Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am disappointed at the nature of my hon. Friend’s question. I hope she will look at the detail of the reforms. As I have already said on these matters, we have a proper problem and it is our moral duty to fix it. Our asylum system is broken. The breaking of that asylum system is causing huge division across our whole country, and it is a moral mission for me to resolve that division across our country. I know that the reforms I will be setting out later today can fix the system and, in doing so, unite what is today a divided country.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Home Secretary likes to talk tough, while the numbers continue to rise. As part of the statement that she will bring to the House later, will she confirm that detailed modelling will be published and whether she has shared that modelling with No. 10?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman’s question would have had a bit more force if he had apologised for being part of a Government who fundamentally broke our migration system and presided over the crisis inherited by this Government. Of course we will model the impact of our policies. This is a sweeping set of reforms—the most significant in modern times. They will bring down the number of arrivals and increase the number of removals of those who have no right to be in this country. We will build on our track record in government, which has seen removals increase. The totality of the reforms will, I believe, unlock the generosity of this country in creating new safe and legal routes, which will grow more generous over time.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I know from my conversations with the Transport Secretary over the weekend that these issues are very much on her mind. There is crossover with those of us in the Home Office, but the responsibility sits primarily with the Transport Secretary. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a fuller response to her question, but she should rest assured that this Government recognise that assaults on any of our public sector workers are unacceptable, and the Government will do everything they can to stamp them out.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

May I join in with the tributes of my fellow Cambridgeshire MPs? In her statement, the Home Secretary indicated that she was receptive to the deployment of facial recognition at railway stations. Can she clarify, on the current timeline, the earliest date on which that would be deployed more widely? Given some of the early lessons coming out of this case, what scope is there for the Government to accelerate that timeline?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The consultation I referred to in my earlier remarks around the legal framework for much wider use of live facial recognition will be in the next few weeks—it is all but upon us. I referred to the funding for 10 new mobile units that has been made available. The British Transport police is preparing a pilot of live facial recognition technology at selected railway stations in London, which will run for a period of six months. The exact dates will be public in due course, and I will ensure that we write to the right hon. Gentleman with them when they are decided.

Immigration

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I did say that it was under successive Governments. The reason for that is that the liberal elite of this country—I do not count the hon. Gentleman among its number—that controls far too much of the Establishment and wields too much power is at odds with the understanding which prevails in his constituency and mine of ordinary, everyday working people, who recognised what I have just said long ago but were told by people who should have known better that net migration at that level was not only tolerable but desirable. It is a complete nonsense to pretend so, and every piece of analysis justifies that.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that this concern about the high levels of immigration is also an issue of democracy and the sense of people not being heard? I noted the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) expressing support for deportations of foreign-born criminals, but unless the Government use levers—restrictions on visas for those countries not taking people back—we will again see too many foreign-born criminals in our prisons instead of being deported back to their native country.

[Sir John Hayes]

I of course agree with my right hon. Friend, who as usual has brought a particular insight based on his long experience to our considerations, and let us just take one example of that. Some 647,000 migrants received health and care visas from 2021 to June 2024; 270,000 of them were workers and an extraordinary, outrageous 377,000 were dependants. Even—[Interruption.] Even, I say to those on the Liberal Democrats Benches, those remaining members of the liberal elite who still perpetuate the conspiracy of silence about these matters must understand that everyone who comes to the country brings an economic value and an economic cost, and many of those dependants will not have brought economic value. That is not to disparage them in any way—they are perfectly nice people, I am sure—but they are not adding to the economy and certainly not adding to the per capita productivity or growth in the economy. In fact, they are detracting from it.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

May I speak briefly to new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? He is unfortunately not able to present this argument himself, because he is attending a meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and he asked if I would speak briefly in support of his new clause. I hope that I can encourage the Minister to expand a bit on whether the Government think that this is rather a good way of ensuring that the worst abuses in the courts system are avoided.

Essentially, my right hon. Friend’s new clause would give precedence to the non-refoulement arrangements in the refugee convention and in the UN convention against torture, but it would not allow the European convention on human rights and the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights to extend beyond those provisions. That is very important, because fundamental to English law is the principle of equity. If people come here with clean hands and seek justice and our support, we should be keen to encourage that, but if people come here and abuse our hospitality or have already committed offences, we should get rid of them quickly. That is not very easy at the moment, because of how the courts interpret the European convention on human rights.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) referred to new clause 14. The problem I have with it is that it does not go far enough. It talks about getting rid of or disapplying the Human Rights Act, but of only disapplying the interim arrangements of the European Court of Human Rights. We need to go much further than that, and I am slightly reluctant to be enthusiastic about the new clause.

One provision that I am very enthusiastic about, and which I am disappointed that the official Opposition will not call a Division on, is new clause 15. The shadow Home Secretary’s explanatory statement says:

“This new clause would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with”—

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an issue of democracy here? Successive Governments and Ministers have said that they want to toughen up the regime, but that is undermined by activist judges. That is a further reason to support the new clauses that he mentions.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. If one wants a current example, there was a headline in The Daily Telegraph on 1 May that read, “Migrant spared prison after punching female officer”. [Interruption.] This was a fact—it was a court case in Poole in Dorset, not far from my constituency. A small-boat migrant who repeatedly punched two female police officers was spared jail. That is completely laughable, and on that I have the support of David Sidwick, Dorset’s excellent police and crime commissioner, who is trying to take this issue further. When people who have come here seeking our help and assistance abuse the system, and we indulge their presence, that brings the whole system into disrepute. I hope that the Minister will get much tougher on this issue, but sadly, the Bill seems to weaken the offence regime under immigration law, rather than strengthening it, as we should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Very quickly, because I have a lot of points and not much time.

[Steve Barclay]

The Minister has just set out once again, as the Prime Minister did earlier today, her steadfast commitment to the ECHR. Does she not accept that that means that the legislation is not watertight and that those who have committed serious criminality will continue to be able to stay in the United Kingdom, because of the ECHR?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

New clause 8 will deny refugee status to those who commit sexual offences. We also have the work being announced on narrowing article 8, which will allow Parliament to give more direction to judges about how the rules ought to be interpreted. The immigration rules reflect the requirements of the ECHR generally, including the qualified nature of article 8, setting requirements that properly balance the individual right to respect for family and private life with the public interest in safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the UK by controlling immigration.

Police Grant Report

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

The hon. Member says from a sedentary position that that is rubbish, but the Conservatives literally used to claim things were world-beating all the time.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jess Phillips]

Conservative interventions have not been that world-beating, so no, I will not. Things are not perfect. We all think that there should be more police officers. We all want greater resource on every single street. Every single constituency MP who spoke, spoke up with passion because they want their neighbourhoods to feel safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I would absolutely love to come to Dorset. What my hon. Friend says is right. I think somebody mentioned the idea of a double bed with a single duvet moving round it, and although huge efficiencies could still be made across forces, some of our police forces do amazing things. I absolutely praise Dorset police for that work.

[Steve Barclay]

rose—

[Jess Phillips]

Go on then.

[Steve Barclay]

I am trying to make a constructive point about the Minister’s remarks on efficiencies. She said that there are huge opportunities for efficiencies to be made. Much of the debate has been on funding, but she is signalling that things can be done better. What is opaque to me, not least from the conversation that I had with my own police and crime commissioner before coming here, is what productivity targets the Government have set and what variation they expect to close across the 43 police forces. How many police hours does she expect to be freed up from working more efficiently on productivity gains? Or are the Government’s actions adding bureaucracy and red tape and making it harder for police forces to deliver?

[Jess Phillips]

I do not know yet how many hours. I went out to Thames Valley police and saw exactly how many officer hours were saved by the police having direct video contact. A statement was taken from a victim of domestic abuse in eight minutes, rather than police officers having to go out to their house three days later. That will be rolled out to every police force and will lead to huge time efficiencies in statement-taking. As someone who has given a huge number of police statements—every month—I know how inefficient it is. I would be lying if I stood here and said, “It will be 16,000 hours for each police force.” We will look at exactly what works and how we can make those efficiencies.

[Steve Barclay]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jess Phillips]

It is a bit galling when people who have not sat through the debate come in and want to speak. There was no one on the Conservative Benches for the vast majority of the debate. Members who have taken part in the debate deserve a bit more respect.

This Government back the police 100%. We are grateful for the tireless work that police officers, PCSOs and staff do every single day. We have heard today about some of the crimes that they suffer. This investment is a significant step towards meeting our shared ambition to boost neighbourhood policing and to restore confidence in the police that has been so badly lost, as was mentioned by many Members. This Government have prioritised investment in policing in a time of fiscal constraint, but we know that there is more to do. We will work in partnership with the police to deliver our shared ambition to boost visible neighbourhood policing, tackle knife crime and violence against women and girls and reform the police, and to deliver efficiencies to make their jobs easier. This Government will always give the police the resources, powers, tools and support that they need to get the job done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2025–26 (HC 621), which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.

Police Funding: Cambridgeshire

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the manner of the rural crime that takes place. I will come on to talk about the rural crime action team that we have in Cambridgeshire and how they deal with the specific threat of that type of rural crime.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend highlights an important point about rural crime. He has powerfully set out how Cambridgeshire is underfunded per capita compared with other forces, and he has explained how that is more acute in areas such as Fenland and rural constituencies. Can he also see the irony in the Prime Minister launching his housing strategy in Cambridge, and in the fact that the Government say they want to see much more housing in Cambridgeshire, yet their per capita funding discriminates against Cambridgeshire as an area?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Indeed; my right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Prime Minister launched his housing campaign in Alconbury Weald, which is in my constituency. It currently has around 1,500 houses, with another 4,000 homes to be built in that location. It is indeed a great irony that we are talking about per capita funding in an area that is growing as quickly as it is. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

Let me begin by wishing everyone a very happy new year, especially you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who secured this important debate, and all the Cambridgeshire MPs present in the Chamber. I must also wish a happy new year to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is starting the year as he finished the last one: by contributing to every Adjournment debate held in this place.

I thank all the police, police staff, police community support officers and specials who were on duty over Christmas and the new year, keeping us all safe. I had the privilege to see that at first hand in Birmingham city centre, when I accompanied West Midlands police, and also in Bedford with Bedfordshire police, just before the Christmas recess.

Quite understandably, the hon. Member for Huntingdon is focused on police funding for his constituency and his police force, and I will shortly come to the specific questions on Cambridgeshire constabulary. However, I will start by referring to the provisional police funding settlement for England and Wales, which was laid before the House just before the Christmas recess.

The headline is that overall funding for policing will rise to £19.5 billion in 2025-26. That is an increase of up to £1 billion from this financial year, and we are investing in key areas. We have listened to what the police have to say about the challenges they face, and we have secured a settlement that seeks to address those concerns and provide the building blocks for our programme of reform. Included in that figure is £100 million to kick-start our commitment to neighbourhood policing and put officers back into the heart of communities. We are also covering the cost to the police of the changes to employers’ national insurance contributions and the police pay awards.

Turning to the points raised in the debate, and particularly to funding for Cambridgeshire constabulary, I remind the House that it is for police and crime commissioners to set the annual budget for their police force area, including the level of the police precept. It is for the operationally independent chief constable to decide how to use the resources to meet the police and crime commissioner’s priorities. Having said that, funding for Cambridgeshire will rise by up to £11.1 million in the next financial year. This is a cash increase of up to 5.6% compared to the current year, and it is a 3.1% real-terms increase. On funding for employers’ national insurance contributions, I confirm again that the distribution will not be based on the funding formula shares. I hope that provides some reassurance to the force.

We understand that comparing funding between forces will result in highs and lows. I commend Cambridgeshire’s leadership in running an efficient force that has maintained officer numbers and worked to keep the community safe in a very challenging financial environment. The financial shocks of recent years, as well as the position that we inherited from the previous Government, have meant taking some tough choices, but we believe that we have secured a balanced settlement for policing while still driving forward with our key commitments.

In return, we have been very clear that we expect police forces to look for ambitious ways to drive efficiency and productivity and to make real improvements. We are supporting this through our recently announced commercial efficiencies and collaboration programme, which will have its early focus on procurement frameworks and working to use the full advantage of police buying power, alongside the potential for greater cost recovery. December’s announcement was the provisional police settlement, which is now open to consultation until 10 January, and Cambridgeshire constabulary has the opportunity to make further representations during this period.

On the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Huntingdon about the funding formula, I note that population change can vary across the country. I note what he said, and I recognise that forces that have seen bigger changes will be keen to ensure that the funding that they receive keeps pace with demand. In the provisional police settlement, we have delivered a real-terms increase in funding for Cambridgeshire constabulary for next year.

[Steve Barclay]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will just finish this point, as it is perhaps pertinent, given who wishes to intervene. The £1 billion overall increase in the police settlement next year comes at a time when the Government are having to make tough decisions on budgets after inheriting a £22 billion black hole. We are working to fix the economy.

[Steve Barclay]

The Minister is making a separate point; my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was talking about the share of the existing pie—the proportion that Cambridgeshire gets—not about whether more funding is being put in. I wanted to pick up on her interesting point about the consultation being open until 10 January, which is not very far away. What criteria will she apply, when it comes to making adjustments to that provisional allocation? Are those criteria published? A lot of hon. Members may not be sighted on the changes that may be made to the allocation, or on how the Government will reach that decision.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, so he will know that this is the normal process. The provisional settlement is announced before Christmas, and then there is an opportunity for police forces to make further representations or to query figures. That has always been the case; there is nothing new about the process that we are using. However, as I said, it is important to note that we are having to make difficult decisions because of the inheritance we have.

Government grants are not the only source of income available to police forces. In 2025-26, PCCs in England have the flexibility to increase the precept by up to £14 for a band D equivalent property, or to go further, should they wish, by holding a local referendum. I note that the Cambridgeshire PCC has chosen to maximise precept in previous years, and subject to the decision for 2025-26, 44% of Cambridgeshire police’s settlement funding will be raised locally via the police precept.

I know the hon. Member for Huntingdon is concerned about the additional demand that a population increase may create for Cambridgeshire police, but I ask him to consider the positive impact that such an increase may have on the council tax base and, as a result, the income that will be generated locally by the PCC. In response to his question about reviewing the funding formula, and on the delivery of this Government’s safer streets mission, we have been clear that broader policing reform is necessary to address the challenges faced by policing, and to help the system deliver effective and efficient policing to the public.

I note the contributions that have been made about the changing face of crime in this country, and the challenges that police forces face. That is why we have clearly set out a reform agenda. The allocation of funding to police forces remains an important consideration in that reform work. Phase 2 of the spending review will give us an opportunity to consider police funding in the medium term, ensuring that it aligns with our programme of reform and delivery of the safer streets mission.

Terrorist Attacks (Paris)

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I have indicated, I have had a number of meetings and the police have been meeting Jewish communities, representative groups and the CST, in view of the role it plays in providing protective security for synagogues, Jewish schools and so on. We have also looked at a number of other aspects. I had a meeting recently, involving the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chief executive of the College of Policing, to look at the advice and guidance available to ensure that the police and the prosecution service respond properly when anti-Semitic attacks are undertaken and that, where prosecution is possible, it is taken forward.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Government’s taskforce on tackling radicalism and extremism, chaired by the Prime Minister, recommended in 2013 a new banning order for groups that fall short of being legally termed “terrorist” but which undermine democracy, and a new civil power to target those who radicalise others. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether those measures are excluded from the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill and whether that is because they have been blocked by the Liberal Democrats? If so, given the comments of the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and in the light of recent events in Paris, is there scope to revisit the recommendations made by the Prime Minister’s taskforce, as that would be most welcome?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises these issues. I have been very clear that it has not been possible to take those particular proposals forward on a Government basis, but I was also very clear—indeed, I said it in the speech I gave at our party conference last year—that it is the Conservative party’s intention to take them forward.

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

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

We welcome many of the measures in the Bill and we will support it tonight, but as a policy to tackle serious crime in Britain, it is still too weak. Rightly, it has been improved in the other place as a result of strong campaigning for amendments to be added, but more still needs to be done. As a final Bill for this Parliament, it is not ambitious enough to deal with the serious crime challenges that face Britain today.

Crime is changing and the criminal justice system is still not keeping up. The challenge from serious crime is increasing, not falling, and more needs to be done. Violent crime is increasing, yet fewer violent crimes are being prosecuted or convicted. More sexual offences are being reported, but fewer are reaching conviction. Reported rapes and domestic violence are increasing, yet fewer are reaching conviction. Far fewer drugs are being seized on their way into this country, and online crime is escalating exponentially and the police are not equipped to keep up. The problem is getting worse, not better, and the criminal justice system under the Home Secretary is not keeping up.

The measures are welcome, but they do not address the scale of the problem that we face. Let me deal with the measures in turn and highlight the areas in which the Government need to go further. The Government must stop the clock turning backwards. We have supported from the start the extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction for the two offences under the Terrorism Act 2006, preparation of terrorist acts and training for terrorism. We argued from the start, however, that the Home Secretary would need to go further, restore the relocation powers that she abolished in terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and strengthen Prevent. We will discuss those further measures later this week in the context of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, in which she has had to do exactly that.

We support the measures on accessing child pornography but believe that much more needs to be done to tackle this growing crime. I will come on to that in a moment. We support the measures to tighten the law on hacking and to address the international challenge that online crime poses. We welcome in particular more action to stop criminals benefiting from the proceeds of their crimes—something for which we have been calling for some time. Members in all parts of the House will agree, I think, that we should recover the proceeds of crime. Ill-gotten gains should not furnish the lifestyle of a criminal, in some cases long after their sentence has concluded. Wherever possible, there should be recompense to victims of crime, who have often lost so much.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady clarify whether the Opposition would support in Committee or on Report measures relating to the disclosure of beneficial ownership of UK property owned by offshore companies, which is one of the ways that assets are held, and unexplained wealth orders, along the lines of those used in Guernsey, to allow law enforcement officers more time than they currently have? Those two measures are excluded from the Bill.

[Yvette Cooper]

We support a series of measures where we think the Government should go further. We will table amendments in Committees and we will probe the detail of the Government’s legislation. I am happy to talk further to the hon. Gentleman about the details of those issues, as they are immensely important.

There are areas where we should do more to take back from criminals the assets that they have stolen from victims of crime right across the country. The aspects that we highlighted in the past related to preventing criminals from switching their assets to family and friends and getting away with it, and toughening sentences to deal with the problem of people serving only short sentences, even though they were continuing to squirrel away huge illegal gains. We support the measures to give more powers to the courts to tackle so-called designer divorces and third parties keeping hold of assets, and we support plans to require offenders to pay swiftly. The Government accept that more can still be done and we will probe this further in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I am delighted to contribute to the discussion of this multifaceted Bill. I am probably not regarded as one of the normal Home Office specialists, but this multifaceted Bill covers several areas that extend beyond the usual Home Office remit, and I particularly want to speak about the world of economics and our international relations.

The serious and organised crime strategy rightly sets out how we should respond to an ever-present, ever-evolving and ever-developing threat, particularly in the area of cybercrime. The importance of the Bill is that it recognises the strategy and gives legislative effect to such points. In my short speech, I want to look at some of the economic and international concerns that arise from cybercrime and how the Bill will help. Others more expert than I am will talk about the recovery of the proceeds of crime, the abuse of chemical substances—that very important matter was not mentioned by either Front-Bench speaker—and obviously, domestic cruelty to children, FGM and the possession of weapons in prison.

Part 2 goes to the heart of what we should be looking at because it covers the area of crime that is expanding exponentially, as the shadow Home Secretary rightly said. The national security strategy has identified that hostile attacks on UK cyberspace by other states and those involved in organised crime now represent a tier 1 threat to national security. As has been recognised, it is of paramount concern that cybercrime is a threat to national security, and it is obviously welcome that the Government are putting £860 million into the national cyber-security programme. Given the expansion of cybercrime, there will of course be real concerns about ensuring that those resources go into assessing how such a crime is evolving and how we should tackle it.

[Stephen Barclay]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that resource allocation is very opaque? The Treasury produced a report for the Cabinet Secretary in the last quarter of last year suggesting that 90% of spending on extremism happens domestically and only 10% internationally. On the very important threat that he is articulating, does he think that Parliament has sufficient transparency at the moment in relation to where the money is going, and to what extent is it being spent on adapting to new threats as opposed to dealing with traditional ones?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We should recognise that the Government are spending that money and are committed to looking at the specific law enforcement challenges of cybercrime, but we must also consider the economic consequences of that crime.

Particularly through organised crime, but also by foreign state activity, there can be a breakdown of networks, such as those for electricity, telecoms, power, banking, and food and fuel distribution. Everything relies on those logistical systems. Only today, companies have announced that their online retailing is now stronger than their direct retailing, and only today, there have been comments about the amount of money lost in banking fraud. Online retail and on-time logistics are clearly areas of potential attack, and the paralysis of such networks as a result of cyber-attacks is not just a security risk, but probably the most significant and serious threat to our economy except for world economic factors.

If those networks come under criminal control, even for a relatively short period, there would be not only grand-scale theft, fraud and illegal drug dealing, but a cost that would dwarf the figure of £24 billion, which the Home Secretary rightly remarked last year was the cost of organised crime to this country. I say “dwarf”, because daily banking transactions in the UK alone probably total five or perhaps 10 times that amount.

The potential for crime is huge, so it is absolutely right for the national cyber-security programme to break down cybercrime into its two parts: cyber-dependent crimes, which can be committed only by using computers and computer networks; and the even more significant cyber-enabled crimes, which can be committed offline and online.

Tackling Corruption

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Tonight’s debate on the Government’s approach to tackling corruption is timely for a number of reasons. It builds on the progress and leadership given by the Prime Minister at the G8 and G20. It comes as we anticipate the long-awaited Government report into corruption, which has been delayed for a year but is due out, we understand, later this month. It comes as London is hosting a conference of 14 overseas territories discussing their approach to corruption, and it comes just a day after changes applying to extraction companies on disclosing payments came into legal force.

The debate is not just timely; it is relevant to London specifically. London is home to more than 250 foreign banks, the most of any financial centre. It is the largest currency trading centre in the world, processing 18% of cross-border transactions. In 2013, the then regulator, the Financial Services Authority, estimated that the level of money being laundered through London and the UK was between £23 billion and £57 billion. Indeed, the Home Secretary used the £23 billion figure when she gave a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, which suggests that the Government accept the scale of the challenge. To put those figures into global context, the African Union estimates the cost of corruption in Africa to be $148 billion and the World Bank estimates that up to $1 trillion is paid in bribes. We know this is a serious issue, and that is why it is timely that Parliament should address it.

I want to highlight three broad themes. The first is resourcing: how to get investigating corruption right and how we give life to the Government’s plan and address some of the challenges they face on the transfer of key personnel to the National Crime Agency. Secondly, how do we improve the policy in terms of industry, so that we move from a quantity approach, particularly on suspicious activity reports, to one based more on quality and targeted at the more serious multi-million pound cases rather than low-value transactions? Thirdly, I want to highlight a number of loopholes in the legislative framework, given that there will be the Second Reading of the Serious Crime Bill in the next week or two.

On resourcing, will the Minister clarify whether colleagues in the Department for International Development have asked for reassurance on key financial investigators moving to the NCA, particularly from the proceeds of crime unit and the City of London anti-corruption units? Is it the case that, to date, only two of the 35 key investigators have agreed to move across? Such expertise takes time to grow. If we are to have a new plan, there is clearly a risk if the experts are not there to implement it. I understand that, in a letter to the Home Secretary on 20 November, the Bond group of non-governmental organisations also highlighted this issue. Given that police officers do not TUPE across and terms and conditions are less favourable, is the Minister confident that the staff will move across? I understand that in the two years that the NCA has had the intelligence unit, not been a single investigation has resulted from that intelligence. We need to tackle the concerns about resourcing.

Will the Minister update the House on the challenges of buying in resource, if that is seen as a short-term fix? The case of Malawi and “cashgate” is a good example. DFID paid for a British firm, Baker Tilly, to provide expert consultancy advice. The scandal is known as “cashgate”, but we have not recovered any cash. Has there been any enforcement? We gave £106 million—a significant amount—in aid to Malawi last year. How much has been spent on the investigation? Is it true that these consultants had no powers to require banks to disclose financial transactions or request intelligence from foreign Governments? If so, what are the constraints on using external consultants in respect of such investigations in the future?

For policy reasons, the Government have decided not to pay for law enforcement out of money recovered from corruption investigations, but given that we have fewer than 100 investigators—in the Serious Fraud Office, the proceeds of crime unit and the City of London unit—would that not make sense? It would allow us to conduct more investigations, which would be in the interests of the countries being defrauded.

Will the Serious Crime Bill deal with the evidential test? It appears to be set too high and so acts as a cost disincentive to the bringing of cases, which is compounded by the time scales. Where there is a financial institution with a complex, multi-jurisdictional case, perhaps spanning many years, law enforcement agencies have just 38 days to build a case to the satisfaction of the courts to block a payment. That is clearly insufficient. We could learn lessons from Guernsey and its approach in the Indonesian logging case. We need a mechanism of unexplained wealth orders to allow law enforcement agencies to stop the clock and allow time to investigate. Does the Minister accept that 38 days is wholly inadequate when it comes to building a complex legal case on payments?

On the relationship with industry, the suspicious activity report procedure is based on regulatory compliance, rather than investigation. The industry pays out millions of pounds for document checks on one’s granny in respect of low-value transactions, while serious cases receive little scrutiny. Of the 316,527 serious activity reports filed by banks last year, just 110 were looked at by the proceeds of crime unit. The banks do not want to exit profitable clients and see them go to other firms, so we have this defensive filing of suspicious activity reports, 95% of which are not acted on by law enforcement agencies—they just sit on file for intelligence. It is not cost-effective.

Last Thursday, on the BBC’s “Question Time”, the Chief Whip—the Whip might want to sharpen her pencil—said that Facebook had been aware of intelligence relating to a terrorist attack but had not passed it on. Do the Government know whether the 300,000 or so suspicious activity reports filed by banks include any transfers of funds to people complicit in those attacks? We do not have the mechanism for filtering them effectively. Is that an issue of concern to the Government, particularly in the light of the discussion about Facebook?

We need to shift away from this catch-all defensive policy to one based on targeting high-value corruption cases, and we need to work more in partnership with financial institutions, and combine that with a greater fear factor in respect of money laundering. Does the Minister share my concern that the current consultation relating to the Financial Conduct Authority seems to be repeating past errors? We had a Financial Services Authority report in 2011 that showed problems relating to the money laundering of banks, and two weeks ago we had an FCA report showing again that small banks were failing on money laundering. If we go back to the 1990s, 23 banks were complicit in money laundering, yet no action was taken.

It might surprise the House to know that over the last decade, only two fines appear to have been imposed against individuals for money laundering, the highest of which was for £17,500. How confident is the FCA that, particularly given the number of foreign banks in the UK, we have the right approach to money laundering even today?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to intervene. The hon. Gentleman refers to money laundering. In Northern Ireland, over some 30 years of a terrorist campaign, it was clear that paramilitaries were involved in it. A wealth of experience was built up by police officers both from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and from the present Police Service of Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman wants to enable more prosecutions for money laundering, does he think it might be a good idea for the Government and the Department to take on some of those officers who have now retired and take advantage of their expertise to bring more prosecutions for money laundering?

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about how we learn from other jurisdictions in other territories. Italy is another example, with its experience of dealing with the mafia. The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience of the challenges within Northern Ireland where there is a great deal of expertise, from which we can learn.

On the fear factor for individuals, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards put forward very good proposals, allowing a reversal of the burden of proof, but it is still the case that money laundering reporting officers are often not seen enough within the organisation and, not being at executive level, they often do not control the budget. That risks repeating past mistakes. Let us look at HSBC and the problems it got into in Mexico. To what extent does the Minister believe that the current regime would ensure that at a group level executives would be liable individually for fines if similar mistakes were made today?

The High Court recently heard the Nigerian OPL 245 case, which was dealt with by Lady Justice Gloster. It reveals a current impediment that applies to the judiciary, which I would like to draw to the Minister’s attention. In her ruling, Lady Justice Gloster said:

“I find as a fact that, from its incorporation and at all material times, Chief Etete had a sufficient beneficial interest in Malabu”.

She refers to the well-known case of Malabu, a $1 billion oil fraud. One can only look at that judgment, which says that if Etete had the beneficial ownership, he must have had it from the point of origin when he was the oil Minister of Nigeria. That is where the companies in beneficial ownership sat, having been set up in six days by a lawyer convicted in the French courts of money laundering. Yet Lady Justice Gloster could essentially adjudicate only over the spoils of that corruption. She had no power to do otherwise, because neither of the parties to the case claimed that the funds were corrupt. To what extent would the new plan put forward by the Government allow the judiciary greater powers where, in its judgment, a case that is being disputed is corrupt? That applies particularly in the arbitration courts, given the lack of transparency often seen in those proceedings.

Of course, non-governmental organisations could act as a friend of the courts in theory, but cost pressures invariably make that very difficult, while the likes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 cannot be used to intervene unless there is a victim. If in this case the Nigerian Government are not of the view that they have been defrauded, very little can be done. We need to look at the way our courts operate in that regard.

Property is another area. It has been suggested that 45% of London properties valued at over £2 million are currently owned by offshore companies. The Prime Minister has taken some positive measures relating to the register of beneficial ownership, but the Minister must realise that that is null and void when it comes to those properties owned by offshore companies.

It is a well-known fact that beneficial ownership is very opaque, especially in the case of shell companies. Estate agents currently have no duties in relation to buyers, and even their duties in relation to the sellers who are their clients usually extend only to the offshore companies with which they are acting, or their lawyers. Would the Minister consider a requirement for beneficial ownership of property worth over £2 million to be disclosed to the Land Registry? She might even want to consider the imposition of a fine on offshore property-owning companies that did not wish to comply with the disclosure requirement—along the lines of those that were introduced as a result of recent banking regulatory changes—with the proceeds going to good causes. That simple measure could be applied over the next 12 months, and could bring a huge amount of transparency to the top end of the property market, where we know that money is being laundered.

Let me now ask some questions about legislation. First, will the Minister update the House on the position of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, given the lack of transparency surrounding their plans? Consultations in the British Virgin Islands closed 300 days ago but nothing has been reported, and the same applies to the Cayman Islands. Secondly, it is feared that industry guidance might fetter the effectiveness of new United Kingdom law relating to the transparency of payments to Governments for the extraction industry. A QC’s opinion recently raised concern in that regard. Will the Home Office be making any representations to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the subject?

Thirdly, will the Government make it a condition that the countries to which we give aid comply with the United Nations convention against corruption? In particular, will they provide global leadership in requiring the publication of asset declarations on politically exposed persons? The UN has pressed for that, and I do not understand why we are giving aid to countries without expecting them to comply with the convention. Fourthly, will the United Kingdom introduce administrative orders, such as those introduced by Switzerland and Canada, so that we can rapidly freeze assets in post-revolutionary circumstances?

Let me end by referring to the troubling case of Sergei Magnitsky, about which concern has been raised with the Government by Members in all parts of the House, and on which there appears to have been a woeful lack of progress so far. The Minister will be well aware that the 25-year-old Russian lawyer was tortured to death in a Russian jail. I know that detailed forensic information has been given to the UK Government about British nationals who were complicit in the money laundering linked to his death, and that information has been provided by Hermitage Capital Management, but the UK authorities appear to have taken no action, despite a Back-Bench debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and supported by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and many others.

Other Governments have given leadership, notably the United States Congress, but there has been a serious lack of action from the UK Government in relation to the proceeds of the tax fraud that was linked to Magnitsky’s torture and death. What reassurance can the Minister give that there will be a change of gear, and that amendments will be tabled to the Serious Crime Bill to give effect to it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

The measures that the Government have taken on beneficial ownership are hugely positive, but does the Minister accept that if almost half of all property in London worth more than £2 million is owned offshore, the measures will not provide transparency on beneficial ownership? Does she agree that property is a particular opportunity for the Government to extend their reach?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend has highlighted a powerful fact, which brings home the challenge that we face. I would appreciate it if we could cover that point when we meet outside this place.

The Government have taken steps to strengthen the law enforcement response to corruption. Last year, as I have said, we established the National Crime Agency to manage the overall law enforcement response to serious and organised crime, including bribery, corruption and associated offences such as money laundering. We have introduced measures to create a new offence of police corruption, and the Home Secretary has asked Major General Chip Chapman to chair a review of the police disciplinary system.

The Government have also provided dedicated funding for UK law enforcement units to investigate illicit financial flows to the UK, which are linked to corrupt foreign officials from developing countries. My hon. Friend talked about funding from the Department for International Development for the various units, and he is right to highlight the importance of ensuring that we have a dedicated force working in that area that does not duplicate effort. In such a way, we can ensure that we get the most effective response from law enforcement specialists, who really know what they are doing and are first-class professionals in their field. That approach is recognised internationally as highly successful and innovative. To date, those units have restrained or confiscated more than £120 million of stolen funds, and further investigations and confiscations are under way. Our enforcement response must be the best that it can be, so we are reviewing the overall co-ordination and effectiveness of the UK’s enforcement response to cases of bribery and corruption. That work is ongoing, and Ministers will consider the findings in due course.

My hon. Friend raised points regarding Malawi, and I would appreciate it if we could discuss that point further. If he can provide detailed information about individuals who might be involved, or any other information, it would really assist us in our work. [Interruption.] He is making comments from a sedentary position, but I am sure that if we discussed the matter, it would assist us all.

I am conscious of the time, so I will quickly cover the suspicious activity reporting regime, which is a significant part of our work. Suspicious activity reports are a crucial source of information for law enforcement agencies, and they provide a mechanism for financial institutions and others in the regulated sector to obtain a statutory defence from a money laundering prosecution when they report their suspicions and are granted consent to proceed with a transaction by the NCA. As someone who has worked in risk management at one of the major accounting firms, I remember the joys of having to deal with such things, so I understand the criticism that my hon. Friend has highlighted. The economic crime command in the National Crime Agency is working with banks. The Home Secretary and I attended a business breakfast hosted at the Bank of England to kick off the work that we are doing with the financial institutions to find appropriate and acceptable ways to help them to deal with the bureaucracy of SARs. My hon. Friend made an important point about the profile of the issue, and all financial institutions need to raise the profile of the issue internally and see it as a key part of their own mechanisms for dealing with corruption and bribery.

My hon. Friend mentioned the proceeds of corruption, and there is much that I could say on the matter. Given the time, I will simply say that he made an important point about dealing with pre-regime changes and changes in regimes in other countries. When I attended, on behalf of the Government, the AFAR III—Arab Forum on Financial Recovery—conference about Arab countries in transition, it brought home to me the importance of making sure that we have the information that we need to enable us not only to restrain those assets but to seize them, and to return them to the countries that need the money.

I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge the work that the Government have done to tackle this important issue, and the improvements that we have recently initiated. I note the issues that he has raised, and I hope that our forthcoming measures will go some way towards addressing them. I look forward to debating the matter further with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The Government firmly underline their commitment to promoting the role of women within government, business and the whole country, and they condemn any action that might stand against that. The hon. Lady has alluded to a case highlighted in the press. I cannot comment on the specifics of that particular case, but I can assure her about the steps this Government are taking, and about the record of this Home Secretary in excluding more people on grounds of unacceptable behaviour than any of her predecessors.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

6. How many vehicle scanning machines to identify stowaways at UK ports of entry the Government plan to buy in the next 12 months.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

Border Force operates an array of search techniques as part of its multi-layered search regime, including detection dogs, carbon dioxide monitors, heartbeat detectors and scanners. In the past 12 months nearly £10 million has been invested to support and increase those methods of detection and bolster port security in the UK and at juxtaposed controls. The Government have also committed to invest £12 million at the port of Calais further to enhance security.

[Stephen Barclay]

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that written parliamentary question 213850 on the number of lorries screened by body scanning machines and sniffer dogs when they enter the UK has not been answered? The Government have confirmed that currently just five vehicle scanning machines cover all our ports, including 51 points of entry. Will the Minister clarify why five is an adequate number?

[James Brokenshire]

Border Force uses an array of different techniques to secure our border which, as I have highlighted, include body detection dogs, carbon dioxide detectors, heartbeat monitors and scanners, as well as physical searches. I will look into the outstanding parliamentary question highlighted by my hon. Friend. Last year 18,000 people were detected at our juxtaposed controls—a 60% increase. That underlines the focus of our Border Force officers on preventing people who should not be here from coming to this country.