Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 10—Recommendations by GREVIO and the Committee of the Parties (No. 2)—

“Any recommendations or reports by GREVIO (that is the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence) or the Committee of the Parties (that is the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention)) must be debated in Parliament before any Government response is given.”

New clause 11—Annual statistics—

“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims in each country who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published annually.”

New clause 12—Quarterly statistics—

“The Government must use its best endeavours to obtain statistics on the levels of violence against men, women and all domestic violence victims who are ratified members of the Convention and to make them publicly available and published quarterly.”

New clause 14—Limitation on reservations concerning Article 44—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 2 of Article 78 of the Convention that it will not establish jurisdiction under Article 44 when the offence established with the Convention is committed by a person who has her or his habitual residence in the United Kingdom.”

New clause 15—Territorial application—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on territorial application under Article 77 of the Convention.”

New clause 16—Victims of forced marriage—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any restriction on its right to take the necessary legislation or other measures referred to in Article 59.4.”

New clause 17—Compensation awarded to those who have sustained serious bodily injury or impairment of health—

“No ratification of the Convention shall be made by the United Kingdom unless at the time of depositing its instrument of ratification it declares that it reserves the right not to apply the provisions of Article 30 paragraph 2.”

New clause 18—Limitation on reservations concerning psychological violence and stalking—

“The United Kingdom shall not make its ratification subject to any declaration as provided for under paragraph 3 of Article 78 that it reserves the right to provide for non-criminal sanctions for the behaviours referred to in Article 33 and Article 34.”

New clause 19—Reservations—

“Nothing in this Bill shall prevent the United Kingdom ratifying the Istanbul Convention with reservations as provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 78.”

New clause 20—Requirement to denounce of the Convention after five years—

“The United Kingdom Government shall denounce the Istanbul Convention no later than five years after it has ratified the Convention.”

Government amendment 1, leave out clause 1.

This amendment leaves out clause 1.

Amendment 56, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“without making any reservations under Article 78 of the Convention.”

Amendment 57, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.

Government amendment 2, page 1, line 12, leave out “date by” and insert “timescale within”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the timescale within which she expects the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than the date.

Amendment 58, page 1, line 13, at end insert “without reservations.”

Amendment 24, page 1, line 14, leave out from “laid” to end of the subsection and insert “when reasonably practicable”.

Government amendment 3, page 1, line 14, leave out

“within four weeks of this Act receiving Royal Assent”

and insert

“as soon as reasonably practicable after this Act comes into force”.

This amendment changes the deadline for a report under clause 2 from four weeks from Royal Assent to as soon as reasonably practicable after commencement.

Amendment 22, page 1, line 14, leave out “four weeks” and insert “three years”.

Government amendment 4, page 1, line 16, leave out “Her Majesty’s Government” and insert “the Secretary of State”.

This amendment means the obligation to make a statement to Parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her Majesty’s Government generally.

Amendment 59, page 1, line 17, after “Convention” insert “without reservations”.

Government amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out “it” and insert “the Secretary of State”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.

Government amendment 6, page 1, line 19, leave out “its” and insert “the”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.

Government amendment 7, page 1, line 20, leave out “the Convention will be” and insert—

“the Secretary of State would expect the Convention to be”.

This amendment means the Secretary of State will be required to make a statement detailing when she would expect the Istanbul Convention to be ratified, rather than when it will be so ratified.

Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out “each year” and insert “biennially”.

Government amendment 8, page 2, line 2, after “each year” insert “until ratification”.

This amendment makes clear that the government will only have to report on progress towards ratification until ratification has taken place (see amendment 14).

Government amendment 9, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) if a report has been laid under section 2(1), any alteration in the timescale specified in that report in accordance with subsection (1)(b) and the reasons for its alteration;”.

This amendment is designed to avoid the implication that a report under clause 2 will necessarily have been issued before a report is required under clause 3.

Amendment 26, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 27, page 2, line 7, leave out paragraph (b).

Government amendment 10, page 2, line 7, leave out “(before ratification)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Amendment 28, page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).

Government amendment 11, page 2, line 10, leave out “(before ratification)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Government amendment 12, page 2, line 11, leave out “to” and insert “in”.

This amendment changes a reference to legislative proposals being brought forward “to” the devolved legislatures to legislative proposals being brought forward “in” the devolved legislatures - which is the usual formulation.

Amendment 29, page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (d).

Government amendment 13, page 2, line 14, leave out “(before ratification)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 8.

Government amendment 14, page 2, line 16, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the ongoing reporting obligation in clause 3(1)(e).

Amendment 49, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“and produce a breakdown of government spending on victims of violence and domestic violence for both men and women.”

Amendment 50, page 2, line 27, after “violence” insert—

“and provide statistics showing international comparison on levels of violence against women and men”.

Amendment 51, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“and to include the names of these organisations”.

Amendment 60, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“(f) the costs to the Exchequer of the measures set out in subsection (1)(e).”

Amendment 52, page 2, line 32, leave out “annual” and insert “biennial”.

Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, leave out “1 November 2017” and insert “1 January 2020”.

Amendment 54, page 2, line 33, leave out “1 November each year” and insert—

“1 January every 2 years”.

Amendment 55, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out from “Act” to end of subsection and insert—

“will not come into force until 90% of the signatories to the Convention have ratified it and there has been a proven reduction in violence against women in 75% of the countries who have ratified the Convention.”

Government amendment 15, page 2, line 37, leave out

“on the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent”

and insert—

“at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.

This amendment means the Act will be brought into force two months following Royal Assent, rather than immediately on Royal Assent.

Government amendment 16, in title, line 1, leave out

“Require the United Kingdom to ratify”

and insert—

“Make provision in connection with the ratification by the United Kingdom of”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.

Government amendment 17, in title, line 3, leave out “; and for connected purposes”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to try your patience, but could you advise the House about the status of explanatory statements associated with amendments, and particularly Government amendments? The Member’s explanatory statement to amendment 4 on page 8 of the amendment paper says:

“This amendment means the obligation to make a statement to Parliament will fall on the Secretary of State, rather than Her Majesty’s Government generally.”

In fact, the amendment goes much further, because it would change the Government’s role in ratification and substitute the Secretary of State for the Government, so the explanatory statement is not a full and accurate statement of the effect of the amendment.

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman in response to that further point of order is that I am not responsible for the content of Government explanatory statements.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Shame.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, the Government Whip says from a sedentary position, “Shame.” I have a sufficient burden, which I am very happy to seek to discharge to the best of my ability, but responsibility for Government explanatory statements is not part of that burden. Moreover—if I can bring a glint to the eye and a spring to the step of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)—it might be my observation that he, too, is not responsible for the content of Government explanatory statements. They are intended to try to help the House and to facilitate debate, but they enjoy no formal status whatever, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman should be troubled by the matter, although it may be something on which he will wish to expatiate at a later stage. We shall see.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Not really.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, we shall see.

We begin with new clause 6—and I hope we can now begin with new clause 6—with which it will be convenient to consider the new clauses and amendments listed on the selection paper.

[Philip Davies]

I want to speak to new clause 6 and the other new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). We have quite a large group of amendments and new clauses to go through this morning. There are 11 new clauses—seven tabled by me, and four by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). On top of those, we have 36 amendments, most of which have actually been tabled by the Government, in cahoots, it is fair to say, with the Scottish National party and the promoter of the Bill. I will come to their amendments in a bit, because they seem to be trying to con the campaigners behind the Bill by pretending to support the Istanbul convention, at the same time as filleting the Bill to make sure it does not come into effect at all—but more of that later.

I have tabled 14 amendments, and my hon. Friend for Christchurch has tabled five, so we have 47 new clauses and amendments to consider this morning. I will try to do justice to them, and I will try to do that as quickly as I can, because I appreciate that other people will want to speak to them. However, a quick bit of arithmetic will tell hon. Members that if I spend only two minutes on each new clause and amendment, we will soon rattle past an hour and a half, so it is going to take some time to go through such a large group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I beg to move that the Question be now put.

[Mr Speaker]

There is not a Question before us to be put, because new clause 6 has been withdrawn, and therefore the correct procedure now is for me to move on to Government amendment 1.

Clause 1

Ratification of the Istanbul Convention on violence against women

Amendment proposed: 1, page 1, line 1, leave out clause 1.—(Sarah Newton.)

This amendment leaves out clause 1.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Unaccompanied Children (Greece and Italy)

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We can take the intervention, but I say gently to the Minister that he spoke early, which is not the norm in these debates and is ordinarily to be deprecated. This may be an exception. He spoke at considerable length, which was possibly to the benefit of the House, but should not now constantly intervene. This is a debate for Back-Bench Members and that must be understood.

[Chris Law]

While Theresa May has closed the doors of the UK to unaccompanied refugee children, she is still determined to fling them open them to Donald Trump. Let us ponder on that for a moment. It is estimated that the potential visit to the UK by President Trump will cost over £10 million—the most expensive state visit in history. If there is concern about local authority funding, here is part of the solution: cancel the exorbitant, wasteful, unwanted and undeserved presidential state visit and not only will there be funds for local authorities, but it will send out the most powerful message to everyone that refugees are welcome in our country, regardless of where and what their background is.

This is a choice. Which side of history does the Prime Minister wish to be on? Does she want to warmly welcome refugees to our country, or does she, like Trump, want to turn her back on those fleeing war and persecution. Let us not forget that in his first week as President, he pursued a ban on all Syrian refugees entering the US and a halt on arrivals from a string of predominantly Muslim countries.

Who do unaccompanied children in Greece and Italy now turn to? The mental and physical health of these children is deteriorating. They are despondent and broken. This Government’s decision will create a vacuum that will be filled by exploitation and people smugglers—the only option that many of these children now have.

Those children are treated like an immigration statistic. If the Government are not willing to help them, they are responsible when a child turns to a smuggler, goes missing or is killed in an accident. I asked at the beginning of my speech what it must be like to be a child refugee. None of us in the Chamber can come close to imagining the fear, the terror, the loneliness, the vulnerability. I therefore urge the Minister to continue the Dubs scheme to enable the UK to receive a minimum of 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees from Europe, and to do the right thing and look to increase the number of refugees overall. To do otherwise is shameful and will not be forgotten.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I ask everybody to try to help each other? If Members can stick to seven minutes, that is great, but it is not an obligation at this stage. There is no fixed limit, and I can understand that the Member who is about to speak and has had no notice may feel aggrieved. He must make his own judgment and will not be stopped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, which I commend the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing.

Three years ago, I had the opportunity to go to Turkey to visit a refugee camp very close to the Syrian border. What struck me was not just the size of the camp, but the fact that this felt like the start of something much longer and more protracted. I still recall my talks and chats with families; all they wanted to do was get back to their home in Syria. Last year—three years later —I went to Jordan and Lebanon as a member of the Select Committee on International Development with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). I went to al-Azraq to visit refugees and some of the host communities. Again, I was struck by the size of the camps, the vulnerability of the people, the sheer amount of work that went into supporting them—rightly so—and the huge amount of effort put into that by the host communities, host countries and international donors.

I want to touch, in broad terms, on the UK’s response to the Syrian crisis and to the migration crisis. Given the scale of the challenge, we and the British people should be proud of that response. To date, DFID has allocated £2.3 billion in response to the Syrian crisis. The UK is the second-largest bilateral donor to the humanitarian response in Syria since it began in 2012, and it is one of the few EU countries to commit to 0.7% foreign aid spending. DFID figures show that UK aid in Syria and the region between February 2012 and August 2016 has included providing more than 21 million individual monthly rations, in excess of 6.5 million relief packages, more than 6 million vaccines, and health support, grants and vouchers.

That is not it. Between October 2015 and December 2016, the UK gave support to refugees and migrants during the Mediterranean crisis, many of whom were not from Syria but from other countries. The support included meals to refugees and migrants in migrant camps in Greece and Serbia, and relief items such as blankets, temporary beds and hygiene kits for refugees and migrants moving across Europe, as well as healthcare, emergency first aid, protection interventions, and legal support and assistance. I am proud of the work that DFID staff do, often in difficult situations, and of the NGO community.

It is vital that we take a balanced approach, targeting support to help the most vulnerable while working closely with local authorities which, after all, are the ones that resettle these vulnerable individuals and provide them with a home and, crucially, support. We often hear of the pressures that local authorities are under. I looked up figures on foster families and found that the Government do a lot of work to encourage families to come forward and foster children, but we still need to do more—we already face that challenge.

The Government agreed to resettle 20,000 Syrians in this Parliament and to settle 3,000 children and their families from the wider region. We have also granted asylum or another form of leave to more than 8,000 children. Our resettlement programme is the biggest in Europe. The Government have also transferred more than 900 children from Europe, including more than 750 from France. This is crucial work that the Government are dedicated to continuing, through Dublin and Dubs, and under the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme and the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement programme.

It is also vital, however, that we do not create a strong incentive for refugees to undertake that dangerous journey across the Mediterranean and put themselves in the hands of people traffickers. I know that we do not all share the same opinion about this, but I have seen the figures for 2015, which saw probably the biggest movement of people since the second world war, and although I do not have the stats for 2016, I am sure that the challenge of fragile states and conflict-affected countries and regions remains. I have seen many examples of that in my work on the International Development Committee and during some of the visits we have been fortunate to undertake.

We also heard this week about the prospect of serious famine across Africa, in addition to the high youth unemployment in some countries. These are all extra factors that I believe are driving migration—it is not something that has just happened; it has been happening for some time. I do not blame any young person for taking the initiative and wanting to make a better life for themselves, but it is important that when they do it, they do so for the right reasons and safe passage is available for those entitled to it.

All this highlights some of the challenges we face in the modern world. As well as seeking short-term solutions through humanitarian aid and the schemes that the Home Office is undertaking now, we must use all other means at our disposal to tackle these problems at source. That means using the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our diplomacy skills and influence across the world, and it means using DFID and the aid budget not just to provide humanitarian aid to those who need it most, but to tackle things such as economic development and developing livelihoods. Only in that way, working to reduce conflict and instability, will we ever get to the bottom of some of the deep-rooted challenges we face today.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), I remind the House that the debate must finish no later than 6.25 pm—some might think there is merit in it finishing slightly before then—so I appeal to him and the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) to take account of the wish of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who opened the debate, to have a few minutes to conclude it.

Jamal al-Harith

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

As I said at the very beginning, I cannot comment on the individual case or the intelligence behind it. However, as I have said, the Intelligence and Security Committee is perfectly able to look into it. The point about which Minister took the decision is a bit of a red herring. The United Kingdom Government were obliged to make certain agreements because of the vulnerability they found themselves in as a result of 2004 and the allegations made when a number of Members on your Benches were members of the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Not on my Benches. In fact, I do not have a Bench but a very comfortable Chair.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Basically, the Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, and/or the Justice Secretary, agreed £1 million or thereabouts for a man who went on to commit a significant terrorist act that killed many people. Why the Minister thinks that he can hide behind legal confidentiality and security so as not even to assuage any of the basic concerns that all our voters will have is a mystery to me. The man is dead, for a start, and secondly the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached or questioned by any court of law or any other place. The Minister can tell us everything he wants today, if only he had the courage to do so.

Police Grant

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sorry, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I could not quite hear what the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said. Would he like to intervene and outline that for us?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not hear anything said that was out of order. If I did not hear it, I cannot act on it. At this point, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) is intervening, so we will hear that. If somebody wants to raise a point of order or whatever, he or she is free to do so, but I cannot comment on something that I did not hear.

[Mr Hendrick]

When the Chancellor announced in 2016 that police budgets would continue to be protected in cash terms assuming council tax was maximised, I—like many others—welcomed the news. Last year’s cuts to grant funding were a uniform 0.6% and this year’s provisional settlement outlined a further 1.3% cut to direct resource funding. How does that square with what the Minister said?

Criminal Finances Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Civil recovery: gross abuse of human rights—

‘(1) Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (civil recovery of the proceeds etc. of unlawful conduct) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 241 (which defines unlawful conduct), after subsection (2), insert—

“(2A) Conduct which—

(a) occurs in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom and has been designated as conduct by a person connected to a gross human rights abuse in accordance with the provisions of section 241B, and

(b) if it occurred in a part of the United Kingdom, would be or would have been unlawful under the criminal law of that part at the relevant time,

is also unlawful conduct.”

(3) After section 241 (which defines unlawful conduct), insert—

“241A Conduct connected to a gross human rights abuse

(1) “Conduct connected to a gross human rights abuse” means—

(a) involvement by a Person (“A”) in torture or other serious breaches of human rights and fundamental freedoms against a Person (“B”) where B sought or seeks—

(i) to expose illegal activity carried out by foreign public officials, or

(ii) to obtain, exercise, defend or promote human rights and fundamental freedoms,

(b) activities by a Person (“C”) as an agent in a matter relating to an activity by A described in paragraph (a),

(c) activities by a Person (“D”) to profit from, materially assist, sponsor, or provide financial, material or technological support for, or goods and services in support of, an activity by A described in paragraph (a),

(d) commission by a Person (“E”), whether or not a foreign public official, of the illegal activity described in paragraph (a)(i).

(2) For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial where the conduct occurred.

(3) In this section “human rights and fundamental freedoms” means the “Convention rights” as defined in section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

241B Designation of conduct connected to a gross human rights abuse

‘(1) The High Court may make an order designating that the actions of the respondent constitute conduct connected to a gross human rights abuse and, if considered appropriate, that—

(a) a person is prohibited from dealing with property, funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by the respondent if the person knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that the person is dealing with such property, funds or economic resources,

(b) a person is prohibited from making property, funds or financial services available (directly or indirectly) to the respondent if the person knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect that the person is making the funds or financial services so available,

(c) a person is prohibited from making funds or financial services available to any person for the benefit of the respondent if the person knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that the person is making the funds or financial services so available.

(2) An order under subsection (1) may only be made on application.

(3) An application for an order under subsection (1) may be made by—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) an individual, or

(c) an entity, including a non-governmental organisation.

(4) An application for an order under subsection (1) must be supported by a statement of information which addresses—

(a) the circumstances surrounding the respondent’s conduct connected to a gross human rights abuse, and

(b) the nature and extent of the respondent’s involvement.

(5) An application for an order under subsection (1) may be made without notice to the respondent to a judge in chambers.

(6) The Court must be satisfied that it is in the public interest to make an order under subsection (1).

(7) The Court shall reach a decision on an order under subsection (1) on the balance of probabilities.

241C Duration, extension, variation and discharge of an order

‘(1) The High Court shall specify the duration of an order under section 241B(1) which shall not exceed two years.

(2) In determining the duration of an order, the Court shall have regard to the likely duration of consequential proceedings under this Part.

(3) The Court may extend an order for a maximum period to two years at any time before it expires, if it is satisfied that the requirements of a designation order continue to be met.

(4) An extension application may be made without the need for a hearing if the court considers it appropriate.

(5) An application to extend, vary or discharge an order may be made to the court by—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) the applicant,

(c) the respondent, or

(d) any person affected by the order.

(6) An application to discharge a designation order must be made by the applicant as soon as reasonably practicable in circumstances where the requirements of an order are no longer satisfied.

241D Appeals, etc.

‘(1) The following persons may appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the High Court’s decision on matters falling to be decided under sections 241B and 241C—

(a) the applicant,

(b) the respondent, or

(c) any person affected by the order.

(2) On an appeal under subsection (1) the Court of Appeal may—

(a) confirm the decision, or

(b) make such orders as it believes appropriate.

(3) An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Court of Appeal on an appeal under this section.

(4) An appeal under this section lies at the instance of any person who was a party to the proceedings before the Court of Appeal.

(5) On an appeal under this section the Supreme Court may—

(a) confirm the decision of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) make such order as it believes is appropriate.

241E Standard to be applied

All matters to be determined by a court under sections 241B to 241D are to be decided on the balance of probabilities.

241F Costs

In the exercise of its discretion, a court may, on application, make a costs capping order in respect of proceedings under sections 241B to 241D.

241G Duties in respect of gross abuse of human rights

‘(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to apply for an order under section 241B where the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

(a) the requirements for the making of an order are met; and

(b) it is in the public interest to make the application.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain a public register of—

(a) individuals in respect of whom orders have been made under section 241B(1),

(b) the circumstances giving rise to the making of such orders, and

(c) any decisions of a court under sections 241C and 241D in relation to such orders.

(3) In any case where a relevant authority considers that evidence is available of property being held by a person in respect of whom an order has been made under section 241B which may represent property obtained through unlawful conduct, it shall be the duty of the relevant authority to seek to initiate proceedings for civil recovery under this Part.”

(4) In section 304 (which defines recoverable property), after subsection (1), insert—

“(1A) Property of a person who is the subject of a designation order under section 241B is presumed to have been obtained through unlawful conduct unless the contrary is shown by the respondent.””

This new clause extends the scope of unlawful conduct for the purposes of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to cover to certain actions connected to a gross human rights abuse which has taken place abroad.

Government amendments 58 and 59.

[Mr Wallace]

Some time has passed since we last considered this Bill. There was, as hon. Members will recall, a great deal of cross-party consensus on it, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and I hope that we will be able to continue in that same spirit of constructive debate and healthy scrutiny today.

This first group of amendments concerns the extremely grave matter of gross human rights abuses or violations. The Government are committed to promoting and strengthening universal rights globally, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. In particular, these amendments have been prompted by the harrowing case of Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky was not a serious criminal; he was a lawyer who tried to blow the whistle on large-scale tax fraud in Russia, and he believed that he would be protected by the law. Unfortunately, he died in state custody in 2009 after suffering both mistreatment and assault, and being denied medical attention. I share the strong feelings of many hon. Members about this case, and I want to reassure the House that the Government have expressed, both publicly and to the Russian Government, our serious concerns about Mr Magnitsky’s death. Of course, we must also remember that his case is only one of many atrocious human rights violations committed globally each year.

As I am sure that hon. Members will highlight, the US has legislated to prohibit the entry of certain named individuals to the US and to forbid them use of the US banking system. Less than two months ago, President Obama’s Administration extended the legislation so that it could be applied to those involved in human rights violations, wherever in the world they have taken place. That sends an important signal that perpetrators of gross human rights violations will face consequences. However, we have an entirely different legal system, which merits a different approach.

I pay tribute to those hon. Members who have raised this issue by tabling new clause 1—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I am grateful to hon. Members for giving me advance notice of the amendment, and am pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss it with many of its signatories.

It has always been the Government’s position that for further legislation to be warranted on this issue, there would need to be a real case that existing powers were insufficient. I hope that hon. Members will agree that we should avoid doing anything that might have an impact on the effectiveness of our existing sanctions and civil recovery powers. The National Crime Agency has confirmed that it has considered all the material provided to it on the Magnitsky case. It concluded that the individuals whom we believe to be connected to the case do not reside in the UK, and it has identified no assets of value in the United Kingdom that are connected to the case, so the additional powers proposed in new clause 1 would have no obvious material effect on the individuals involved in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me. I have been to Downing Street today, along with a constituent who had travelled all the way from west Cumbria to hand in a petition. Unfortunately, we were turned away at the gates. I was told that I would not be allowed to go to Downing Street to hand in a petition that had been booked in through the proper procedures. We had been offered a time to hand in a petition about health services, so it was understood what the petition was about. However, when I asked the security officer from No. 10 Downing Street why I was not allowed to hand in the petition, as had been agreed, he told me that today was “not a good day”. When I pressed him, he told me that I could hand in the petition “after Thursday”.

I am concerned that I have been prevented from handing in a petition that was properly booked in, through the proper procedures, because of a by-election, and that this has been politicised. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on what is my best course of action?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me a moment’s notice of it. She is clearly concerned and aggrieved. My initial response is to say to her that this is not a point of order for the Chair, or, for that matter, a subject for the House authorities. I understand her concern, not least in terms of personal inconvenience, and I trust that her point of order has been heard on the Treasury Bench. It is very much a matter for Ministers, with whom it has not been registered, but I repeat that it is not a matter for the Chair.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

We in the Opposition broadly support the thrust of this legislation, and we have noted that the Minister has proved to be a listening Minister, which we welcome.

Tax avoidance and money laundering are the opposite of victimless crimes. In the first instance, there are inflated asset prices in the territories where the money is laundered, and there is no bigger example of that than the housing market in this country, particularly in London. In some of the most expensive parts of London, we can walk down streets where most of the houses are completely empty. Some might be empty because it is the wrong time of year for their owner to be there, and others because they have been bought as an investment, but increasing numbers of those properties are being used to launder money, and if this legislation can bear down on that, it will be of value not least to people who are victims of the wildly inflated London housing market.

Tax avoidance and money laundering mean a loss of tax for some of the poorest communities in the world. I was in Ghana last year looking at tax avoidance and evasion, and I was struck by the fact that a woman selling drinks by the side of the road could pay proportionally more tax than some of the biggest drinks manufacturers in the world. These are distorted systems of taxation, and if this legislation can bear down on that type of tax avoidance, it is to be welcomed. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that we are beginning to return money to some of those territories, notably Macau. I believe that we have also signed an accord with Nigeria. Above all, this legislation is important for suppressing corruption. It is not just a law-enforcement measure; it is also, indirectly, an anti-corruption measure.

I remind the House that the genesis of the Bill was the Panama papers, which revealed extremely widespread and highly lucrative avoidance of tax on an industrial scale. There were 11 million leaked files, and Britain was the second most prominent country in which the law firms’ middlemen operated. It was second only to Hong Kong. One British overseas territory, the British Virgin Islands, was by far the most popular tax haven state used by the firms in the documents. The Minister has said that we are at the forefront of taking action on tax avoidance and money laundering, and so we should be. The UK has sovereignty over one third of tax havens internationally.

We welcome the Government’s new clause 7, which will bear down on money recycled as a consequence of human rights abuses elsewhere. We still believe that there is insufficient scope for the civil recovery of assets, and the enforcement powers in the civil recovery provisions could be improved. There are particularly important omissions regarding the penalties for offences relating to the facilitation of tax avoidance, involving middlemen such as lawyers, accountants and straightforward spivs such as those identified in the Panama papers.

On the disclosure of beneficial ownership, we feel that there is a major problem, as the lack of disclosure can help to facilitate money laundering and corruption. Let us take an example. In the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultation paper published in March 2016, the Government said that between 2004 and 2014, more than £180 million-worth of property in the UK was being investigated by UK law enforcement agencies as it was suspected of being funded by the proceeds of corruption. Moreover, more than 75% of those properties had offshore corporate ownership. That is believed to be the tip of the iceberg in terms of scale and of the proceeds of corruption being invested in UK property through offshore companies.

On the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, I understand the technical argument that we cannot apply the same regime to those areas, but the moral issue is substantially the same. Some Members have spoken as though the populations of those territories as a whole benefit from financial services, but that is not the case. Only in recent years has the financial services industry been open to employing people born and bred on those islands in advisory, legal and management positions. Just because the political elites in those countries argue for light-touch regulation, let us not delude ourselves that financial services are helping the territories as a whole. We believe that the argument that we cannot impose proper standards on those territories is false. UK jurisdiction applies in all matters of defence and security, and the House has a right and a duty to see how best to impose those laws.

The people who are benefiting from the secrecy and the lack of regulation are the tax evaders and avoiders, the money launderers, the major criminal enterprises and the terrorist networks. We urge the Government to move forward on those issues. If legislation is required for onshore activity here in the UK, most reasonable people would argue that it is even more pressing to include overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

The Opposition are calling for a wide-ranging review of the UK tax gap, including an assessment of the loss of income tax due to tax evasion. As several Members on both sides of the House have said, if the legislation simply rests on the statute book and does not result in commensurate prosecutions, it will be a dead letter. We note that the Minister has listened thus far, and I hope that the Government and the appropriate Departments are listening when I urge them to ensure that the legislation amounts to more than just good intentions and that it is actively used to bear down on tax evasion, money laundering and corruption.

[Mr Speaker]

This debate has been concluded with notable speed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady is chuntering, but we are doing what we believe is best. I recognise that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has a different position, but I ask him to reconsider his language.

[Mr Speaker]

The capacity of the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) to chunter from a sedentary position is not in doubt and does not require proof, but she should desist. I very politely say to her that as she is a supporter of West Ham—[Interruption.] Well, I am glad she is an Arsenal supporter, but she still should not chunter. As she represents West Ham, she might find it therapeutic to blow some bubbles.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

As part of our commitments under the Dubs amendment, we have consulted local authorities on capacity. It is clear that there is capacity to support the children whom we intend to take from Calais at the same time as meeting our other commitments. I find it unbelievable that councils would be willing to take in only an average of two children each. Did the Home Office ask all local authorities individually how many children they could actually take, or did it suggest numbers to each of them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady should be clear that the Government are meeting their commitments, and exceeding them, through the aid that we give to the region of £2.3 billion, through our commitment to making sure that we bring over from the region the most vulnerable children—20,000 by 2020—and, most of all, through making sure that the children who arrive here, who are often from vulnerable areas, are looked after and given support. We ensure that local authorities have this ability. We should be proud of our response.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we proceed to the business question, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on his 82nd birthday and on reaching the mid-point of his parliamentary career.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I would respectfully say to the hon. Lady, who I know would want to be giving a very clear and transparent set of figures, that what she has said is not accurate at all. The reality is that the ONS has, for the very first time, included cyber-crime and fraud in its figures. It has recorded those figures for the first time, so it is not true to say that the figures have doubled. I am just sad that Labour, when in government, never gave these kinds of figures and had that kind of thing done, which is the right thing to do. I would also congratulate people for recording more crime more generally—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) does not have to provide us with a passable imitation of Bruce Forsyth. There is no requirement for that. She has asked her question with her usual pugnacity, and should now await the reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who nodded sagely at me to denote her interest in this matter, that on the whole it is prudent to stand, as the Speaker has many qualities but is not psychic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that these statistics are produced and presented by the ONS, and that figures for students are clearly identified separately within those statistics.

[Mr Speaker]

On this immigration-related matter, I would call the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) if he were standing, but if he does not stand, I will not.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

21. This Government’s immigration policies are separating rather than uniting families because of the ridiculous financial thresholds and restrictive rules on evidence of financial support. When will these rules be changed to support the real needs of family units?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but we must move on.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, as the matters we are about to discuss are of the utmost confidentiality and may give succour to Her Majesty’s enemies, I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.

Policing and Crime Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

Oh, really.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let the hon. Gentleman put his concern on record.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is promoting me. The Prime Minister is Prime Minister to the sovereign, not to me.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Culture Secretary agreed to come back to the Dispatch Box if a further security breach were to be revealed at the national lottery. In the last few minutes, the Gambling Commission has published a document saying that it was

“more likely than not that a fraudulent prize claim had been made and paid out.”

There is potentially a great lotto robbery. Camelot has been fined £3 million and has been found to be in breach of three parts of its licence. Have you had a request, Mr Speaker, from a Minister to make an urgent statement to the House, so that the Department can guarantee to millions of lottery players in the UK that the game is safe?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer to him is no: I have received no indication that a Minister has any plan to come to the Chamber today. But I have known the hon. Gentleman a long time, and he is nothing if not a persistent woodpecker—that is a compliment—so my very strong hunch is that he will be in his place on Monday, using such devices as are available to him to try to secure the presence of a Minister to answer on this important matter. Meanwhile, I hope the hon. Gentleman has an enjoyable, and moderately restful, weekend.

UN International Day: Violence against Women

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said and the way in which she said it, which has left an indelible impression upon us all.