Firearms Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Colgrain for bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill to the House and for his introduction. I join him in paying tribute to Shaun Bailey MP in the other place for initiating the Bill. I also commend my noble friend for the thoughtful and very compelling case he has made for these two firearms measures. I thank all those who have contributed to the debate today. I welcome their support and constructive comments on our firearms controls.

I am very pleased to say that the Government support this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne said, it improves the existing legislation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just noted, our laws must remain fit for purpose and be kept under review. I am a shotgun certificate holder myself and a member of the BASC, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. I have an interest in this area, and I know that the BASC, as a representative of shooting interests, is broadly supportive of the measures put forward in this Bill too.

We keep this country’s strong gun controls under review and are prepared to consider taking action to strengthen them further if the evidence shows this to be necessary. That is why we fully support the measures contained in this Bill, and it is why, as my noble friend noted, we launched a firearms consultation on 29 June, following recommendations made in the wake of the terrible shootings in Keyham and Skye. The firearms licensing consultation will be open for eight weeks. We will listen most carefully, and with a balanced and proportionate approach, to the views which come forward on whether further changes are needed to this country’s robust firearms controls.

This Bill is about addressing two vulnerabilities which have been identified in the existing licensing controls. We committed to taking action on both of these issues following a public consultation conducted on a number of firearms safety issues in late 2020 and early 2021. As noble Lords have heard today, the Bill tightens the law around miniature rifle ranges, while preserving the existing benefits that they offer. It still enables those who are new to target shooting to experience the sport without having to be a certificate holder, but it ensures that this will take place in a safe and controlled environment by removing the exemption that currently allows those operating such ranges to do so without first obtaining a firearms certificate. Removing this exemption will mean that the operator will be subject to the usual police criminal record and suitability checks, as well as police checks to ensure that the rifle range is run safely and that the firearms used there are stored securely. Miniature rifles will also be more tightly defined in law so that only less powerful .22 rim-fire firearms may be used on miniature rifle ranges.

As we have discussed, the Bill also tackles the unlawful manufacture of ammunition by introducing a new offence of possessing component parts with the intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of complete ammunition. The police have raised concerns that the component parts of ammunition are too easy to obtain and are being used by criminals to manufacture whole rounds of ammunition. The new offence means that the police will be able to better prosecute cases where criminals are manufacturing ammunition, including where only some of the component parts are present, provided that intent is shown. This measure supports the police in tackling gun crime.

Both these measures received support in the public consultation that I referred to earlier. It was widely acknowledged, including by those representing shooting interests, as well as those who wish to see tighter firearms controls more generally, that these changes will help to strengthen our firearms controls. This Bill will make a valuable contribution to firearms legislation, while making sure that those who wish to continue to legitimately engage in firearms activities, whether that involves target shooting at clubs or activity centres, the legitimate home loading of ammunition or other lawful activities, are able to continue to do so.

I shall come on to some of the more detailed questions. My noble friend Lord Attlee has spoken about the position of older deactivated firearms which can be possessed but not sold or transferred without complying with the current deactivation standards, which are aligned with EU deactivation standards. I understand his concerns about this issue. We will keep all firearms matters under review and will consider our deactivation standards to see whether changes are necessary to the current position. As regards his specific question about REUL, I cannot comment, but I shall obviously make sure that his concerns are registered. I also note his comments about the possible value of his grandfather’s firearm, but I have to say, given its provenance, it might be worth rather more than he thinks.

My noble friend, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Ponsonby, also raised the question of how we continue to keep people safe with the emergence of firearms produced using 3D printers. 3D-printed firearms fall within the scope of the Firearms Act 1968 and are subject to the same controls and licensing requirements as any other firearm. There have been successful prosecutions; in fact, I literally just googled this, and there was one on 23 June in West Yorkshire for possession of a 3D-printed firearm. So the law is working—but the Government are committed to tackling the threat posed by 3D-printed guns, and we are working closely with law enforcement, including the National Crime Agency, as part of the multi-agency response to the emergence of 3D-printed firearms.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, questioned me a little more closely on the intent point with regards to the new ammunition offence. We listened carefully to the calls for the clauses on ammunition to be explicit about the need for criminal intent to be proven, to ensure that those who legitimately manufacture or home-load ammunition are not inadvertently caught by the provisions of the Bill. Because of this, the drafting of the legislation is, rightly, very clear about the need for intent to be proven. I have heard what the noble Lord says. As I say, the whole issue remains under constant review.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked me about the consultation and whether it will include a presumption in favour of granting a firearms licence. We did look at this issue in detail. The legislation makes it clear that the police must first be satisfied that issuing the licence will not endanger public safety or the peace. Therefore, such changes to the legislation would make no practical difference to the current application practice, which is centred on the requirement for the police to be satisfied that the applicant is suitable and safe to be granted a firearms licence.

The Government will continue to listen carefully to recommendations that we receive about how to further improve our firearms controls. We are open-minded to change, while ensuring that our response is proportionate and focused on areas of vulnerability where those are identified. Where necessary, we must strengthen the legislation on which our controls are based, and the measures in this Bill of course do that. But we will also use other tools—and I think these will answer a number of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We have committed £500,000 in funding to support development and rollout of a new training package for firearms licensing staff, developed by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. In due course, the training will become mandatory for police firearms licensing staff.

On 14 February this year, we refreshed the statutory guidance for the police on their licensing functions, to ensure that the police are making the necessary inquiries before granting or renewing firearms licences. The statutory guidance aims to raise standards and improve consistency across all police forces. In addition, the Government have worked with the medical profession to put in place robust medical arrangements as part of the licensing controls, to ensure that those who hold firearms are physically and mentally fit to do so. A new digital marker system to flag firearms owners to doctors has been introduced to GP surgeries, which will further strengthen these arrangements.

The Home Office has also launched a review of firearms licensing fees: the fees that the police charge for the issue or renewal of firearms licenses. We will be consulting on any changes that will be required later this year. The purpose of the review is to provide full cost recovery for the police, so that they have the resources they need to maintain effective and efficient licensing arrangements that meet the needs of firearms owners, while also ensuring that the public are kept safe.

His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the fire and rescue services will be conducting a thematic review of police forces’ firearms licensing arrangements in 2024-25. That will provide us with an important opportunity to take stock of the changes that have been introduced and to ensure that we are doing all we can to ensure that our licensing arrangements are safe and meet the needs of the shooting community, alongside the overarching need to ensure the safety of us all.

I am glad that we will make our robust firearms controls even stronger through the measures in this Bill. The new requirement for a firearms certificate will enable the police to check the suitability and security of those running miniature rifle ranges, while preserving the benefits that they offer, including to newcomers to the sport of target shooting.

I shall address the final couple of questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as regards a regulator, or perhaps a central licensing body, to administer firearms certificates. There are no plans at present to create such a body to administer firearms licensing. We believe that there is some value in having local police firearms licensing departments. That enables the police to be in touch with the local communities and local medical practitioners, as well as being able to visit the applicants.

As regards the noble Lord’s question about the coroner’s report and the timetable, I am afraid I do not have any information on that as yet. Of course, I shall report back as soon as I am able to. As regards the Online Safety Bill, I have heard what the noble Lord has said, and I will make sure those concerns are passed on to the relevant department. I am afraid I do not have any comments that I can usefully make as regards toys, although I note the incredible likeness between the real firearms and some of the toys that are manufactured.

The amendment to the legislation on ammunition will give the police the tools to bear down on criminals who fuel gun crime by manufacturing ammunition unlawfully. The introduction of the new offence of possession of component parts with the intention to assemble unauthorised ammunition is another important step in the fight against crime.

I reiterate my thanks to my noble friend Lord Colgrain for bringing this Private Member’s Bill before the House. I hope to see it receive Royal Assent, as I believe it will have a significant impact in strengthening our firearms controls still further. The Government are in full support of the Bill and the important changes it will bring.

Finally, I am afraid I do not know the difference between temporary licences and the more traditional ones, if you will, but I will find out and report back.

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has given fulsome thanks to all the people involved in the passage of this Bill. He has played a prominent role in it. As he summed up, it is about stopping manufacturers having Mickey Mouse locks on their equipment. I certainly know from my own experience that the newer locks on equipment—whether construction or general rural equipment—are far more sophisticated, as they involve satellite links and all sorts of other technology. This means they are really difficult to break. Nevertheless, eternal vigilance is needed on this front because the people who seek to steal such equipment will be moving their technology forward as well. This Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. I congratulate the noble Lord on seeing it through this House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for taking this Private Member’s Bill through the House—his efforts were far from inconsequential. I welcome the support the Bill has received in this House and in the other place, and join my noble friend in paying tribute to Greg Smith MP.

The Bill has received cross-party support from the outset, and the Government have wholeheartedly supported it. The Government are determined to make our cities, towns, villages and rural areas safer. As we have heard during debates on this Bill, thefts of agricultural machinery, and in particular all-terrain vehicles, are of great concern. The Government recognise the significant impact these thefts have on our rural communities and businesses, and it is essential we ensure that they are adequately protected. These thefts are preventable: fitting immobilisers and forensic markings as standard is inexpensive and the tools to do so are readily available. The Government expect manufacturers to play their part in protecting items from theft, which is why the Government are taking action by supporting this Bill. The Bill is a great example of government, law enforcement and industry working together to protect hard-working people from theft.

As my noble friend noted, the Bill includes a power for the Secretary of State to extend its provisions to other types of machinery via secondary legislation. During the Commons stages the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire committed to considering the extension of the provisions to other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial activities and tradespeople’s tools. Minister Philp recognised that the regulations would require careful consideration to ensure that the technical detail is correct. To that end, the Home Office has undertaken a call for evidence, seeking views on these detailed matters. The call for evidence closed yesterday, and the responses will be carefully considered before secondary legislation is laid before both Houses and debated in due course.

I reiterate my thanks to my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and echo his thanks to the National Farmers’ Union and to the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for construction and agricultural machinery theft, Superintendent Andy Huddleston, for his work in developing the measures in this Bill. I also echo my noble friend’s praise for the police sergeant and detective sergeant he mentioned. I hope to see the Bill receive Royal Assent, as I believe it can have a significant impact on these thefts. The Government are in full support of it.

Bill passed.

Support for Migrant Victims

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gale]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 1 December 2022 (HL Deb col 1869), what progress they have made in evaluating the pilot of the Support for Migrant Victims scheme; and when, if at all, they intend to rescind their reservation on Article 59 of the European Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (the Istanbul Convention).

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, we are carefully considering the findings of the support for migrant victims scheme pilot evaluation to inform any future policy decisions. Once we have considered all the evidence in the round, we will communicate our decision on the Article 59 reservation.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

While I thank the Minister for his reply, it is practically identical to the one that he gave me on 1 December last year. How long does it take to evaluate a pilot scheme? This has been going on now for more than two years. How much longer is it going to take and, when it is accepted, will he report back to the House so that the Government can then consider removing the reservation on Article 59?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her praise for my consistency. I do not know when the consideration will be completed but, as soon as it is, I shall of course report back to the House on all the matters that she has raised.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

For as long as the Government take to come to a view on this, there will be thousands of women—mainly women—living in desperate situations and forced to live with their abusers. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report and the feedback have been very thorough and the recommendations are very clear—and, as the noble Baroness said, this has been going on for some time now. As the commissioner said:

“We urgently need to put safety before immigration status when it comes to domestic abuse victims”.


Do the Government now agree?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the first thing that I would say is that the pilot may have concluded but the scheme is still in operation and is continuing to be funded. We are providing a further £1.4 million a year until 2024-25 to continue to support the migrant victims scheme, so the circumstances that the noble Baroness describes are certainly not the case. We have read and, obviously, published the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report, and we will respond to that in full very soon.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords will know that sometimes the evaluation of schemes takes a long time and there has to be not only an evaluation but a consultation. Could my noble friend the Minister go into a bit more detail on who has to be consulted and what particular issues there are, and why it is taking so long to be evaluated?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, I can. The experts have given evidence from within the sector, and we have also looked at evidence from police representatives and a variety of others. As I say, I cannot answer the question as to why it has taken so long, but it is good that the evidence is being considered in full and, as I say, I shall follow up with a full report as soon as we have a response to publish.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, which aspect of Article 59 do the Government have a concern about? Noble Lords will remember that this is about migrant women who are victims of violence, but it is not carte blanche to give them all residence; it is very carefully caveated. I remind noble Lords that it is where the competent authority considers that it is necessary in order to get them to co-operate with law enforcement. Can the noble Lord help me a little with what the problem is?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

In response to the noble Baroness’s question, it is important to note that we are far from alone in this. As noble Lords will be aware, the majority of countries that have ratified the Istanbul convention have reservations on one or more of the 81 clauses. In the case of Article 59, I think there are 12 other countries that still have reservations. We have made it very clear that our compliance position on Article 59 is under review, pending the support for migrant victims scheme evaluation. Our reservation is without prejudice to the policy conclusions that we reach in the light of this evaluation. I cannot really go further than that at the moment, but I will come back to the noble Baroness and the rest of the House as soon as I possibly can.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that in the current hostile environment towards migration, women whose immigration status depends on their husband are under even greater pressure to remain in possibly violent relationships?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I do not accept the hostile environment remark. What I should say with regard to the situation the noble Baroness describes, which I think comes down to data sharing and the firewall situation that often gets raised here, is that both the police and immigration enforcement share a commitment to safeguard individuals they encounter. We acknowledge that data sharing between the police and the Home Office can be a contributing factor that can influence the decisions of migrant victims not to report a crime and that perpetrators can sometimes use the victim’s immigration status to exert fear or control, but that will inform the migrant victims protocol which is due to be published at the end of this year.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, was this not meant to be one of the flagships of the Conservative Government? Tackling violence against women is claimed by a lot of people to be a really important theme of Conservative policy, and I would like to know why the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, is not getting an answer sooner. Could not the Minister at least give us some reasons? He says he does not know the reasons: could he not look into this so that we do not have to have another Question about this next week? The International Agreements Committee was very concerned about this. The case of migrant workers has been made: they are in a very vulnerable position.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Earl that we ratified the convention and that was the point behind the reservation: we would have been unable to ratify if we had not laid a reservation against Article 59. I also say that in most respects we go further that, or are at least fully compliant with, all the other aspects of the Istanbul convention. We go further, for example, on issues like FGM and stalking protection orders. So I do not really accept the noble Earl’s premise, I am afraid.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, last year the Domestic Abuse Commissioner stated that it is likely that 32,000 victims who have no recourse to public funds will require support each year. As the noble Lord has just said, the Government announced a further £1.4 million to extend support for migrant victims in the coming year. How many people does the Minister think that will support? For his information, I will be seeing the Domestic Abuse Commissioner next Tuesday, so it would be very good to be able to supply her with the answer to my question.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I know that the pilot helped 425 victims and, since the ongoing scheme has been extended, 950 in total—including those 425—have been helped. Those are the main figures that I have at the moment. The “no recourse to public funds” policy is based on the principle that access to state support should reflect a migrant’s strength of connection to the UK. Immigration policy is clear that migrants coming to the UK should be able to provide for themselves financially without relying on benefits from the state. Access to public funds is normally granted only to those who have been given indefinite leave to remain. However, other support is available to migrants who have suffered domestic abuse through destitute domestic violence concessions—three months’ crisis support through which individuals can access safe accommodation and public funds—and through the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain route.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, Mary Tudor said that, when she died, “Calais” would be engraved on her heart. When the Home Secretary moves to higher realms, will “In due course” be engraved on hers?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have no idea.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is impossible to follow that question, so I will follow the question from the Cross Benches. Does the Minister agree that it is very important that the Home Secretary, Ministers in the other place and officials in his department know the views of Members of the House of Lords? My noble friend Lady Gale raised this six months ago. What representations or pressure has the Minister made to or put on the various Home Secretaries we have had in that period, and their officials, about the views of the House of Lords? After today, will he go back and say, “Baroness Gale has raised this again; she has the support of the House and something should be done about it”?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Noble Lords can rest assured that I will take this back. However, I have heard in many debates in the House in recent weeks calls for more evidence. The fact is that we have evidence and we are considering it carefully. Noble Lords should applaud that.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

There is a degree of urgency in this that the Minister is not acknowledging. We do not ratify Article 59 because it is still the Government’s policy that, other than those who benefit from the little pilot scheme, local authorities are not allowed to permit migrant women who are subject to domestic abuse to access shelters. This disgrace is going on and we should stop it as soon as possible.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have just outlined some of the other options available to the migrant women the noble Lord describes. They are far from without support. As I have alluded to, there is also a migrant victims protocol detailing other aspects of the work being done that will be published towards the end of this year.

Uganda: LGBT People

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my interest as an ambassador for UNAIDS.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK is appalled by the Government of Uganda’s decision on 26 May to sign the Anti-Homosexuality Bill into law. We have made this clear to all levels of the Ugandan Government and continue to do so. This Act will have an impact on the UK-Uganda relationship. It undermines the protections and freedoms of all Ugandans, enshrined in the Ugandan constitution. It will increase the risk of violence, discrimination and persecution, and it will set back the fight against HIV and AIDS.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply—I agree with every word. Is it not a fact that the Anti-Homosexuality Act passed by the Uganda Government opens the way to penal action against homosexuality for no reason other than that a person is homosexual? Franky, it is one of the most evil laws that has ever been passed. Surely the question for the Government here is what we can do about it. I put it to the Minister that, first, we should give all support to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in his efforts to counter the deeply prejudicial propaganda put forward by some other religious leaders. Secondly, rather than cutting back aid, we should provide extra assistance for civil society organisations combating the discrimination that is now so widespread in Uganda and is doing so much harm and damage.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord, whom I commend for his work on AIDS and the like. He is right: the Act is one of the most regressive pieces of modern legislation against the LGBT+ community in the world. Consensual same-sex sexual acts carry a sentence of life imprisonment. I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s remarks about the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who I believe wrote to the Archbishop of Uganda, Stephen Kaziimba, to express his grief and dismay at the Church of Uganda’s support for the Bill and was subsequently criticised for doing so. Kaziimba went on to describe the Archbishop as being ill informed. Our ODA efforts in Uganda are primarily to drive clean, green and inclusive growth and mutual prosperity but also to improve the resilience, and defend the rights, of vulnerable people. I very much hope that they will continue to pursue those objectives.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register and I welcome the response thus far from the Minister. However, the assurance I seek from—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I sense that the House would like me to continue. I seek assurances from the Minister that our high commission is in contact with and supporting Sexual Minorities Uganda, particularly Dr Frank Mugisha, its executive director, and other human rights defenders. Although this is not his department, can the Minister look into and ensure that the FCDO is not funding organisations that are campaigning across that part of Africa to remove LGBT rights? Given the debate on, and the amendment we recently passed to, the Illegal Migration Bill, will he and the Home Office ensure safe and legal routes for LGBT+ people and their human rights defenders?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, the noble Lord raises some very good points. He will not be surprised to know that I do not know the precise answers on the organisations funded by the FCDO, but I will take that back and look into it. I can confirm that the high commissioner continues to meet a wide range of stakeholders, across both the Government and elsewhere, to express the UK’s concerns. The subject of safe and legal routes will come up later, but I hear what the noble Lord said.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to have heard the previous question; I am sure that it should have had precedence over mine. I intended to add how glad I am that this situation is affecting Uganda-UK relations, and my noble friend the Minister has outlined some of the ways in which it is doing so. Would he not agree that it also affects Commonwealth relations? Is it not essential to ensure that the Commonwealth’s opinions on these matters are directed to put Uganda under pressure? That is whole point of being in the Commonwealth in the first place. Will he ensure that Marlborough House is also aware of this— I think that it is—and that it is putting pressure on Uganda, both behind and in front of the scenes, to mend its ways?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend. The UK continues to work with other Commonwealth member states and civil society partners to reform outdated laws of this type and to end discrimination and violence against LGBT+ people. We have discussed this situation with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. The UK also provides funds to support the promotion and protection of LGBT+ rights across the Commonwealth, and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2022, the UK announced more money to support organisations such as the Commonwealth Equality Network. My noble friend is right that Commonwealth relationships will be of extreme importance in this matter.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, this horrible legislation is the result of a decades-long campaign by Christian nationalist organisations in the USA and Russia. Uganda is but one target country; there are many others. Will the UK Government ensure that civil society organisations, the NHS and academics work with people in Uganda to ensure that the devastation to the public health and economy of Uganda is properly and fully documented?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises very good points on those subjects. I will go into a little more detail on public health. At the moment, Uganda has approximately 1.4 million people living with HIV and AIDS. Every year, 54,000 Ugandans are infected, including 6,000 newborns. I am not an expert on the religious dimensions to this law that the noble Baroness cited, but I know that the UK has cut off some funds to certain interreligious councils that have supported this legislation.

[The Lord Bishop of Ely]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reference to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s letter to the Archbishop of Uganda, and for hearing us, as Bishops, say how much we deplore what has been decided by the Archbishop of Uganda in support of this ignoble law. In the light of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop’s intervention, and all that has been said about engaging with civil society, will the FCDO engage with the Archbishop’s office and make use of the Church’s contacts to offset some of the very conservative religious engagement from other countries in Uganda and engage with people on the ground in Uganda to seek to change this abhorrent law?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question and once again pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for his letter to the archbishop in Uganda. This subject has come up before and of course I am more than happy to take back to the Foreign Office the suggestion that it should continue to work with the Church and other interfaith groups which have an interest in this subject.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s direct intervention with the President of Uganda. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, what will really result in change is the international community coming together. Can the Minister tell us what the Prime Minister has done to contact President Biden to ensure that the US action is matched by our action and that we build an international coalition to stop this terrible Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord that there needs to be international co-operation. So far, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the EU have all issued separate statements in response to the Act. The noble Lord is right to raise the subject of the US President. Both he and the Secretary of State have issued statements in response to the Act, and the US has actually gone a little further. Our principal concern with that is that the Ugandans reacted very predictably to the US actions, and we are still very keen to make sure that our aid and our ODA get to the people who need it the most. However, I hear what the noble Lord said, and I will certainly take it back.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Uganda and as someone who was born in Uganda. This Act is a grave assault on the human rights and the constitution of Uganda, as well as on international human rights laws that Uganda signed up to. In my role as a trade envoy, I find many UK companies now unwilling to invest in Uganda and looking elsewhere. The Bill harms not only the LGBT community in Uganda but the country as a whole. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it will impact not only the LGBT community but the economic prosperity of Uganda?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am more than happy to agree with my noble friend. The UK Government are obviously aware of the concerns raised by the business community and other organisations about the Act. We advise all to carefully consider the impact of the Act on their staff and operations and seek legal advice as appropriate. The Act will undermine Uganda’s development and economic goals and will create a barrier for international investment and tourism, as my noble friend has highlighted.

National Security Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22C.

22C: Because the law already makes sufficient provision in relation to donations to political parties.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will also speak to Motion B and ask that this House do not insist on its Amendment 122B and do agree with Commons Amendment 122C in lieu.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for meeting once again with me and speaking with the Security Minister. During the previous debate on the Bill in this place, I talked about the importance of the Bill finishing, and continued engagement is the way to achieve that. I thank him and all in this House again for their valued scrutiny of this Bill.

I will start with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I understand the intention behind it. The Government are very much alive to the risk presented by foreign interference, as evidenced by the various ways we are seeking to tackle it through this Bill. However, as I said during previous debates on this matter:

“Political parties are already required by law to take all reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible”.—[Official Report, 21/6/23; col. 227.]


The introduction of an independent review to consider the matter is not an approach the Government would support. The scope of the review the noble Lord proposes implicitly suggests that the duty should be on political parties to prevent foreign interference, not the relevant enforcement bodies with the appropriate tools and knowledge. The Government submit that this is not the way to approach concerns about the risk of foreign donations entering our political system, although we agree that work is needed in this area.

As such, I offer an alternative to today’s amendment in lieu. If noble Lords agree with the Government that the amendment before the House is not the right approach, the Government will commit to consult on enhancing information sharing between relevant agencies or public bodies to help identify and mitigate the risks of foreign interference in political donations that are regulated by electoral law. The relevant public bodies in scope of the consultation would include Companies House and the Electoral Commission, among others. This consultation would take place within a year of the Bill coming into force. It would seek views on how relevant agencies and bodies can obtain and share information relating to the provenance of a donation, which might not be available to the recipient of a donation. We consider that greater information sharing may well help in the prevention and identification of breaches of the law in relation to impermissible donations from foreign powers.

The Government also commit to tabling a report in the House at the end of this consultation which will set out conclusions and next steps. I want to be clear that the Government’s intention is not for any changes made as a result of this consultation to become a tool to be wielded against political parties where they could not have reasonably known the provenance of a donation. As I have noted before, political parties do not have the investigative capabilities of banks to trace layers of financial transactions. Rather, this consultation would look at ways in which information sharing between the relevant agencies and public bodies that do have those capabilities could support parties in mitigating the risk of foreign donations.

The rules on political donations are clear: donations from foreign powers, whether made directly or indirectly, are illegal. This consultation will allow us to consider how best to strengthen the information-sharing and enforcement system that supports those existing rules. This goes a considerable way towards addressing the noble Lord’s concerns, and in a way that will deliver real benefit. I am committing the Government to undertake this work in good faith, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to withdraw his amendment on this matter, in favour of our suggested approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by saying how much we support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am glad that the Government have listened and come to an amicable agreement with the noble Lord which takes us forward. I thank the Minister for the way he has done that and for the concession that the Government have made on the updating of the memorandum of understanding, although clearly issues remain between the ISC and the Government, hence Motion B1 tabled by my noble friend Lord West, which we support. Aside from the Motion itself, it will allow continuing discussions, and indeed perhaps negotiations, around how the memorandum of understanding can be revised or replaced, including by negotiation, hence its importance.

I think it is really significant that still, even at this late stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord West, speaking on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which gives parliamentary oversight of the activities of the security services, is not happy with where we have arrived at. I think it is incumbent on the Government to reach an agreement with the ISC. Clearly, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord West this afternoon, we are not in a situation where that has occurred. There are all sorts of issues that remain between the Government and the ISC, as has been evidenced by various things that have happened today, and the Government need to respond to those.

I will add just a couple of other points. One is that the Government gave a commitment during the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Minister gave assurances to Parliament that the memorandum of understanding was a live document that would be regularly reviewed and updated. Are the Government of today completely ignoring that commitment that was made to Parliament? If so, we are in a really difficult situation, because it means that parliamentary oversight is undermined by the fact that Ministers making pledges to Parliament can just be ignored in the future by the Government. I say—we often say, all of us say—that we will not press an amendment, on the basis that the Minister, speaking from the Dispatch Box, makes commitments that are read into the record. That is an important part of parliamentary scrutiny. Ministers are asked to do that and Members of Parliament in the other place and noble Lords withdraw amendments. But here we have an example of where the Intelligence and Security Committee is saying that pledges and commitments were made to Parliament that the memorandum of understanding would be regularly updated and the Government have not done that or are still not in agreement with the ISC. I think that is a really important point.

For the avoidance of doubt, I remind your Lordships again that I do not seek to compel the Prime Minister to go to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall just say what I believe, and your Lordships will have to make up their own minds. Given that the Intelligence and Security Committee is the oversight body for this Parliament, I would have thought that if the ISC were regularly asking the Prime Minister to attend, the Prime Minister would go—not because he is compelled to go but because it is an important part of that parliamentary oversight and the Prime Minister of our country negotiating and liaising personally with the Intelligence and Security Committee is of real importance. So I say to noble Lords, as others have heard me say before, that all of us would be surprised by the fact that no Prime Minister has been since 2014; nearly 10 years. It has been nine years, in case I am quoted as not being accurate, since a Prime Minister has been. So I gently say that, while I do not seek to compel the Prime Minister, I politely ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, whether the Home Office has suggested to the Prime Minister that, in his diary, he might consider going to see the Intelligence and Security Committee when he can.

My noble friend Lord West’s amendment raises several important issues, but the most significant is that we need to send a message through supporting it that the ISC is still not at one with the Government. That is a serious issue and needs somehow to be resolved. I believe that supporting my noble friend’s amendment will continue to put pressure on the Government to ensure that they come to an arrangement with the ISC in the end, such is its importance. If my noble friend chooses to test the opinion of the House, we will be happy to support his Motion B1.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, very much for his words and his engagement on a number of matters throughout the Bill, and for not pressing his Motion. I also thank other noble Lords who have participated in this very short debate, including my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, who brought a very useful perspective on the current state of play with regard to political party donations. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that donations from foreign powers are already illegal and suggest that the word “consult” means that all political parties will be consulted.

On Motion B, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said that he does not seek to compel the Prime Minister to come to the ISC. That is certainly not the tone of the remarks he has made in a number of debates in this House. It seems to me that he does seek to compel the Prime Minister to attend the ISC. He will know that I have answered before the question as to whether the Home Office and No. 10 Downing Street have had discussions on this subject. I will not answer it again. I have nothing else to say on Motion B, as I have already spoken to it. I ask this House not to insist on its Amendment 122B and to agree with the House of Commons in its Amendment 122C.

Motion A1 not moved.

Motion B

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 122B and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 122C in lieu.

122C: Page 62, line 13, at end insert the following new Clause— “Intelligence and Security Committee: memorandum of understanding (1) The Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament must consider whether the memorandum of understanding under section 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 should be altered (or replaced) to reflect any changes arising out of this Act.
(2) Consideration under subsection (1) must begin before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”

Cybersecurity

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations on cybersecurity made by Sir Patrick Vallance in his report Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review: Digital Technologies, published in March.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, in the Government’s response to the review, we set out that the Home Office is taking forward work to consider the merits and risks of the proposals made. We have created a group that includes law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, the cybersecurity industry and system owners to consider these issues and reach a consensus on the best way forward.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, Sir Patrick made a very clear recommendation to amend the Computer Misuse Act to include a statutory public interest defence for cybersecurity researchers and professionals carrying out threat intelligence research. This has been extremely long awaited. We finally had a review, which started in 2021 and reported this year; we had a consultation, which concluded in April; and now we have the steps that the Minister talked about. What conclusion can we expect at the end of the day? Progress on this has been totally glacial given the importance to innovation and growth of this change to legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree that there is an enormous necessity to get this right, but that is part of the problem of why things are perhaps not happening as fast as the noble Lord would like—progress is far from glacial. These issues are incredibly complicated because, as the noble Lord noted, the proposals would potentially allow a defence for the unauthorised access by a person to another’s property, and in this case their computer systems and data, without their knowledge and consent. We therefore need to define what constitutes legitimate cybersecurity activity, where a defence might be applicable and under what circumstances, and how such unauthorised access can be kept to a minimum. We also need to consider who should be allowed to undertake such activity, what professional standards they will need to comply with, and what reporting or oversight will be needed. In short, these are complex matters, and it is entirely right to try to seek a consensus among the agencies I mentioned earlier.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out on the register. Does my noble friend accept that it is very difficult for Governments to keep up with the speed of change of technology in their legislation? The Computer Misuse Act is now 33 years old. If progress is not glacial, please could we have an injection of urgency into the changes to it that we need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend that it is difficult for Governments to keep up with the pace of technological change, but I also reflect on the fact that much of the legislation going through your Lordships’ House at the moment contains many efforts to future-proof it in this area. As I said, I do not agree that this is glacial. I know that the Act is old. The report was delivered only earlier this year and the discussions are very complicated, as I just highlighted.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, if it is not glacial, it is very slow. The point we have heard from both noble Lords is that Sir Patrick Vallance made nine recommendations; the Government have accepted them. We know that cybersecurity is a real problem—the Government accept that—but what everybody is waiting to hear is what the Government intend to do and the timescale.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am trying to answer this question. Sir Patrick Vallance reported in April; it is now July. I do not think that is glacial or particularly slow. The fact is that these are complicated matters that need to be considered very carefully. They involve all sorts of different implications for us all.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in addition to the amendment to the 1990 computer Act and the opportunity the Minister will have to address that in due course, will he reflect on what Sir Patrick said about international harmonisation and the need for regulation of significant emerging technologies to reflect what other countries are doing, as well as what we are doing?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point, and one I inquired about this morning. There is a considerable exchange of information with our friends and allies and other interested countries across the world. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the Department of Justice in the States has just reissued guidelines for prosecutions only. Guidance and prosecutorial discretion are major features of the American way of doing it; we are going a slightly different route and seeking consensus, but of course we will consult.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister may be aware of reports out this morning that Barts Health NHS Trust has been hacked, potentially by a ransomware group of thieves—I suppose that is the right word—and that 7 terabytes of data may have been taken control of, which of course may well involve confidential personal medical data. Does the Minister agree that it is really important that the NHS workforce plan includes and considers the NHS’s IT needs and IT skill needs? Is that something the Minister is talking about with the health department?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have not spoken about it directly with the health department, but I note from other debates that we have had in your Lordships’ House over the past few months that a skills shortage in the area of computers, data and whatnot is a problem across all economies, not just ours.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his colleagues in the Home Office, and those in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence, for the excellent and detailed briefings they give us on security issues, which are really helpful. What precautions are taken to make sure that this information is not passed, either deliberately or inadvertently, to representatives of the Government of Russia?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I have no idea; I will find out.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. We are currently conducting an investigation into ransomware and cybersecurity, which are very much at the heart of this Question. I agree with the noble Lord opposite who said that the Computer Misuse Act is now 33 years old—it is. Heaven knows the world has changed since then. I agree with the Minister that an enormous amount of co-ordination has to be done within government to get this right. Can the Minister provide some future opportunity in government time to have a more general debate about the issues involved? Otherwise, knowing what this House is like, it will take a year or more before the report that the committee eventually introduces can be debated here.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Viscount makes a good point. I am obviously unable to comment on the scheduling of parliamentary business but, when the group that I referred to in my initial Answer has finished its consultations and considerations and come to a consensus, we will of course report back to Parliament. I imagine that will include a debate.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, does not everything that has been said on this Question today demonstrate the importance of fresh intelligence work and, therefore, the importance of changing the Computer Misuse Act?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I do not think that anybody disagrees with that. I am just saying that we need to get it right and do it properly.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the Vallance report talks about the fact that, under the Computer Misuse Act, professionals conducting legitimate cybersecurity research in the public interest currently face the risk of prosecution. It asks us to look at the examples of France, Israel and the United States. Is my noble friend the Minister aware of any possible unintended consequences of modifying the Act to align it with the changes in those countries?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes; one of the considerations that is being looked at is the various potential unintended consequences of making some of these changes. As I say, they involve a fairly significant invasion of privacy—I suppose that is the right phrase. There may well be circumstances in which that is appropriate but, obviously, who does it and how they do it are incredibly difficult.

Fighting Fraud (Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee Report)

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Friday 30th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes on securing this debate. I am grateful to her and to all noble Lords who have participated and have made some very good and thoughtful points. I also express my thanks to my noble friend and all members of the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee—the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has stolen the joke that I was going to make about the fraud squad—for its comprehensive report, Fighting Fraud: Breaking the Chain. I also thank noble Lords also for their acknowledgement of the progress that the Government have made. The report’s insightful analysis and constructive recommendations helped to shape the Government’s Fraud Strategy, which was published in May.

I have been asked a number of questions and will endeavour to cover them in the time available and, obviously, I commit to writing if I do not. This is a complex subject, so I shall do my best to be brief. I start by emphasising that the Government take the issue of fraud very seriously indeed and are dedicated to protecting the public from this devastating crime type. I have already had meetings with Anthony Browne MP, the anti-fraud champion, and I know that he is working very hard on his brief—and also, incidentally, has a very strong background in this area from his work with the British Bankers’ Association back in the day.

As most noble Lords have noted, fraud is the most frequently committed crime in the UK. Every year, billions of pounds are lost to fraudsters, including the savings of hard-working people up and down the country. As my noble friend Lady Morgan and others have noted, it is not a victimless crime. Given the scale of the challenge, tackling fraud requires a unified and co-ordinated response from government, law enforcement and the private sector. I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was entirely right on that. It stands to reason that a collaborative effort will allow us to protect the public and businesses better.

I would say to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst that we are acting now. The Government’s approach is split across three pillars: first, we are pursuing fraudsters and ensuring more criminals are behind bars; secondly, we are blocking fraud at source and strengthening efforts to frustrate fraudsters as they target potential victims; and, thirdly, we are empowering people so they are more likely to avoid fraud and the harm that comes with it.

Within the fraud strategy, the Government have committed to a programme of ambitious action. To start with law enforcement, we are beefing up the law enforcement response to fraud by launching a new national fraud squad with 400 new officers, deploying the UK intelligence community, UKIC, to relentlessly pursue criminals wherever they are in the world and putting more fraudsters behind bars through better investigation and prosecution processes.

If I may, I shall go into a little more detail about the national fraud squad, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked me about it. This is a specialist engagement, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, also asked about it. The national fraud squad will draw together existing capabilities for fraud across national and regional policing and the NCA. It will cover proactive, intelligence-led and reactive investigations. Investment into the national fraud squad has, and will continue to, enhance these capabilities and increase resources to better tackle fraudsters targeting the UK public and private businesses. The national fraud squad will consist of investigation and intelligence teams from within the NCA, the City of London Police and regional organised crime units across England and Wales. It is being bolstered by 400-plus new officers, as I have said, and that will be by 2025; they will investigate and disrupt more fraudsters through strategic co-ordination at local, regional and national level.

The NFS will be jointly led by the City of London Police, as the national police lead, and the NCA as the operational lead for fraud. Teams in the City of London Police and the NCA will work together with UKIC to share intelligence in real time to understand the threat and take proactive enforcement action across government and the private sector against the most harmful fraudsters targeting the UK public.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, made some very strong points about skills. Police and investigators need to have the appropriate digital skills and capabilities, as criminals get better at exploiting them and the technology evolves—a point that was very well made. We are working with the College of Policing to review the fundamental training provided to all police officers and investigators, and the City of London Police and National Economic Crime Centre are also developing a people strategy to address recruitment and retention challenges. At this point, I should just mention the City of London Police commissioner, Angela McLaren, who was appointed in January 2022. She was previously the assistant commissioner there for fraud and cybercrime, so she is an expert and will obviously have a fairly major part to play in this work.

We will stop fraudsters from trying to make victims of us all, by banning cold calls on financial products and banning criminal access to SIM farms. The consultation on that ended only last week or the week before. Fraudsters use those to send mass messages, and we need to take down fraudulent websites more quickly. We will make sure that every part of the system is incentivised to take fraud seriously by working with the tech sector to put in place extra fraud protections, shining a light on which platforms are the safest. The Government will make it much easier to report scams by replacing Action Fraud with a state-of-the-art system, making sure that intelligence is shared quickly and that action is taken early to stop frauds. I shall come back to Action Fraud in a bit more detail in a second.

We will ensure that victims of fraud are reimbursed and supported by changing the law so that more get their money back. We will improve communications so that people know how to protect themselves from fraud and how to report it. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made some very powerful points about the evidence given by Revolut, and I shall come back to that as well shortly. Put simply, the strategy marks a step change in our approach to rooting out fraudsters and protecting the public from these pernicious and devastating crimes.

I shall now deal with the more specific points. First, on the subject of telecommunications, criminals abuse telecommunications networks to target people and con them out of their hard-earned money, including through scam texts and calls. We are committed to doing everything that we can to tackle this awful crime and bring the despicable criminals responsible to justice. In 2021, the Government and industry signed a telecommunications fraud charter, which is a voluntary code of action against telecommunications fraud. As a result of the charter, over 600 million scam texts have been blocked from reaching potential victims.

However, as my noble friend Lady Morgan, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and others noted, we recognise that there is more to do, and we will continue to work closely with industry, the regulators and consumer groups to bring in the further measures set out in the fraud strategy to close the vulnerabilities that criminals exploit. This needs to be a joint effort across sectors, as the answer to solving fraud does not lie solely with the telecoms sector. As announced in the fraud strategy, the SIM farm consultation has just closed and we will come back with more on that in due course.

Online fraud is a significant part of the problem, obviously. The scale of online fraud is alarming. As my noble friend Lord Sandhurst noted, nearly 80% of all acts of fraud have some sort of online element. We are deeply concerned by the devastating impact it can have on victims—a point very powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who also highlighted the rapidly evolving nature of the technology. As noble Lords will be aware, the Online Safety Bill is designed to provide some future-proofing, but we will all need to be aware of and alive to the nature of evolving technology.

In the last year, Lloyds, Santander and TSB have published data regarding the origin of frauds that have impacted their customers. Their research suggests that approximately two-thirds of all online shopping scams now start on two Meta-owned platforms: Facebook and Instagram. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made some powerful points about the various types of online scams and how convincing they look. I was going through some examples of those with the Anti-Fraud Champion, Anthony Browne, the other day, and the noble Viscount is absolutely right that they are incredibly realistic. Clearly Meta needs to do a good deal more about these.

Of course, I stress that not all companies facilitate or allow for this type of thing and some are very rigorous with their protocols, but there is clearly very much more still to be done by some companies, and the Online Safety Bill will target them. As noble Lords know, the Bill has completed Committee stage in this House and the Government are committed to passing it before the end of the parliamentary term. The Bill will designate fraud as a priority offence, as others have noted, and will require in-scope companies, including social media providers, to tackle fraud on their online platforms. The Government have listened to victims’ testimonies, as well as evidence from trusted stakeholders and noble Lords, including in Committee. This informed our decision to bring fraudulent advertising into the scope of the Online Safety Bill. This means that the largest social media and search companies will need to take action to prevent fraudulent advertisements on their services.

Combined, these duties will mean that in-scope services will have to crack down on criminals abusing their platforms to defraud innocent members of the public. The Bill will be enforced by the regulator Ofcom, which, as noble Lords know, will have the power to issue very significant fines to companies that fail to tackle fraud—we are talking about fines that could equate to significant percentages of turnover, which I am quite sure will focus minds.

The Government are also bringing forward the online advertising programme to consider how advertising regulation should be modernised for the digital age. It will build on the fraudulent advertising duty in the Online Safety Bill and will look at the role of the entire advertising supply chain. We will be publishing a response to our consultation on that in due course.

Further, building on the success of a series of voluntary charters agreed with the retail banking, telecoms and accountancy sectors, we have initiated work on an online fraud charter with the tech sector. This agreement between the industry and government will deliver a number of further commitments to help raise the standards of best practice and intensify tech firms’ work to reduce fraud on their platforms. As part of the online fraud charter, we have asked firms to: introduce stringent verification checks on financial advertisers, including cross-referencing with the FCA checklist before allowing financial adverts on platforms; adopt a simple, seamless and consistent fraud reporting mechanism for users, with better follow-up action and advice provided; improve data sharing with government and other private sector partners to identify and block more frauds; and promote counterfraud education to the public to help them spot and avoid frauds, and signpost support when needed.

The Government recognise that authorised push payment fraud, where people are manipulated into making a bank transfer to a fraudster, is a growing problem; this was referred to by my noble friends Lady Morgan, Lord Young and Lord Sandhurst. We welcome the actions of the financial services industry to help prevent it. The banking industry has shown industry leadership in committing to a fraud sector charter with the Government that has delivered ambitious and innovative actions to prevent authorised fraud and protect customers. We welcome these initiatives, but more still needs to be done both to prevent fraud and to ensure that victims are not left paying for fraud through no fault of their own.

The Payment Systems Regulator is working with the payments sector on a range of measures to combat authorised push payment fraud. This includes requiring the 14 largest payment providers to publish APP fraud rates, improving data sharing and mandating reimbursement of APP scam victims by banks and other payment service providers. To the point made by my noble friend Lord Young, payment service providers are consulting on the definition of “gross negligence”, which will include a threshold and limit on claims. The providers must do more to prevent APP fraud; they are in a unique position to be able to prevent it, and the work is ongoing. This is in addition to existing initiatives such as confirmation of payee, strong customer authentication, and the industry-led banking protocol.

The Government are also investigating the possibility of legislating to enable further delays to payments in high-risk fraud scenarios, as mentioned by others. We have also committed, through the fraud strategy, to making it easier for banks to repatriate money to victims. This means returning victims’ money where possible, rather than reimbursing.

My noble friends Lord Sandhurst and Lady Morgan and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, have recognised that the current law on corporate criminal liability does not hold organisations and their senior persons adequately to account. That is why, following the Law Commission options paper on corporate criminal liability, the Government tabled an amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to introduce a new failure to prevent fraud offence, and I am grateful to the House for approving that. The reforms will help to protect victims and cut crime by driving a culture change towards improved fraud prevention procedures in organisations. It will also mean that organisations will be held to account if they profit from the fraudulent actions of their employees.

We debated on Tuesday the wish of some noble Lords to change the threshold for this offence. I will not go over all the arguments again, but the offence proposed by the Government has been designed to balance the fraud prevention benefits with minimising burdens on small business. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for her interesting personal reflections on how hard the business environment currently is for small and medium-sized enterprises. A strong UK economy must be an environment that supports people to open and grow businesses. There are existing powers to prosecute small organisations and their employees if they commit fraud, and these powers are further improved by the introduction of the identification doctrine reforms. We need to keep the burdens in check, but I am sure that we will revisit these arguments soon.

On the subject of the courts, the judicial process and criminal justice system, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, referred, we realise that fraud cases, and the often large volumes of complex digital material that they generate, require a significant amount of time and resource to undertake a thorough investigation and bring a prosecution to court. To ensure that prosecutors have the right tools to take on fraudsters, we will conduct a new, independent review into the challenges of investigating and prosecuting fraud. The review will consider: modernising the disclosure regime for cases with large volumes of digital material; whether fraud offences and the Fraud Act 2006 meet the challenges of modern fraud, including whether penalties still fit the crime; looking at civil orders and penalties to prevent fraudsters reoffending; and making it easier for individuals to inform on associates in criminal fraud networks.

We also recognise the impact that delays can have on victims, witnesses and defendants, and we are taking steps to reduce the overall Crown Court backlog. As well as removing limits on the total number of sitting days in the Crown Court for a second year in a row, we are recruiting around 1,000 judges to increase judicial capacity in the criminal courts with the largest caseloads. We will also recruit around 2,000 new magistrates by 2025. We are continuing with the planned construction of the City of London law courts, which are scheduled to open in 2026 and will facilitate the hearing of more economic crime cases.

I committed to come back to Action Fraud, because it is vital that victims of fraud have the confidence and trust to come forward to report instances of fraud and know that their case will be dealt with properly. Action Fraud is a key part of this. We are working alongside the City of London Police to refresh and upgrade the current Action Fraud service. We will be providing over £30 million to the City of London Police to replace Action Fraud with a more efficient new system that will provide better support services and reporting tools for victims and better intelligence to law enforcement so that it can investigate and disrupt more fraudsters. I am pleased to share that improvements are already being rolled out and more are coming, with the new service expected to be fully operational by 2024. This will further improve the support services and reporting tools for victims, provide greater intelligence, as I have said, and allow for greater prevention and disruption.

I have not really talked about victims yet, which is remiss of me. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out, the impact on victims can be very significant indeed. It can have a devastating impact on mental health, and particularly on the elderly and most vulnerable people in our society—and that is not to forget the serious financial, as well as emotional, harm that can be caused. That is why we have taken various steps, as detailed in the fraud strategy, to improve the support that victims receive. The Action Fraud National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit provides support for victims of fraud and cybercrime whose cases are not investigated by local police. The Home Office is working with the City of London Police to deliver a nationwide rollout of these units from 2023.

We are also supporting National Trading Standards’ Scams Team in the rollout of a multi-agency approach to fraud hubs across England and Wales. These hubs aim to bring together different local agencies to enable fast information sharing to identify the needs of a vulnerable person. It is important that victims of fraud receive the support they are entitled to. We are working to improve the victim support system to ensure that everyone receives the support they need to feel safe again.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised the subject of data sharing. As outlined in the Economic Crime Plan 2, published earlier this year, sharing data is a key route for the public and private sectors to identify and block frauds and economic crime. Large amounts of financial data flow through the UK every hour. The overwhelming majority of this data relates to legitimate activity, but a small proportion involves criminal activity. Currently, too much of this data sits siloed in different organisations, in different formats with unclear legal and technological gateways for sharing it. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill and the reforms to the general data protection regulation will remove the legislative barriers to economic crime data sharing. Now is the time to capitalise on those opportunities.

Under a public/private economic crime data strategy, we will produce and implement a strategy that enhances the exploitation of available data across the ecosystem to better prevent, detect and pursue economic crime. In addition, we will work across public, private and international boundaries and improve the flow of information between regulated sector entities; improve the flows of information and intelligence between public and private organisations, including supervisors; improve the flows of information and intelligence between public organisations; and identify and address obstacles to international information sharing.

My noble friend Lord Sandhurst, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, talked about the international dimension to this. Of course, the fraud threat to the UK is varied, but more than a third has an international element. As part of the strategy, we aim to become the global leader in tackling fraud. We will develop stronger partnerships with international fraud threats, share best practice and advance the UK’s aim to lead a multilateral response. This engagement will culminate in the UK Government-chaired global fraud summit in 2024, at which we will look to agree an international co-ordinated action plan to dismantle fraud networks.

I am afraid I am unable to comment further at this point on the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, about the Computer Misuse Act. I heard what she said and I will of course take that back to the department and report.

In closing I again thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for securing this debate and all those who have spoken. It seems to me that there is a broad consensus about the vital importance of this issue. Fraud is affecting far too many people and ruining far too many lives. As I have made clear, the Government are committed to stopping fraud at source and pursuing those responsible wherever they are in the world. I am afraid I cannot update the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, on her 10% comments, but I commit that my personal target is to reduce fraud to zero. I accept that that is highly unlikely, but there is no harm in aiming high.

The recently published Fraud Strategy represents a step change in our response, and I assure noble Lords that we will be assiduous in implementing its commitments as we take the fight to fraudsters, because ultimately this is about protecting the public. We must and we will do everything in our power to prevail. I hope I have answered noble Lords’ questions.

UK: Violence Against Women and Girls

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have participated for their valuable, thoughtful and insightful contributions. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for opening this debate on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, well. I will do my very best to address all the points that have been raised, but there are a number, so I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I go a little over time. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in thanking Girlguiding UK and Refuge, which supplied me with some very thoughtful briefings on this subject.

I am confident in saying that tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for all Members of the House, as we have heard, so I am glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss it today. Some Members of this House may have experienced it for themselves—such as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on Sunday morning—or they may have loved ones who have experienced the horrific nature of these crimes. They have absolutely no place in our society and, again as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, why should anyone live like that? We have to change attitudes and improve how the criminal justice system supports victims and pursues perpetrators. That is why the Government are taking a whole-of-society approach to tackling this issue.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, outlined in her introduction, violence against women and girls—or VAWG—includes crimes such as rape and other sexual offences, stalking, domestic abuse, so-called honour-based abuse, including female genital mutilation, forced marriage and honour killings, as well as revenge porn and upskirting. These crimes can occur online as well as offline, and they are deeply harmful, not only because of the profound effect that they have on the victims, survivors and their loved ones but because of the harm they inflict on wider society. It is important to say that men and boys also experience abusive and violent crimes that fall under some of the umbrella here.

Domestic abuse alone is a high-volume crime, affecting 2.4 million adults every year. It is high harm. One in five homicides is a domestic homicide, and I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about stalking and homicide statistics.

To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, I am not aware of the work that has been done in Wales to which she has referred but I commit to looking into it. I can say that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are investing £3 million specifically in “by and for” organisations over 2023-24 and 2024-25, which will include organisations that support victims of abuse with different protected characteristics—for example, older victims or victims living with disability. I am happy to agree to a debate, for which she asked. I am also pleased to be able to inform the House that since 2018 the Government have provided £300,000 to Hourglass, to which the noble Baroness referred, to enhance its helpline, provide casework support and so on.

This crime is also very high cost. For the year ending March 2017, the cost of domestic abuse was estimated to be £66 billion.

I turn to a couple of more general points. My noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, talked about judicial training. I am also happy to join them in their comments about Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. The Government do not provide input into judicial training or have responsibility for it, for reasons of judicial independence. The Lord Chief Justice has statutory responsibility for the training of judges and magistrates, with the responsibility exercised through the Judicial College.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, may not be surprised to know that I am not particularly up on the subject of egg freezing, but I will come back to him when I have done a bit more investigating.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Patten that tackling violence against women and girls is a long slog, but it is one to which the Government are committed. He is right that it requires ongoing diligence; it is not something we can just fix and then walk away from.

Noble Lords will be aware that in July 2021, the Government published the tackling VAWG strategy to ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere—at home, online, at work and on the streets. This was followed by the tackling abuse plan, which we published in March 2022. Through the commitments set out in these documents, the Government aim to transform society’s response to these crimes with actions to prevent abuse, support victims and pursue perpetrators, as well as to strengthen the systems to respond to VAWG.

The documents build on the Government’s work to date, including the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021. That Act bolsters our response to domestic abuse at every level, strengthening protections for victims while ensuring that perpetrators feel the full force of the law. The measures in the Act include the creation of a statutory definition of domestic abuse, emphasising that domestic abuse is not just physical violence but can be emotional, controlling or coercive, and can include economic abuse.

The Government have made good progress in implementing the tackling violence against women and girls strategy and the tackling domestic abuse plan. As my noble friend Lady Helic noted, we ratified the Istanbul convention on 21 July 2022, which demonstrates to women in the UK and partners overseas our commitment to tackling VAWG.

This provides a suitable opportunity to talk about migrant victims of domestic abuse. Support is provided to migrant victims in the UK through our destitute domestic violence concession, which gives victims who have entered the UK on certain partner or spousal visas access to public funds for three months, which can be used to fund safe accommodation. Migrant victims can also apply for settlement—indefinite leave to remain—under the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain rules. The intention is to safeguard victims of domestic abuse by offering them an immigration status and financial support independent of the abusive partner.

Following the Government’s review of support for migrant victims in 2020, in April 2021 we launched the support for migrant victims scheme pilot to provide a support net for migrant victims of abuse with no recourse to public funds. We are providing a further £1.4 million in 2023-24 to continue to fund the support for migrant victims scheme, ensuring that we maintain support for migrant victims of domestic abuse.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, asked me about the firewall between the police and immigration enforcement. When a crime is committed, our immediate priority is always the welfare of the victim, irrespective of their immigration status. All victims should be free to report crimes without fear, and it is in the interests of the general public for all crimes to be fully investigated. The protocol will provide assurance to individuals that no immigration enforcement action will be taken while criminal justice proceedings are ongoing and while support to make applications to regularise their stay is being sought.

Returning to the Istanbul convention, my noble friend Lady Helic asked why the UK made reservations on certain aspects of it. Many members that have ratified the convention have also made reservations on specific articles. We placed one on Article 59, which relates to migrant victims of domestic abuse, to avoid further delays to ratification. However, we are carefully considering the findings of the support for migrant victims scheme pilot evaluation to ensure that migrant victims are supported effectively. We will reflect on our position following that, and in the interim, as I have just said, we are providing up to £1.4 million in each year up to 2025 to continue to fund support for migrant victims of domestic abuse.

We have published the revised domestic violence disclosure scheme, allowing the police to disclose information to a victim or potential victim about their partner or ex-partner’s previous abusive or violent offending. We have doubled funding for the national domestic abuse helpline so that victims of domestic abuse are better supported, and we have launched our national communications campaign, ENOUGH. The ENOUGH campaign challenges harmful behaviours that exist within wider society, educates young people about healthy relationships and consent and ensures that victims can recognise abuse and receive support. Campaign advertising has reached millions of individuals across England and Wales, resulting in tens of thousands of visits to the campaign website and thousands of clicks through to organisations offering support for victims of VAWG.

This is the right time to talk about a subject that has been raised by many noble Lords: online pornography. As my noble friend Lady Jenkin has noted, it is deeply alarming. The noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Burt, Lady Jones and Lady Thornton, also referred to the subject so I will go into it in some detail. Offences relating to sexual images—for example, revenge pornography and extreme pornography—have been included in the Online Safety Bill as priority offences. Priority offences reflect the most serious and prevalent illegal content and activity, against which companies must take proactive measures. As such, platforms in scope of the Online Safety Bill will be required to implement systems and processes to minimise the uploading and sharing of such content. Beyond the priority offences, all services will need to ensure that they have effective systems and processes in place quickly to take down other illegal content that targets individuals, once it has been reported or they become aware of its presence.

In addition, the Bill will address children’s access to all forms of published pornography, whether extreme or otherwise. However, it should be noted that publishers of extreme or illegal pornography are already liable for publishing any illegal content on their service.

The Online Safety Bill will cover all online sites that offer pornography, including commercial pornography sites, social media, video-sharing platforms, forums and search engines. These companies will also have to prevent children accessing pornography or face enforcement action. In addition, the Bill will require all in-scope providers to take preventive action to protect all users, including children and young people, from illegal content such as extreme pornography and revenge pornography. This new duty will be enforced by Ofcom, with providers being subject to the same enforcement measures as other services, including substantial fines up to the greater of £18 million or 10% of global qualifying annual revenue or, in the most serious cases, business disruption measures, including blocking.

My noble friend Lady Bertin brought up the image-abuse offences. The Government are reforming the law on the abuse of intimate images, based on the recommendations made in the Law Commission report Taking, Making and Sharing Intimate Images without Consent, which was published in July 2022. That includes offences of sending, sharing and threatening to share deepfake pornography as part of the new base that criminalises someone for sharing an intimate image without consent. That is in combination with the measures already in the Bill to make cyberflashing a criminal offence, which will significantly strengthen protections for women, who are, as has been powerfully stated, disproportionately affected by these activities.

On 27 June the Government announced amendments to the Online Safety Bill relating to intimate image abuse that will protect victims of revenge pornography by changing current laws that require the prosecution to prove that perpetrators shared sexual images or films in order to cause distress. Through this package of amendments, for the first time the sharing of deepfake intimate images, explicit images or videos that have been digitally manipulated to look like someone else will be criminalised.

I want to speak about children accessing pornography in a little more detail, as it was powerfully raised again by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin and Lady Jenkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. On 8 February 2022, the Digital Minister Chris Philp MP announced world-leading measures to protect children from accessing pornography online. As I have just stated, that is a key principle for this Government. They include the new legal duty requiring all sites that publish pornography to put robust checks in place to ensure that their users are 18 or over. I think it is worth reiterating that, if a site fails to act, Ofcom will be able to fine them substantially.

That deals with the supply side. On the demand side—I think this goes to the points the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Fox, made about education—relationship, sex and health education, or RSHE, is now a statutory part of the curriculum. Children will be taught about the importance of respectful relationships, as well as issues such as domestic abuse and sexual consent. The Department for Education is currently working to update the RSHE statutory guidance. In the tackling VAWG strategy, we committed £3 million in funding for what works to tackle violence against women and girls and invest in high-quality evidence-based prevention projects, including in schools.

In 2022, the Home Office and wider government committed over £230 million over the next three years as part of the domestic abuse plan. This includes over £140 million for supporting victims and survivors. One example of funding to tackle VAWG is the 2023-25 domestic abuse perpetrator intervention fund. This awards up to £39 million to local areas in support of the delivery of interventions for domestic abuse perpetrators, including behaviour change and stalking intervention programmes.

I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on alcohol and substance abuse. It is important, obviously, to break cycles of disengagement and reoffending, but there are no excuses for domestic abuse. There is a frequent coexistence of domestic abuse, mental health issues and drug and alcohol abuse, with complex interrelationships between all of them. The NHS plays a key role in providing care and support to victims through a wide range of services. It is also important that any alcohol or drugs treatment plan for perpetrators, as well as addressing the causes of the substance abuse, addresses the complex dynamics of power and control which underpin domestic abuse. I agree with the noble Lord’s comments.

I think this also goes towards answering some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Patten about interventions regarding perpetrators. Perpetrator interventions are designed to help change or disrupt offenders’ behaviour and stop crimes being committed. That supports our aim to place the onus on the perpetrator to change and stop victims from experiencing further harm. There is promising evidence suggesting that interventions can be effective at reducing levels of abuse. For example, a perpetrator’s participation in the Drive Project can result in substantial reductions in abuse and risk, with physical abuse reduced by 82% and controlling behaviours by 73%. The Drive Project works with high-harm, high-risk and serial perpetrators of domestic abuse to prevent their abusive behaviour and protect victims. Alongside this funding, the Home Office has appointed an independent evaluation partner to conduct evaluations of perpetrator interventions to help us further enhance our evidence base and better understand what works.

Clearly the police have a vital role to play. Following the 2021 HMICFRS inspection into the policing response to VAWG, we supported the introduction of a new full-time national policing lead for VAWG: DCC Maggie Blyth. She has been working closely with government to drive national co-ordination of the policing response to VAWG. DCC Blyth and her team published a strategic threat and risk assessment for VAWG last month, outlining the areas where police should prioritise their resources to tackle VAWG crimes in the coming year. In February this year, the Home Secretary added VAWG to the revised strategic police requirement. This means that VAWG is now set as a national threat for forces to respond to, alongside other threats such as terrorism, serious organised crime and sexual abuse.

In the tackling VAWG strategy we can confirm that we are looking at the case for a new law on public sexual harassment, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. We ran a targeted consultation on this last summer. We are grateful to those who responded to the consultation and recognise that a specific offence could deter perpetrators, encourage victims to report and make the law clearer for everyone. We think there is a case for legislative change; the Government are therefore supporting the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill, sponsored by the right honourable Greg Clark MP and my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. The Bill completed its passage through the House of Commons in March and received its Second Reading in the Lords on 16 June.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the changes to crime reporting will free up hundreds of thousands of police hours. On the subject of stalking, in January 2020, we introduced stalking protection orders, which are a new civil order to protect victims of stalking at the earliest possible opportunity and address the perpetrator’s behaviours before they become entrenched or escalate in severity in the way that the noble Lord described. SPOs support existing tools to ensure robust protections are available to victims, including victims of stranger stalking, where the perpetrator is not a current or former intimate partner of the victim. The courts issued almost 1,000 SPOs between February 2020 and December 2021. I will write to the noble Lord in answer to his other questions, because I do not have much time left and I still need to talk more about the police. I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I go over my allotted span a little.

It is obvious, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and my noble friend Lady Bertin both identified, that trust issues with the police have been a problem, and it is paramount that public trust in the Met, in particular, is restored. The Government will continue to hold the commissioner and the Mayor of London to account to deliver wholesale change in the force’s culture. There is much more to do, and the task of this mission is rooting out unfit officers. That will mean that further unacceptable cases will inevitably come to light.

The Government are also driving forward work to improve culture, standards and behaviour across policing, including strengthening vetting and reviewing the dismissals process. In January, we launched a review into the process of dismissals to ensure that the system is fair and effective. Among other areas, the review is considering the consistency of decision-making in cases of sexual misconduct and other forms of VAWG. We are currently considering the findings, and the next steps will be published in due course.

I have spoken a lot from the Dispatch Box about other things that the Government have done, so I move on to the subject of rape. It has been mentioned on a number of occasions: the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Thornton, discussed the decline in prosecutions for rape. The Government’s end-to-end rape review found that there had been a steep decline in the number of cases reaching court since 2016. One key reason for this was the number of victims who were withdrawing from the criminal justice process. In the rape review action plan, we took a hard and honest look at how the entire criminal justice system deals with rape, and recognised that in too many instances, it had simply not been good enough. We apologised at the time for this and will not rest until we have delivered real improvements, transforming support for victims and ensuring cases are investigated fully and pursued rigorously through the courts. We are committed to more than doubling the volume of rape cases reaching court by the end of the Parliament. The most recent rape review progress report, which was published in December 2022, showed increases in police referrals, charges and receipts at the Crown Court.

While we have made important progress, much of the work remains ahead of us and it will take time for the effects of these systemic transformations to be seen in the data, particularly due to the inherent complexity of rape investigations and prosecutions, because we are aiming to achieve genuine cultural change. To the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, we recognise that having police officers with the right skills is critical in ensuring cases are progressed and managed effectively. Chief Constable Sarah Crew is the national policing lead for adult sexual offences, and when she gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee she highlighted that she is engaging with chief constables to help ensure that this specialism is recognised across forces. Operation Soteria, which I have spoken about from the Dispatch Box before, is helping to establish an effective, evidence-based way of driving improvements across policing.

I shall talk a little more about Operation Soteria, because it is an ambitious joint policing and CPS programme to develop new national operating models for the investigation and prosecution of rape which will support officers and prosecutors to conduct suspect-focused, rather than victim-focused, investigations. The Home Office is investing £6.65 million in the policing aspects of Operation Soteria between 2021 and 2023. That builds on work in Avon and Somerset Police by bringing together academics and front-line police officers to develop a new national operating model for the investigation of rape.

Operation Soteria is working. We have seen improvements in a number of pathfinder forces: charge volumes in Avon and Somerset more than tripled between October and December 2022, and the Met has seen an 18% reduction in victims withdrawing, falling from 743 cases before Soteria to 611 between October and December 2022. All pathfinder forces have seen an increase in the number of cases being referred to the CPS; Durham has seen a 113% increase, more than doubling the number of cases referred. All pathfinder forces have experienced a reduction in the average number of days taken for a charge outcome to be assigned, with South Wales Police seeing a reduction of almost 300 days in the latest quarter. I am reluctant to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but I do not think that rape has been decriminalised—serious work is being done to fix this problem.

We will have more to say on the national operating model in due course.

On the subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, about children affected by domestic abuse, she is quite right. The Home Office has increased funding for the children affected by domestic abuse fund. We have allocated up to £10.3 million across three years to eight organisations across England and Wales that provide specialist support in the community to children who have been impacted by domestic abuse. That builds on the more than £12 million provided through the children affected by domestic abuse fund since 2018. This scheme has provided support to thousands of children, young people and families who have experienced abuse.

The noble Lord, Lord Patten, asked about refuges. In the Domestic Abuse Act a new duty was introduced on local authorities to provide support for victims of domestic abuse and their children in safe accommodation, including refuges.

I appreciate that I am over time, so I will try to conclude. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lady Meyer, brought up the subject of single-sex spaces. We are committed to maintaining the safeguards that allow organisations to provide single-sex services. It is important that the principle of being able to operate spaces reserved for women and girls is maintained. The Equality Act 2010 sets out that providers have the right to restrict the use of spaces on the basis of sex and gender reassignment, where that is justified. The EHRC has published guidance on the existing legislation, which provides much-needed clarity to those who are operating single-sex spaces.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that we have robust legislative measures in place that require registered sex offenders to inform the police of any name change and enable courts to put restrictions on a registered sex offender’s ability to change their name if they pose a specific risk in relation to name changes.

I have gone over time, so I finish by again offering my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for initiating the debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for introducing it and giving us all the opportunity to talk about this critical issue. I hope I have outlined some of the vital work that is being done to tackle violence against women and girls; we are doing a great deal, but we know that there is always more to do. This is a societal concern and requires a whole-of-society response. Driving that response is a key priority for the Government and for me, because no one should have to feel unsafe or suffer abuse. We must be and we will be relentless in our efforts to help victims pursue perpetrators, and we will strengthen our systems so that all victims of these crimes have the support and protection they deserve. I hope I have answered all the questions.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Bill be further considered on Report.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I put on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who took the Bill through its first day of Report last week, and my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy for his work in the run-up to today’s debate. I extend my thanks to noble Lords for the constructive debate we have had so far on the Bill, both in Committee and in separate meetings. This collaboration has resulted in comprehensive and much-needed legislation—

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Bull) (CB)]

Would the Minister like to move that we move on to this item of business before he moves his first amendment?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

90: Schedule 8, page 263, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (7) unless the Secretary of State has—(a) consulted the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice, and(b) given a notice containing the relevant information to the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice.(11) Consultation under subsection (10)(a) must include consultation about any effects that the Secretary of State considers the regulations may have on—(a) a person in Scotland or Northern Ireland (as the case may be) applying for the forfeiture of cryptoassets held in a crypto wallet that is subject to a crypto wallet freezing order, and(b) a sheriff or court in Scotland or a court in Northern Ireland (as the case may be) considering such an application or making an order for such forfeiture. (12) In subsection (10)(b) “relevant information” means—(a) a description of—(i) the process undertaken in order to comply with subsection (10)(a) in relation to the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice (as the case may be), and(ii) any agreement, objection or other views expressed as part of that process by the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice (as the case may be), and(b) an explanation of whether and how such views have been taken into account in the regulations (including, in a case where the Secretary of State proposes to make the regulations despite an objection, an explanation of the reasons for doing so).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for certain consultation requirements to apply before regulations may be made under inserted section 303Z42(7) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (forfeiture orders).

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I was saying, I put on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston and my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, but I also extend my thanks to all noble Lords for the constructive debate we have had so far on the Bill, both in Committee and in separate meetings. It is nice to be able to say that more than once. This collaboration has resulted in comprehensive and much-needed legislation. As my noble friend Lord Johnson set out, the Government listened to the views of the House during the passage of the Bill and have moved to address many of its concerns in the amendments tabled for Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I reiterate what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have said: there has been a co-operative approach to this Bill, which I think will make it a better Bill. I was going to make exactly the points that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just made about the need to build in a way of feeding back to Parliament, particularly given that crypto assets are a very turbulent technology; it is a very turbulent industry. We know about the criminality endemic within these types of so-called assets. The point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that Parliament needs to find a way, through flexibility and feedback, to make sure that the appropriate regulations are kept in place.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their brief points in this debate. Broadly speaking, I agree with all the points that have been made. It is important to maintain a high level of flexibility, because this is a very fast-moving space technologically as well as with regard to the use of these assets in the broader economy and for other purposes. I agree with everything that has been said. Obviously, these amendments allow us to maintain a high degree of flexibility, so I ask noble Lords to support them. There is not much point in saying anything else at this point.

Amendment 90 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

91A: Clause 181, page 171, line 27, leave out from “to” to end of line 28 and insert “prescribed high-risk countries.
(3) Provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) may in particular refer to a list of countries published by the Financial Action Task Force as it has effect from time to time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This removes the power to make regulations about enhanced customer due diligence by reference to a list of high-risk countries published by the Treasury. Instead it allows regulations to refer to a list of countries published by the Financial Action Task Force (the regulations could also refer to that list subject to specified exceptions).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

92A: Clause 181, page 171, line 34, leave out “, omit subsections (2) and (9)” and insert “—
(a) in subsection (2), for the first “which” substitute “made during the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 is passed if the instrument”; (b) in subsection (9), for the words from “if” to the end substitute “if they only make provision prescribing high-risk countries by virtue of paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2”.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that regulations made within 6 months of royal assent are subject to the made affirmative procedure if all they do is make provision about countries in relation to which enhanced customer due diligence measures are required to be taken; regulations made after that period are subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

96: Clause 187, page 176, line 34, leave out “, conspiracy or incitement” and insert “or conspiracy”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments to clause 187 correct the definition of “economic crime” to include encouraging or assisting an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act, which replaced the common law offence of incitement in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, corporate criminal liability is a topic that many across the House care deeply about—

[A noble Lord]

Not yet.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Sorry. I beg to move Amendment 96 formally.

Amendment 96 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

98: Clause 187, page 176, line 35, at end insert—
“(ba) constitutes an offence—(i) under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (England and Wales and Northern Ireland: encouraging or assisting crime) in relation to a listed offence, or(ii) under the law of Scotland of inciting the commission of a listed offence,”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my first amendment to clause 187.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

101: Clause 187, page 176, line 39, after “(b)” insert “, (ba)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments to clause 187.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

104: After Clause 187, insert the following new Clause—
“Attributing criminal liability for economic crimes to certain bodiesAttributing criminal liability for economic crimes to certain bodies
(1) If a senior manager of a body corporate or partnership (“the organisation”) acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority commits a relevant offence after this section comes into force, the organisation is also guilty of the offence.This is subject to subsection (3).(2) “Relevant offence” means an act which constitutes—(a) an offence listed in Schedule (Criminal liability of bodies: economic crimes) (“a listed offence”),(b) an attempt or conspiracy to commit a listed offence,(c) an offence—(i) under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (England and Wales and Northern Ireland: encouraging or assisting crime) in relation to a listed offence, or(ii) under the law of Scotland of inciting the commission of a listed offence, or(d) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a listed offence.(3) Where no act or omission forming part of the relevant offence took place in the United Kingdom, the organisation is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) unless it would be guilty of the relevant offence had it carried out the acts that constituted that offence (in the location where the acts took place).(4) In this section—“body corporate” includes a body incorporated outside the United Kingdom, but does not include—(a) a corporation sole, or(b) a partnership that, whether or not a legal person, is not regarded as a body corporate under the law by which it is governed;“partnership” means—(a) a partnership within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890;(b) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907;(c) a firm or other entity of a similar character to one within paragraph (a) or (b) formed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;“senior manager”, in relation to a body corporate or partnership, means an individual who plays a significant role in—(a) the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of the activities of the body corporate or (as the case may be) partnership are to be managed or organised, or(b) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out circumstances in which liability for an offence committed by a senior manager may be attributed to a body corporate or partnership.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, my apologies again for my early start on this; my enthusiasm keeps getting the better of me today.

As I was saying, corporate criminal liability is a topic that many across the House care deeply about, and one where the Government are committed to making significant reforms. I thank noble Lords for the robust and constructive debate we had in Committee on this topic and for the ongoing engagement which many noble Lords have afforded me in the weeks leading up to this debate.

I reiterate the Government’s commitment to reforming corporate criminal liability and tackling fraud. Since this Bill was introduced, significant steps forward have been taken. I hope, with the further government amendments to which I will speak shortly, noble Lords will recognise that we have gone to great lengths to strengthen the Bill in this area. In addition, government action continues outside of this Bill. The recently published Fraud Strategy further demonstrates the ongoing work across government and with partners to take action to tackle fraud.

I will speak first to government Amendments 104, 105, 106, 109, 138, 139, 140, 144 and 145, which introduce new clauses to this Bill to reform the identification doctrine. As noble Lords will be aware, the identification doctrine is outdated and ineffective in the way in which it holds corporates to account, given the breadth of business we see in the 21st century. Companies have grown tenfold since the “directing mind and will” test was devised in the 1970s. As companies have grown, their operations and governance have become spread across different areas, making it incredibly difficult to pinpoint the directing mind of a company, particularly in a large organisation. Individuals with significant authority can escape corporate liability by asserting that the directing mind and will is elsewhere.

Meanwhile, there is an unfairness here. Smaller companies, perhaps with one or two directors, have much more easily identifiable directing minds, meaning that corporate liability is more easily attributable and a prosecution is more likely to be successful. It is this inequality in the law that we need to address. The government amendments place the identification doctrine on a statutory footing for economic crimes for the first time, providing legislative certainty that senior managers are within the scope of the rule.

Under these new measures a corporate will be held liable if a senior manager has committed an offence under the new schedule, or if they have encouraged or assisted an offence by another, or have attempted or conspired to commit an offence under the schedule. The corporate will be criminally prosecuted and, if convicted, will receive a fine, in addition to any sentences imposed for individuals who are separately prosecuted and found guilty of the same offence. The reform will apply to all corporate bodies and partnerships established in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

These amendments build on the extensive work and consultation conducted by the Law Commission in this area. Building on feedback from prosecuting bodies, business representatives and Members of both Houses, some tweaks have been made to the Law Commission’s proposal to ensure the reform is applicable to the widest set of cases. Under the Government’s reform, economic crime is defined according to a new schedule in the Bill—introduced via Amendment 109—which reflects existing Schedule 10 but without those offences that principally apply to a corporate body, such as failure to prevent bribery.

For the purpose of these amendments, “senior management” will be defined in accordance with the well-established definition provided for in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. This model considered the senior managers’ roles and responsibilities within the relevant organisation and the level of managerial influence they might exert, rather than their job title.

The clauses tabled by the Government also seek to capture instances where a senior manager commissions or encourages a lower-ranking employee to do their “dirty work” by making it clear that the corporate can also be held liable where the senior manager encourages or assists a listed offence in the schedule.

To be clear to the House, subsection (3) of the new clause introduced by Amendment 104 ensures that criminal liability will not attach to an organisation based and operating overseas for conduct carried out wholly overseas simply because the senior manager concerned was subject to the UK’s extraterritorial jurisdiction; for instance, because that manager is a British citizen. Domestic law does not generally apply to conduct carried out wholly overseas unless the offence has some connection with the UK. This is an important matter of international legal comity.

However, some offences, wherever they are committed, can be prosecuted against individuals or organisations who have certain close connections to the UK. Subsection (3) makes sure that any such test will still apply to organisations when the new identification doctrine applies. Extending the identification doctrine test to senior management better reflects how decision-making is often dispersed across multiple controlling minds, mitigating the ability to artificially transfer, remove or create titles to escape liability. This is a positive step to increasing lines of clear governance and accountability in corporations.

Looking forward, although these government amendments are a strong step to improving corporate criminal liability laws, they are not the final step. The Government have committed in the Economic Crime Plan 2 and the Fraud Strategy to introduce reform of the identification doctrine to apply to all criminal offences. This will take place when a suitable legislative vehicle arises.

I move on now to the government amendments on failure to prevent fraud. In Committee, the Government tabled amendments which introduced a new corporate offence of failure to prevent fraud. Under the new failure to prevent offence, a large organisation will be liable to prosecution where fraud was committed by an employee for the organisation’s benefit and the organisation did not have reasonable fraud prevention procedures in place. The new offence will help to protect victims and cut crime by driving a culture change towards improved fraud prevention procedures in organisations and by holding organisations to account through prosecutions if they profit from the fraudulent actions of their employees.

Following this, noble Lords have raised further points with me on where the Government clauses could be strengthened. I have listened to the points raised, and the Government have tabled further amendments on the definition of large organisations and the treatment of subsidiaries. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for bringing this point to my attention.

As I have set out on many occasions, the failure to prevent fraud offence is designed to balance the fraud prevention benefits with minimising burdens on small business. Amendments 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 122, 123 and 124 will help prevent companies from avoiding responsibility by moving high-risk operations into subsidiaries that fall below the size threshold for the offence. They will also ensure that groups of companies with significant resources are incentivised to take steps to prevent fraud.

First, we have made a clarification to ensure that an assessment of whether an organisation meets the size criteria, and is therefore in scope of the offence, is made cumulatively across the parent company and its subsidiaries—that is, the group—rather than being based on each individual entity. We then have to consider where liability would attach within that group. The group itself is not a legal entity so cannot be liable. It may be more appropriate for the subsidiary or the parent to be accountable directly, depending on the circumstances. We have therefore clarified that whichever of the individual entities within a group was responsible for the fraud can be directly liable for a failure to prevent fraud, in the same way as any other entity in scope of the offence.

Additionally, we have clarified that an employee of a subsidiary can be an associated person of its parent or owning company. That makes it more feasible to attach liability to the parent company should the approach of targeting the specific subsidiary be inappropriate. A test would still have to be met that the fraud by the subsidiary employee intended to benefit the parent, and the parent would have the defence that it was reasonable to take no steps to prevent the fraud—for example, if the structure was such that the parent had no say over the activities of the subsidiary.

Finally, Amendment 120 ensures that the views of the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments are taken into account before any future changes to the offence threshold based on organisation size.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that this is a hugely meaningful package of amendments. I recognise that a number of noble Lords will have hoped the Government would go further, particularly around the threshold in the failure to prevent fraud offence. However, I stress that we have already taken tremendous strides forward. The Government firmly believe that our reforms to the identification doctrine; the introduction of a failure to prevent fraud offence covering around 50% of economic activity; measures to prevent avoidance via subsidiaries; and our existing ability to identify and prosecute fraud more easily in smaller organisations will cumulatively have the desired effect of tackling and deterring economic crime, without unnecessarily imposing billions of pounds of burdens and bureaucracy on actual or potential small businesses. I hope noble Lords can recognise the great progress we have made, and I beg to move.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his opening remarks and for the advance that the Government have made on two fronts. The first is by clarifying the senior management officers within a company; in doing so, they have clarified the way in which the identification doctrine can be applied in modern Britain.

As I have said on previous occasions, I have an interest to declare. I will not specifically recite it again because I did so in Committee, at Second Reading and, I think, on the three or four previous pieces of legislation into which a failure to prevent amendment could have been inserted—but of course it was not the right Bill, the right vehicle or the right time, and in fact it was just not right. So here I am again.

I shall speak to my Amendments 110 and 125A, which at the appropriate time I will move to a Division unless the Government persuade me otherwise. I am not engaging here in party politics or even in a rebellion. I am doing nothing by surprise; anyone who has followed discussions on economic crime over the last 13 years will know precisely what I am going to say. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister is adept at moving from one corridor to the next to avoid having a yet further conversation with me about my favourite subject. He has also heard all my jokes before, but not every Member of our House has had that advantage so it may be that, unless the Government accept my amendment, my little Aunt Sally will have another canter around the course. However, I will take things in stages.

First, I thank the Government, as I hope I have done —and I mean it sincerely—for their Amendments 104 to 106 and 109—essentially, the modernisation of the identification principle, so far as it goes. We are now slowly catching up with the Americans; they did something similar to this in 1912, but this is the United Kingdom and we must not rush.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by acknowledging the great progress that has been made on the failure to prevent process through the debates in the House of Commons. There was significant movement there, which we of course welcome.

I say at the outset that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is minded to divide the House on Amendments 110 and 125A, he will have the support of these Benches. There are very good reasons for that, as have been outlined in the debate today. The statistics, particularly the 0.5% figure, are startling. Surely, we all need to take this incredibly seriously if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, we are serious about tackling the wider fraud issues, which seem to be growing daily. The numbers of people we all know personally who are affected by this shows the sheer extent of the problem.

I will make the very strong point that the issue of costs and burdens on SMEs has been overemphasised. If these processes are tightened in the way proposed, those very businesses will themselves be protected by the action taken on other companies. In particular, I completely support the extension to the money laundering provision in Amendment 125A.

We have had a really good debate throughout our proceedings on these measures. It would be so disappointing if, at this final stage, we did not go the full distance we can at this point, recognising, as we know, that more will need to be done in the future. We have the opportunity now and we should seize it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate on corporate criminal liability and for their continued engagement on this subject. These conversations have been robust and constructive and have helped the Government immensely in the development of the clauses —developed, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, without any reluctance at all.

I turn to Amendments 135 and 125G on senior manager liability, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. As he has noted, senior managers hold a higher level of responsibility than ordinary employees in conducting business because they take important decisions on the corporate policy, strategy and operation of the company. The extension of the identification doctrine to senior management in Amendment 104, which I spoke to previously, recognises this. To reflect the heightened responsibility of a senior manager in the actions of a corporation, powers are available already to prosecutors to hold a senior manager liable where a company conducts an economic crime offence.

Under the fraud, theft and bribery Acts and the money laundering regulations 2017, senior officers, including managers, are liable if they consent to or connive in fraud, theft, bribery or money laundering regulatory breaches. This extends as far as the senior manager knowingly turning a blind eye to offending, extending beyond the usual law on accessory liability for other crimes. If a senior manager is guilty of the offence and liable, they can be proceeded against and punished accordingly, including by imprisonment.

Additionally, in the regulatory space, the senior managers and certification regime is in place to improve good corporate behaviour and compliance in the sectors regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority, placing specific requirements on senior managers to encourage positive corporate behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

105: After Clause 187, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to amend list of economic crimes
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Criminal liability of bodies: economic crimes) by—(a) removing an offence from the list in the Schedule, or(b) adding an offence to that list.(2) The power in subsection (1) is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers (and not by the Secretary of State) so far as it may be used to make provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that Parliament.(3) The power in subsection (1) is exercisable by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland (and not by the Secretary of State) so far as it may be used to make provision that—(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(b) would not, if contained in a Bill for an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State.(4) The Secretary of State may from time to time by regulations restate Schedule (Criminal liability of bodies: economic crimes) as amended by virtue of subsection (1) to (3) (without changing the effect of the Schedule).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Attributing criminal liability for economic crimes to certain bodies).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend. If I do not speak at length, it is not because I do not think it a very important amendment but because I am trying to infect the rest of the House with some brevity—unsuccessfully, I suspect. This is an important amendment and we have seen movement in other regimes. We have seen movement in the United States; we are seeing movement in the European Union; and I think we have seen movement in the House of Commons on the Procurement Bill, to which we have started to see changes in attitude. I hope we will hear from the Minister shortly that the Government are prepared to move, in order that we can bank a step in the right direction along this path. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and I hope this amendment will not have to be pressed if we hear what we want to hear.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for this amendment, for his constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill through this House and, of course, for his typically thoughtful and powerful introduction. I also pay tribute to noble Lords from all sides of the House, and Members in the other place, for continuing to pursue this important issue and engage with the Government on a cross-party basis, not least the APPG on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government are supportive of mechanisms to deprive sanctioned individuals, where appropriate, of their assets, with a view to funding the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine. More broadly, the Government want to drive further transparency on assets held by sanctioned persons in the UK.

On 19 June, the Government announced four new commitments which reaffirm that Russia must pay for the long-term reconstruction of Ukraine. This includes new legislation, laid the same day by the Foreign Secretary, to enable sanctions to remain in place until Russia pays compensation for damage caused. In this announcement the Government also confirmed that we will lay new legislation requiring persons and entities in the UK, or UK persons and entities overseas, who are designated under the Russia financial sanctions regime to disclose any assets they hold in the UK. The Government are firmly committed to bringing forward this secondary legislation, subject to the made affirmative procedure, and to introducing this measure before the end of 2023, subject to the usual parliamentary scheduling. This will strengthen transparency of assets and make it clear that the UK will not allow assets to be hidden in this country.

Sanctioned individuals who fail to disclose their assets could receive a financial penalty or have their assets confiscated. This demonstrates our continued commitment to penalising those who make deliberate attempts to conceal funds or economic resources. The new power builds on and strengthens the UK’s existing powers around transparency of designated persons’ assets. HMG already use the annual review of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, known as OFSI, to collect and detail assets frozen under UK financial sanctions. Additionally, relevant firms such as banks, other financial institutions, law firms and estate agents have an ongoing obligation to report to OFSI if they know or reasonably suspect that a person is a designated person or has committed offences under financial sanctions regulations, where that information is received in the course of carrying on their business. Those firms must provide information about the nature and amount of any funds or economic resources held by them for the customer.

The designated person reporting measure will act as a dual verification tool by enabling the comparison of disclosures against existing reporting requirements that bite on relevant firms. This will tighten the net around those who are not reporting and are evading their reporting requirements.

On asset seizure, prosecutors and/or law enforcement agencies can currently apply to confiscate or permanently seize assets where someone has benefited from their offending, or the assets have links to criminality, by making use of powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Importantly, the new measures will also give His Majesty’s Government the ability to impose fines. Overall, this designated person reporting measure will be focused on strengthening the UK’s compliance toolkit while giving options for penalising those who seek to hide their assets.

The noble Lord’s amendment includes a specific provision which would require the designated person also to report assets which were held six months prior to the designation. The Government are still fully developing the non-disclosure measure and I can assure the noble Lord that we are carefully considering this suggestion. Although not retrospective in terms of regulating or criminalising conduct that occurred before the measure came into force, requiring designated persons to provide a snapshot of their assets at a historical point in time is necessarily more onerous than a forward look requirement. The Government will need carefully to consider the design of the measure and the proportionality and additional value of so-called retrospective reporting to ensure that it is operationally deliverable and legally robust. This will include working with relevant law enforcement agencies to determine how such information would be used.

Before laying these regulations, the Government will complete their ongoing evaluation of possible operational or implementation challenges to help ensure the successful delivery of this measure. For example, investigating non-compliance will require significant resources from the enforcing agency. We want to ensure that it has all the capability, skills and resources to succeed.

I note the interest in and strength of feeling on this issue. The Government will continue to work collaboratively and constructively with interested parties in the lead-up to bringing forward the legislation, including on reporting assets which were held prior to a designation. We will continue to engage with the civil society organisations that have campaigned for this measure, and I would be happy to work with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other parliamentarians to keep them informed of progress ahead of it being formally introduced.

Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this issue forward for debate and for the continued interest and engagement of many stakeholders. I hope that, given the reasons I have outlined and the action the Government are already taking, he will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for the manner in which he has addressed this issue and the House this evening. He was right to pay tribute to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax; I would link with that the specific work of Dame Margaret Hodge MP, the Royal United Services Institute and many of those in civil society to which the Minister has referred. I was especially pleased to hear what he said about working collaboratively with those organisations that have been involved in taking this amendment forward.

I do not underestimate the importance of what the Minister has said to the House. He said that he will look at the outstanding issue of the six-month retrospective period; although he gave no guarantees or assurances on that front, at least we will be able to discuss and examine it further. However, he has agreed to introduce secondary legislation before the end of the year—not “at a time to be agreed” or some possibility of legislation coming in the next nine or 10 months, but by the end of this year. I welcome that very much. He also told the House that it would be done under the affirmative procedure, which will give us the chance to come back again. Significant progress has been made on this and I am very grateful to the Minister. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

109: After Schedule 10, insert the following new Schedule—
“SCHEDULECRIMINAL LIABILITY OF BODIES: ECONOMIC CRIMESCommon law offences
1_ Cheating the public revenue.2_ Conspiracy to defraud.3_ In Scotland, the following offences at common law—(a) fraud;(b) uttering;(c) embezzlement;(d) theft.Statutory offences
4_ An offence under any of the following provisions of the Theft Act 1968—(a) section 1 (theft);(b) section 17 (false accounting);(c) section 19 (false statements by company directors etc);(d) section 20 (suppression etc of documents);(e) section 24A (dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit).5_ An offence under any of the following provisions of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969—(a) section 1 (theft);(b) section 17 (false accounting);(c) section 18 (false statements by company directors etc);(d) section 19 (suppression etc of documents);(e) section 23A (dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit).6_ An offence under any of the following provisions of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979—(a) section 68 (offences in relation to exportation of prohibited or restricted goods);(b) section 167 (untrue declarations etc);(c) section 170 (fraudulent evasion of duty).7_ An offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (forgery, counterfeiting and kindred offences).8_ An offence under section 72 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (fraudulent evasion of VAT).9_ An offence under section 46A of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (false monetary instruments).10_ An offence under any of the following sections of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000—(a) section 23 (contravention of prohibition on carrying on regulated activity unless authorised or exempt); (b) section 25 (contravention of restrictions on financial promotion);(c) section 85 (prohibition on dealing etc in transferable securities without approved prospectus);(d) section 398 (misleading the FCA or PRA).11_ An offence under any of the following sections of the Terrorism Act 2000—(a) section 15 (fund-raising);(b) section 16 (use and possession);(c) section 17 (funding arrangements);(d) section 18 (money laundering);(e) section 63 (terrorist finance: jurisdiction).12_ An offence under any of the following sections of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—(a) section 327 (concealing etc criminal property);(b) section 328 (arrangements facilitating acquisition etc of criminal property);(c) section 329 (acquisition, use and possession of criminal property);(d) section 330 (failing to disclose knowledge or suspicion of money laundering);(e) section 333A (tipping off: regulated sector).13_ An offence under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006 (fraudulent trading).14_ An offence under any of the following sections of the Fraud Act 2006—(a) section 1 (fraud);(b) section 6 (possession etc of articles for use in frauds);(c) section 7 (making or supplying articles for use in frauds);(d) section 9 (participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader);(e) section 11 (obtaining services dishonestly).15_ An offence under any of the following sections of the Bribery Act 2010—(a) section 1 (bribing another person);(b) section 2 (being bribed);(c) section 6 (bribery of foreign public officials).16_ An offence under section 49 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (possession, making or supplying articles for use in frauds).17_ An offence under any of the following sections of the Financial Services Act 2012—(a) section 89 (misleading statements);(b) section 90 (misleading impressions);(c) section 91 (misleading statements etc in relation to benchmarks).18_ An offence under regulation 86 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.19_ An offence under regulations made under section 49 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (money laundering and terrorist financing etc).20_ (1) An offence under an instrument made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 for the purpose of implementing, or otherwise in relation to, EU obligations created or arising by or under an EU financial sanctions Regulation.(2) An offence under an Act or under subordinate legislation where the offence was created for the purpose of implementing a UN financial sanctions Resolution. (3) An offence under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (freezing orders).(4) An offence under paragraph 30 or 30A of Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 where the offence relates to a requirement of the kind mentioned in paragraph 13 of that Schedule.(5) An offence under paragraph 31 of Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.(6) An offence under regulations made under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (sanctions regulations).(7) In this paragraph—“EU financial sanctions Regulation” and “UN financial sanctions Resolution” have the same meanings as in Part 8 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 (see section 143 of that Act);“subordinate legislation” has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the list of offences in relation to which liability may be attributed to the body in accordance with Clause (Attributing criminal liability for economic crimes to certain bodies)(1).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

112: Clause 188, page 177, line 28, after “subsidiary” insert “undertaking”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment at page 178, line 2 substitute the term “subsidiary undertaking” for “subsidiary”, for consistency with my amendment at page 178, line 3.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

118: Clause 190, page 179, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The reference in subsection (1) to a relevant body does not include a relevant body which is a parent undertaking (as to which see section (Large organisations: parent undertakings)).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Large organisations: parent undertakings).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

122: After Clause 190, insert the following new Clause—
“Large organisations: parent undertakings
(1) For the purposes of section 188(1) and (1A) a relevant body which is a parent undertaking is a “large organisation” only if the group headed by it satisfied two or more of the following conditions in the financial year of the body that precedes the year of the fraud offence—

Aggregate turnover	More than £36 million net (or £43.2 million gross)
Aggregate balance sheet total	More than £18 million net (or £21.6 million gross)
Aggregate number of employees	More than 250.

(2) The aggregate figures are ascertained by aggregating the relevant figures determined in accordance with section 190 for each member of the group. (3) In relation to the aggregate figures for turnover and balance sheet total, “net” and “gross”—(a) except where paragraph (b) applies, have the meaning given by subsection (6) of section 466 of the Companies Act 2006;(b) in the case of accounts that are not of a kind specified in the definition of “net” in that subsection, have a corresponding meaning.(4) In this section—“balance sheet total” (in relation to a relevant body and a financial year) has the same meaning as in section 190;“group” means a parent undertaking and its subsidiary undertakings;“turnover” (in relation to a UK company or other relevant body) has the same meaning as in section 190;“year of the fraud offence” is to be interpreted in accordance with section 188(1) or (1A) (as the case requires).(5) In this section “balance sheet total” and “turnover”, in relation to a subsidiary undertaking which is not a relevant body, have a meaning corresponding to the meaning given by subsection (4).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment at page 179, line 35, enable certain parent undertakings to qualify as a “large organisation” for the purposes of the offence of failure to prevent fraud.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

123: Clause 193, page 181, line 23, at end insert—
“(5A) “Parent undertaking” has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is supplementary to new Clause (Large organisations: parent undertakings).

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Amendment 128 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker has a straightforward, clear ask: within a year of the Bill passing, the Secretary of State must publish a report on economic crime and investigation. It must include the performance of the framework for investigating crime, et cetera, and an assessment of the roles of the Serious Fraud Office in particular. Important elements mentioned in the amendment include the adequate resourcing of staff and the strategy for fees, which we have discussed elsewhere.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for speaking to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton for his amendment. These amendments seek to add further parliamentary scrutiny on economic crime matters.

However, I have been clear throughout the previous debates on this topic that it is the Government’s view that there is already more than sufficient external scrutiny in the areas outlined by the noble Lords. These amendments are therefore duplicative, and if accepted would lead to agencies and government departments being caught in resource-intensive reporting requirements that would have no real benefit to parliamentarians, detracting from their core roles of tackling economic crime. I have noted what my noble friend has said, and the Government are of course more than committed to doing the things he suggests.

Amendment 128 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would require the Government to issue a report on the performance of agencies and departments in tackling economic crime. I am aware of the strength of his feeling on the resourcing, performance and co-ordination of operational agencies. I hope that the sessions we have facilitated for him with Companies House and the Serious Fraud Office will have gone some way to reassuring him on this.

I can also reassure him and the House that the Government are ensuring that the response to economic crime has the necessary funding. The combination of 2021’s spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the new economic crime levy will provide funding of £400 million over the spending review period. The levy applies to the AML-regulated sector and will fund new or uplifted activity to tackle money laundering, starting from 2023-24.

In addition, a proportion of assets recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are already reinvested in economic crime capability. Under the asset recovery incentivisation scheme—ARIS—receipts paid into the Home Office are split 50:50 between central government and operational partners, based on their relative contribution to delivering receipts. In 2021-22 this resulted in £142 million being redistributed to POCA agencies. That should provide the necessary reassurance on resourcing and funding. Given what I hope to have shown is a significant amount of reporting, external scrutiny and indeed funding and resource, I ask the noble Baroness, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, not to press Amendment 128.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I refer to a comment made by another Minister at the Dispatch Box that we will come back to economic crime and fraud again and again. I have no doubt about that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 125.

National Security Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22A.

22A: Because the law already makes sufficient provision in relation to donations to political parties.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, as well as Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, C and D.

It is a pleasure to bring the National Security Bill back to this House. I thank noble Lords for their support so far. The vast majority of this Bill has now been settled, and measures that are vital to our national security will now be available to our security and intelligence services and to law enforcement. This new toolkit will facilitate the tackling of state actors who threaten the safety and security of the UK. The Government are busy working towards the implementation of this legislation, but there is only so much that we can do without Royal Assent. I ask noble Lords to bear this in mind through any votes that we may have.

Starting with the amendment that has been tabled in lieu of Amendment 122, the Government have listened to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, regarding the updating of the ISC’s memorandum of understanding, or MoU. The concerns raised by the noble Lord are that the Prime Minister has not attended a session of the ISC since 2014 and that the MoU is out of date. As I said the last time that this issue was debated, the ISC MoU is under regular review and the ISC is always welcome to review and suggest revision to it. The amendment tabled to force this process is therefore unnecessary.

This amendment cannot compel the Prime Minister to attend a session of the ISC, which I suspect is the amendment’s true driver. However, the Security Minister recently met with the chair of the ISC to better understand the committee’s concerns and find an agreeable resolution to the issue. In that meeting, he committed to attending an evidence session of the ISC to discuss the powers taken in the National Security Bill in greater detail and the plans for implementing the legislation. The Minister also committed to giving the ISC further updates on the progress of implementation through quarterly written updates.

I remind the House that, under the Justice and Security Act 2013, there is already provision in place for the review and amendment of the MoU where there is agreement between the Prime Minister and the ISC. Therefore, although I understand the spirit behind the amendment, it will not provide for anything new in practice. I believe that the Security Minister’s offer of attendance at a session and to provide regular written updates about the implementation of the Bill shows that the Government take the committee and its concerns seriously.

We have responded to the concerns raised about the ISC MoU in respect of the Bill, but the Bill is not the mechanism to address wider concerns. I ask noble Lords to recognise this. I also note that the Home Secretary is giving evidence to the Iran hearing in July and appreciates the ISC’s critical role in scrutiny of the intelligence and security community.

I turn to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to propose an amendment in lieu of Amendment 22, which concerns donations to UK political parties from foreign powers. I thank the noble Lord for recently meeting with my noble friend Lady Scott, the Minister with responsibility for elections. I turn to the substance of the amendment: it creates a duty on political parties to write an annual policy statement to ensure the identification of donations from foreign powers and a duty on political parties to provide the Electoral Commission with an annual report on donations received by foreign powers. I will set out the reasons why the Government oppose this amendment.

First, on the annual return to the Electoral Commission, as I have said before, accepting a donation from a foreign power, whether directly or indirectly, is already illegal. The amendment does nothing to assist parties in identifying illegal donations. Taken together, this renders the reporting of such activity to the Electoral Commission as an annually submitted blank page. This is not a helpful addition to the transparency framework surrounding political donations and, on that principle, we oppose its inclusion.

Secondly, the requirement to publish an annual policy statement lacks utility. Political parties are already required by law to take all reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible. To reiterate, foreign powers are not permissible donors. The existing law also prohibits impermissible donors seeking to direct money through permissible proxies, and it is an offence knowingly to facilitate the making of an impermissible donation. The legal framework is clear, and requiring the publication of a policy statement adds nothing.

Thirdly, given that the amendment will not add value, we do not think that it is reasonable or proportionate. It is worth highlighting that political parties are not banks or security services: they do not have the means to undertake sophisticated forensic accounting. While these services can be obtained through the private sector, they are likely to be cost prohibitive. Political parties are not global corporations: there are over 380 parties currently registered with the Electoral Commission, many of which are predominantly made up of volunteers. This amendment would add burdens on political parties and could risk disincentivising parties from accepting donations, which could, in turn, harm our democracy.

There is also a point on convention here. As far as we are aware, political parties have not been engaged on their views for this proposed amendment. The Government do not unilaterally change laws relating to political parties without such consultation taking place. It could lead to inequitable outcomes and, as such, is another reason why the Government oppose the amendment.

For all of these reasons, the Government’s position is that this is the wrong way to go about preventing threats from foreign powers to our political system, which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is concerned with.

During engagement with noble Lords and throughout previous stages, concerns have been highlighted about donations from companies and unincorporated associations. I would therefore like to set out the framework that we are operating in. Only those with a genuine interest in UK electoral events can make political donations. To be a permissible donor, companies must be registered in the UK, incorporated in the UK and carrying out business in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this relatively short debate. It was remiss of me earlier not to praise our security services, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, did, so I will correct that omission now. I also thank in particular the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Carlile, for the spirit in which they discussed and spoke to their Motions.

There is obviously a fundamental disagreement on the burden that this Bill would place on political parties, and indeed on whether the laws stand up to “intellectual analysis”; I believe that was the phrase used. I think I have made a strong case already that all of the matters under discussion are already illegal. However, there are one or two points that perhaps deserve clarification, so I will go into those briefly.

On overseas electors, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, it is a long-standing principle first introduced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998 that if you are eligible to vote for a party in an election then you are also eligible to donate to that party.

On unincorporated associations being used to funnel donations to political parties, there are a number of existing rules that make sure that ineligible foreign money is prohibited from entering through proxy donors. Permissible donors cannot give donations on behalf of impermissible donors. It is right that unincorporated associations that carry on business mainly in the UK and have their main office here can donate to political campaigns. I have already said this, but I will say it again: unincorporated associations that are making political contributions are already subject to additional controls compared with other types of donors. If they make political contributions or donations over £25,000 within a year, they must notify the Electoral Commission and provide it with information about how they are funded.

On the questions raised about the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government responded to the committee’s report Regulating Election Finance in September 2021. The Elections Act 2022 contains measures that closely link to the recommendations made in that report—for example, the new requirement on political parties to declare their assets and liabilities over £500 on registration, and a restriction of third-party campaigning to UK-based or otherwise eligible campaigners. However, as the Government’s response stated, the recommendations in the report deserve full consideration. As noble Lords will be very well aware, electoral law is complex, and more work is required to consider the implications and practicalities of all the committee’s recommendations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, also referred to a report in the newspapers today. I obviously cannot comment on the details of the individual case, but the Government absolutely recognise the risk posed by those who wish to evade the rules on donations. I think this story demonstrates just seriously the Government take that risk.

I am not sure there is very much point in me saying anything else. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Anderson, that we are not Ukraine. Self-evidently, there are very robust laws already in place.

If I was ungracious to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in a previous debate, I would like to apologise for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a number of party-political matters. Obviously, I am here to speak on behalf of the Government so I will not address those, but I suggest that he writes to the party.

I now move on to Motion C1 from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I join him in praising the work of the ISC, on which the noble Lord, Lord West, sits. Of course, we agree with much of what has been said. However, His Majesty’s Government consider the current MoU to be sufficient to allow the ISC to discharge its statutory oversight duties of the agencies and the wider intelligence community. The MoU is subject to continuous review and His Majesty’s Government welcome the ISC proposing changes that it would like the PM to consider.

The ISC has a broad remit over security and intelligence policy, as set out in the Justice and Security Act and the accompanying memorandum of understanding between the ISC and the Government. Those documents also set limitations where, for example, there would be a conflict with current operations or where it would be duplicative of the work of other jurisdictions. We believe that those guiding principles are working effectively and would seek to maintain them but, as I just said, the Government would welcome the ISC proposing changes it would like the PM to consider. It also shows the respect the Government have for the work of the ISC that the Security Minister has made the commitments that he has.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that I do not believe I was glib in my remarks about the Prime Minister earlier. Obviously, I am unable to comment on the PM’s diary, but I have said this before and made the commitment at this Dispatch Box: I will make sure that No. 10 is well aware of the discussions that we have had in the Chamber today.

With that, I am afraid that I do not think there is much point in me saying too much else. I beg to move.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

We in the ISC have tried to get movement on the MoUs being changed. There is no doubt—all ISC members feel this way—that we are being thwarted in getting this to happen and we do not really understand why. The Minister makes it sound as though this is a nice process that is happening. It is not, I am afraid. It is not happening, which is extremely worrying.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Obviously, I will make sure that those concerns are reflected to my right honourable friend the Security Minister, who will see the committee fairly soon. As I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, clearly I will make sure that this debate is widely understood in the appropriate places.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate; I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his great courtesy. I say to him, with great respect, that he has answered mostly questions of his choice that were not directly relevant to the points I made. In my experience over the years, the repetition of a weak defence is capable of convincing only the defendant and nobody else.

I thank those who spoke. It is worth mentioning their names for a particular reason. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was powerful, as ever. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made some powerful additional points. The noble Lord, Lord West, is always the right person to have on the bridge with you if you can arrange it; he spoke powerfully about the views of the ISC. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, speaks on matters of the constitution with great political and academic knowledge, and has done so for many years. I have always respected the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, whom I have watched in the other place as well as here, for the wisdom of his views. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has yet again made another powerful speech in your Lordships’ House. Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, was the only Member on the Conservative Back Benches to speak in this debate—a factor that I take to be of significance.

Taking all that into account, it is my intention to invite the House to agree to my Motion by expressing its opinion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 26A and 26B.

26A: In subsection (2), in inserted subsection (2)(b), at end insert “relating to intelligence”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 122, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 122A.

122A: Because section 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 already makes sufficient provision in relation to memoranda of understanding.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 153A.

153A: In paragraph 16(3), leave out from beginning to the second “of” and insert “A special adviser within the meaning of section 1”