstances in which it is and we should not be making substantive changes here without very careful consideration. The same applies in respect of a number of the other amendments that the right hon. and learned Lady and others have tabled. Again, I understand the reasoning, but, for example, changing the definition of “consent” in relation to recklessness would make a significant change to the substantive criminal law in this area, and that should not be undertaken via an addition to an already large Bill, with limited scrutiny.

There are significant arguments to be considered on both sides, and the Law Commission is the right route for all of these matters. In my experience, and that of the Select Committee, the Law Commission is well able to move swiftly given the resources and the support to do so. I hope that we can leave this on the basis of having a proper look at what are very significant matters, affecting not just the question of the protection of victims, but the right of any defendant to a proper airing of the evidence. Although I am clear that there are still areas where complainants in such cases do not receive the treatment that they should, the position both in the courts and in the investigation of such offences is very much improved from where it was. We can always continue to do more, but inevitably now cases of this kind are tried by highly experienced and senior judges. My experience of having both prosecuted and defended in many such cases is that the courts are robust and swift in dealing with such matters and in rejecting inappropriate applications to stray beyond the relevant issues.

In the time available, may I also touch on some of the other amendments? I would be troubled at anything that fetters the discretion of the courts in relation to minimum sentences. At the end of the day, all aggravating features can properly be set before the courts. The Government and this House have increased maximum sentences in a number of areas, and I have a concern in principle at the imposition of minimum sentences, which have the potential in certain circumstances to tie the hands of the courts. There is an amendment on the representation of families of the deceased at inquests in certain circumstances. I do not think this Bill is the right place for that, but I strongly commend to the Lord Chancellor, whom I am glad to see on the Treasury Bench, the Justice Committee’s report on this, and I hope that in his response we will be given a constructive way forward to deal with those matters.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee.

This Bill presented the Government with an opportunity to enact measures that would end violence against women and girls, but I am afraid that they blew it, instead filling the Bill with divisive nonsense such as locking up protestors who cause “annoyance.” Today the Government have a final opportunity to support Labour’s proposals—to show the public it cares about violence against women and girls, and wants to create a criminal justice system that works for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill [V]]

This is an important Bill, and this debate is a reminder that an effective criminal justice system is all about balance—balance between the individual and the state, between the victim and the accused, and between the need to protect society with condign punishment where necessary and the duty to rehabilitate those who can genuinely turn their lives around. Despite some mischaracterisation, the Bill does achieve that.

Perhaps the Bill is also a reminder that an effective criminal justice system requires a holistic and calm approach that lasts beyond the lifetime of any one Parliament. We need to fund the system right the way through, ensuring that the police have enough funding and powers to do their job, that the courts have enough resource, powers and flexibility to achieve justice in a way that is credible and consistent, as our judges invariably endeavour to do, and that the Prison and Probation Service has the resources not only to keep dangerous people safe, but to support those who wish to make a better life for themselves having paid their debt to society. All three are important.

Not all reform necessarily requires primary legislation. Much of the objectives that have been talked about in this debate can be achieved through other means, such as policy initiatives and better use of laws we already have—I can think of several that have been touched on in this debate—and better use of the sentencing powers that already exist, which with support our judiciary is prepared to do. That is why the work of the Sentencing Council is so important. It is worth reminding right hon. and hon. Members that, on the House’s behalf, the Justice Committee is a statutory consultee in the work of the Sentencing Council, something which we take incredibly seriously. There is a power for elected representatives here to have an input into the process, and we ought to make full and proper use of it. The Committee is determined to do so.

I have a final word about the importance of the Law Commission, which has been mentioned much today. The Lord Chancellor has been firm in his support for it, and it is critical that the Law Commission continues to be properly and fully resourced. Its budgets are not large, and there has been no attempt to reduce them under the current Administration. There was once an ill-advised attempt to do so, but I am sure that there will not be another. We must ensure that the Law Commission continues to have the resources so that we have an objective, independent, authoritative voice to guide us in reforming desperately important elements of our law, criminal and civil, which will have a bearing on society beyond the lifetime of this Parliament and many more besides. The Law Commission’s long-term approach is vital, too, and I commend it to the House.

Criminal Justice Review: Response to Rape

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely appreciate the hon. Lady’s righteous anger about this situation. As I said in my statement, this is not a matter about which any of us are particularly pleased or proud, and it is a source of regret that the investigation and conviction of rape has been declining for some years. It is a difficult offence to deal with at the best of times, but the significant declines that we have seen in the past few years are absolutely what we wish to address.

However, against that background, I am sorry that the hon. Lady seeks to politicise what should be a cross-party issue, not a Labour/Conservative issue. There are many Members on the Government Benches for whom this has been a significant issue for some time. As Mayor of London, the Prime Minister himself published the first ever violence against women and girls strategy in this country and, indeed, in any major city around the world. This is an issue that has been close to his heart, and indeed mine, for some time.

I should also point out to the hon. Lady that, notwithstanding the fact that there is a document that requires publishing—as I say, that will be published shortly after recess—she should not mistake that for the beginning of the work. Much work has been done thus far, and we are engaged closely with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other partners to make sure that the action plan and the work we need to do to get more cases from report into court has begun already. As the hon. Lady will know, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Police Chiefs’ Council launched their joint action plan in January this year, and I am pleased that that progress is being made as well.

That is against a background of significant action by the Government over the past decade in various areas of violence against women and girls, which I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate and applaud, ranging from creating the offence of coercive control to outlawing upskirting, stalking, and revenge porn and the threat thereof. We have just passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 with great support across both Houses. Alongside that, we have the information and support campaigns the Government have been running, along with the very significant financial support that has gone into support for victims and witnesses of rape and sexual violence.

The document is important, and it was important to get it right—as I say, we delayed it at the request of the Victims’ Commissioner and the victims sector. Please be under no illusion: we are working extremely hard to try to correct what, as the hon. Lady points out, is an injustice.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

As somebody who both prosecuted and defended probably dozens of rape cases in the course of my career at the Bar, I can say that the Minister is certainly right to recognise that these are always complex and demanding cases. The difficulty of securing the same level of convictions as there is for other types of serious offence has been around for many years—it is not a recent one.

It is also right, of course, to have delayed publication until the decision of the Court of Appeal in the judicial review; otherwise, it might have materially altered the review’s conclusions. However, now that all the challenges have been dismissed on all grounds and the judgment has been handed down, on 14 May, will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that not only is the document published but that there is proper resourcing to support the joint national plan of action between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police? Doing the same is starting to make a difference in relation to the problems experienced in the past with disclosure. Getting the thing working on the ground, surely, is what we must now tackle very urgently.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee. He is quite right that to get this complicated and difficult piece of work correct, it was appropriate for us to delay. I have to confess that I was pretty gung-ho —anxious to get it out before Christmas. But as I say, the intervention of the sector and the judicial review meant that we had to hold off because of the implications.

My hon. Friend is quite right that the key issue is not so much the document, which is an important statement and political moment, but the operationalisation of what is within it. While we are dealing with a police service of tens of thousands of individuals, a prosecution service with many people involved, and lots of other parties that take a case from report to court, getting them all to both act and think differently—the culture change as well as the operational change—will be an enormous challenge. That is what we are focused on. He will be pleased to know that I have convened a Criminal Justice Board taskforce of key individuals in the organisations involved to try to drive that operational challenge of embedding change.