Money Transfer Accounts

Debate between Yasmin Qureshi and Rushanara Ali

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She has added an important perspective to the debate, which is that the issue also affects countries that people might not have thought about.

I commend parliamentarians, because some 46 Labour MPs have already signed a letter to Barclays, and I know that the all-party group on Somaliland and Somalia has also made representations to the Government. MPs and parliamentarians from both sides of the House, and many other people, have raised the alarm bell with the Government. That highlights our deep concern about how decisions that have been made in the past, not just by Barclays but by other banks such as HSBC, to remove banking facilities that are affordable for hard-pressed families who are trying to get support to other parts of the world, have been supported rather than punished. We should encourage people to give, and I hope that the Government will consider the issue closely.

According to the Financial Times, more than 250 money transfer companies are now facing closure following the decision by Barclays to withdraw the service. Other banks have already withdrawn it, so the suggestion that those small and medium-sized companies could go elsewhere is nonsense. We need to ensure that the decision of those banks does not send a signal to other banks that there is something wrong with such businesses and that other banks should not do business with them, which is essentially what has happened. That is the insidious conclusion that is being drawn at the moment. Allegations are being made that those businesses, many of which are in our constituencies, are engaged in activity that is not legal.

Barclays has said to me that it is concerned about only the 1% of companies that represent 46% of the problem. The Government and regulatory authorities should consider how to assist Barclays and other companies that need to clean up operations where there are problems. If that 1% is a problem, assistance should be provided to address that problem rather than involving the 99%, in the case of Barclays, that do not pose a problem. If that logic were applied to the banking sector, for instance, we would not have a banking sector left. I ask the banking sector to have some empathy and to think about what the consequences would have been for it if, during the financial crisis, all companies in the sector had had to be shut down just because there were certain bad apples.

I hope the Minister will consider the issue and answer the question about how we can focus and zoom in on the areas where there are cowboy operators, which none of us want. The diaspora and ethnic minority communities in this country and across the world do not want to see cowboy operators; they want legitimate, well regulated mechanisms for sending money to loved ones.

As I said, 45 other MPs and I supported the letter to Barclays bank that the Minister has seen, and I look forward to hearing what he, his Department and the regulatory authorities will do to try to help with this important matter. We are asking for some breathing space. We are asking Barclays—I do not believe this is an unreasonable request—to extend the date from August by another six months to give the Government, the regulatory authorities and the Minister the breathing space to bring people together, including the British Bankers Association, the banks and interested parties such as the money transfer agencies and the communities that use their facilities, wherever possible, to arrive at a solution that does not lead to the industry’s closure.

More than $3.2 billion of remittance a year is sent from the UK, and remittance amounts to some $530 billion worldwide, which is more than the total global international development budget. We must act internationally in concert with our American partners. The decision to apply fines to Standard Chartered and HSBC has led to the decision by UK banks such as Barclays to stop remittance facilities. Frankly, the companies have nothing to do with what has happened in the US with the breaching of sanctions, or with the other cases in which banks have been involved, but they are being punished.

If we do not find a way to address the problem, the risk is enormous, because there will be no legitimate ways for people to send money to remote parts of the world. Of course, there is virtually no way for people to get assistance to countries such as Somalia through a legitimate route. We need a constructive way forward, and I hope the Minister can explain how his Department and officials will work with the banking sector to develop an industry-wide solution so that we can ensure that the remittance and money transfer industries are strengthened in light of the crisis, rather than destroyed.

I also hope that the Minister will consider that if banking facilities to money transfer agencies end, what is likely to happen is what used to happen before a regulated mechanism was in place. On the whole, people who are not wealthy want cheap and affordable means to get assistance to their loved ones, particularly in times of desperation and crisis, such as when a family member has died and money needs to be sent quickly for burials and associated costs, or when there is an urgent health care emergency, likely or actual conflict or a humanitarian emergency, as was the case in Somalia and the rest of east Africa in 2011 and as is likely to happen in future. If there is no legitimate route to send money, there is a major risk that the industry will be driven underground and that clandestine mechanisms will be used to get money to family members. If that happens in the billions of pounds, we will not be providing remitters with the back-up, support and legal mechanisms to send money safely to their loved ones. It will also mean that some countries are unlikely to be able to monitor the amount of money flowing into their economy, leading to inflationary pressures.

Furthermore, there are security issues. People worry, rightly, that their money might end up in the wrong hands, and potentially in the hands of extremists. In countries such as Somalia and Somaliland, there are grave concerns about that risk.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She mentioned that more than £2 billion in remittances is sent abroad. It is important to emphasise that although that is a large amount, people often send small amounts— £50 or £100—to their family. Small businesses are therefore incredibly important to people without a lot of means who send small amounts of money.

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amounts of money are often small. People work hard to make a living and provide a bit of support. I know that because many of my constituents tell me stories about how they are supporting the education of distant relatives or immediate family members by sending them money every month. During Ramadan, which we are in right now, people have a duty to give charity, or zakat. They want to give it to people they know who are poorer, and not through charitable organisations, where administration costs are high compared with direct giving. There are many occasions on which people give small amounts of money. For example, the Muslim community in Britain contributes £100 million in charitable giving during the month of Ramadan alone.

A local activist in my constituency recently said:

“There is simply no other legal way of sending money to Somalia. If these firms are closed, it just means people will have to carry large amounts of money from airport to airport, and all that’s achieved is that everyone will end up a criminal.”

We cannot risk criminalising people who are simply trying to support their families.

Another major opportunity is at risk. Ethnic minority communities have insights and connections in their countries of origin. I see that in my constituency, as I know other right hon. and hon. Members do. They have insights into how to trade with their countries of origin, and affordable remittance facilities are critical to doing so. We are closing off opportunities for small businesses to operate and develop. It is also costing more than 3,000 jobs here in the UK and jobs in those countries.

Internet-based Media Companies

Debate between Yasmin Qureshi and Rushanara Ali

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing it.

I start from where the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) stopped. Asking for self-imposed regulation of the industry does not mean that the economy of our country, the booming internet trade or what happens on the internet will suddenly come to a stop and that we as a country will somehow become less economically effective. This debate is about the fact that, as has been said, the internet reaches out to billions and billions of people around the world. Unlike what is in newspapers or on television, which may be limited to particular countries—although somebody travelling to a country might be able to see it—something posted on the internet can be seen by everyone in the world who has access to a computer.

What the internet says is therefore powerful. It is amazing that such a powerful institution or body has no regulation and no sense of responsibility for what is put on it or taken off. As has been said, a lot of internet companies act differently in different countries, so they seem to be sensitive in relation to different countries, although that sensitivity is probably based on economic rationales rather than anything else. Although economics is important, so is the internet’s effect on people.

This debate always ends up with arguments about freedom of expression and the idea that saying that there should be an element of regulation of what appears on the internet, or even in the print media or on TV, somehow curtails people’s freedom of expression. Freedom of expression has never been completely unfettered. As has been said, there have always been things that are illegal to say. Some people might say that if we want to take freedom of expression to its extreme, people should even be allowed to say things that are illegal, and that there should be no restrictions at all. However, we do have restrictions, and rightly so. There is nothing wrong with talking about objectionable material.

I will not discuss sexualisation or the effect of pornography, as the hon. Member for Devizes spoke about it in detail and it is pointless to repeat the same thing. However, I entirely agree with her about the dangers to young people, adults and others who are vulnerable, and I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said.

May I say on record that I agree with self-regulation rather than a statutory framework? An awful lot is said on the internet that can harm people’s reputation, for instance. I do not see why everybody always says that people’s sensitivities should be ignored completely and that everything objectionable should be on the internet. I am sorry, but while there is freedom of expression—I know that there is no such thing as the freedom not to be offended—we must draw sensible parameters.

If I, or anyone, was to say on the internet that everyone with pink eyes should be put to death at birth, some might say, “Well, what is wrong with that? That is not too objectionable. Pink is not my favourite colour, so why not?” That is a bizarre example, but people might want to say it—in the past, people have used expressions regarding specific groups of people in the world. That would be objectionable and it might be illegal, but I do not think people should be putting things like that on the internet. If they do, there should be a mechanism for regulation. Even if material is not as extreme as saying that people with pink eyes should be put to death at birth, it is still objectionable. I do not see why there should not be a system in place to enable people to raise the issue with the companies concerned and explain why it is a problem.

We touched on the issue of the American film on YouTube. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) said that this debate would end up going in that direction, but I want to address the point because a lot of people wrote to me to complain about the content of that film and said that it was objectionable. If people want to discuss a concept in any religion or culture, they should be able to write about it. Nobody is saying that there should not be a discussion or dissemination of ideas. However, when the whole intent is to provoke people, abuse people and vilify people, that cannot be right. Surely somewhere along the line common sense must come into play.

[Rushanara Ali]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful, particularly for those who do not have power and money and are not clear about their rights, for people to be able to receive advice that is free, high-quality and accessible on some of these questions? I am not aware that such a provision exists, but perhaps the Minister could consider that as a first step, particularly to help vulnerable people—parents who worry about what their rights are and how they can be enforced—or to help put pressure, as I found in a case with my constituent, on the police to take action so that these issues do not get passed around before they become more serious. Related to that point is libel—where people’s reputations are damaged, something that I experienced myself during my election campaign. It takes a long time and many threats of legal action before libellous material posted on the walls of host sites, or sites that are libellous and wrong, is taken down. Surely the Minister could help with that.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Such an example would be the famous case of Max Mosley. Even though what was written in newspapers was found to be defamatory, it continues to be published on the internet.

I was a member of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions. The managing directors of Google, Facebook and Twitter gave evidence, and the Committee explored the issue of why content that a nation state has clearly declared illegal is not removed. There were not many issues on which the members of the Committee were unanimous, but we all agreed that all three companies were just twisting and turning and not giving us direct answers. They had to be pressed hard. Initially, they said that it was technically not possible, or difficult, or expensive, or impossible to monitor. When the Committee asked more detailed questions, such as, “Do you have the technology? Is there no software available?” basically, it boiled down to the fact that they did not want to do it—it was as simple as that. It was not in their financial interests to do it. It was not in their profit-making interests to do it. It was not that they could not do it because it was so difficult; they just did not want to. We got that answer—not even then was there complete acceptance—after God knows how many questions. Eventually, there was an admission that, technically, there was no reason why they could not do it. We at least got to the bottom of that.

The Committee looked at the whole issue of regulating the internet. Everybody accepts that there are challenges—they may be technical challenges, but they certainly can be overcome if the desire and intention is there. The issue is all about saying, “We know you can do these things. Why don’t you self-regulate?” If there is content on the internet, whether via YouTube, Facebook or Twitter, that is offensive, rude or defamatory, people should not have to go through the long process of dealing with the law. Max Mosley is a rich man and is able to do so. I think he has challenged Google many times. Every time he makes a challenge, content is deleted before it eventually reappears. Most ordinary people cannot do that—they do not have the money, time or resources. There should be an internal mechanism to deal with such cases. When there is freedom of expression and people can say what they like, it is important for there to be responsibility.

I will return to the recent YouTube case. I accept that YouTube did not cause the deaths, but it is right to say that it knew it would happen. It was done deliberately to provoke, annoy, vilify and abuse. It was not done to discuss and disseminate issues and ideas. It was not done as an academic discussion about a particular aspect of a particular religion, or any particular character in any religious history. It was done purely as a form of abuse. At that point, we have to think about the level of abuse that is aimed at people, whether they are dead or alive.