Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to review the definition used by the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to identify religiously motivated incidents or crimes, in particular regard to the relevance of section 29J of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
Answered by Baroness Williams of Trafford - Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms (HM Household) (Chief Whip, House of Lords)
It is for the police, prosecutors and the courts to determine how to apply the legal provisions relevant to religiously motivated hate crimes.
The Law Commission has been commissioned by the Government to undertake a review of the legislation related to hate crime. The Law Commission are scheduled to conduct a public consultation this spring as part of this, and to report to Ministers in early 2021.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Viscount Younger of Leckie on 21 January (HL187), what criteria they use to assess what constitutes a “legitimate criticism” of a religion when investigating any incident that has been reported by someone who has perceived it to “be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s religion or perceived religion”; and what steps they take to ensure freedom of expression is upheld.
Answered by Viscount Younger of Leckie - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
Once a hate crime has been reported it is for the police to investigate whether a hate crime has been committed, in line with the relevant legislation, and to refer cases to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there should be a charge.
In order for a crime to be charged and prosecuted as a hate crime, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) uses the legal definitions contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA 1998) and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003).
The CPS assesses each case on its individual facts and circumstances. Prosecutions can only be brought in line with legislation and in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
The CPS legal guidance on hate crime recognises the right to freedom of expression set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The legal guidance makes it clear that it is not only speech which is well-received and popular that is protected but also speech which is potentially offensive, shocking or disturbing. The CPS seeks to balance the right to freedom of speech and expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that criticism of any religion is not regarded as a hate crime.
Answered by Viscount Younger of Leckie - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is important that all have the right to speak freely, and make legitimate criticisms, and that a strong legal framework provides the appropriate space to do so. Equally, hatred or prejudice against an individual because of their religion will not be tolerated.
The Crown Prosecution Service uses definitions agreed with the National Police Chiefs' Council to identify religiously motivated incidents/crimes: “Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion." This allows space for legitimate criticism.
Under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which covers the offences of stirring up religious hatred, there is a freedom of expression defence contained in Section 29J, which confirms that nothing in the Act "... prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult, or abuse of particular religions, or the beliefs or practices of its adherents."
The Government will continue to protect people’s legitimate rights and freedoms whilst also remaining committed to tackling hate crime.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assurances they (1) sought, and (2) received, from Advent International in regard to the acquisition of Cobham plc, that Cobham plc would not be stripped of its assets.
Answered by Lord Duncan of Springbank
On 20 December, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced that she had accepted statutory undertakings from the parties involved in the proposed acquisition of Cobham by Advent International. These undertakings:
Separately, the companies also provided legally-binding undertakings on the wider economic implications of the transaction. The companies have agreed with the Takeover Panel that Cobham’s headquarters will remain in the UK, that the Cobham name will continue to be used and that there will be a guaranteed level of R&D spend. Advent also gave a commitment to the Business Secretary to protect jobs.
These undertakings will secure the future of Cobham and the important role it plays in our world-leading defence sector and economy.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the prevalence of tracker and similar funds lending the shares of beneficial owners for shorting; what regulations are in place to ensure that such funds make share owners sufficiently aware that shares may be lent in this way; whether such funds must seek the permission of beneficial owners before lending their shares for such purposes; and if not, why not.
Answered by Earl of Courtown - Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The FCA seeks to ensure that regulated firms provide adequate levels of disclosure to investors that invest in financial products, as well as the orderly functioning of these types of investment products.
As part of this, the FCA sets requirements for managers of authorised funds carrying out stock lending, including obligations that they make clear in the fund’s prospectus (the document provided to those considering investing in a fund) if the stocks in the fund they invest in may be lent on to others. However, the FCA does not require fund managers to then seek the permission of fund investors before lending their stock in each individual case. Under FCA rules, managers of authorised funds can only lend the stocks in these funds for the account of and for the benefit of the fund and in the interests of unitholders. The manager must be satisfied that any stock lending is appropriate for generating additional income for the fund at an acceptable degree of risk.
More broadly, the FCA is responsible for enforcing the Short Selling Regulation (SSR), which regulates short selling practices while safeguarding companies and the financial system. It imposes a disclosure regime on those who have reportable net short positions to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and to the public and provides the FCA with powers to suspend short selling or limit transactions when there are significant reductions in the price of certain instruments from the previous day’s closing price. Additionally, the Treasury and FCA both have powers under the Regulation to address adverse events that pose a serious threat to market confidence or financial stability.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the number of beneficial owners with shares invested in tracker and similar funds that are not fully cognisant that their shares are being lent for shorting; and what steps they intend to take in response to any such estimate.
Answered by Earl of Courtown - Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords)
The FCA seeks to ensure that regulated firms provide adequate levels of disclosure to investors that invest in financial products, as well as the orderly functioning of these types of investment products.
As part of this, the FCA sets requirements for managers of authorised funds carrying out stock lending, including obligations that they make clear in the fund’s prospectus (the document provided to those considering investing in a fund) if the stocks in the fund they invest in may be lent on to others. However, the FCA does not require fund managers to then seek the permission of fund investors before lending their stock in each individual case. Under FCA rules, managers of authorised funds can only lend the stocks in these funds for the account of and for the benefit of the fund and in the interests of unitholders. The manager must be satisfied that any stock lending is appropriate for generating additional income for the fund at an acceptable degree of risk.
More broadly, the FCA is responsible for enforcing the Short Selling Regulation (SSR), which regulates short selling practices while safeguarding companies and the financial system. It imposes a disclosure regime on those who have reportable net short positions to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and to the public and provides the FCA with powers to suspend short selling or limit transactions when there are significant reductions in the price of certain instruments from the previous day’s closing price. Additionally, the Treasury and FCA both have powers under the Regulation to address adverse events that pose a serious threat to market confidence or financial stability.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Young of Cookham on 8 July (HL16623), whether the requirement for business to “take a proportionate approach” and create “their own policies based on their assessment of risk” means that customer due diligence checks by businesses and banks for existing customers who have not given any cause for concern are optional.
Answered by Lord Young of Cookham
The Money Laundering Regulations 2017 are clear that all relevant persons (such as banks) must apply customer due diligence (CDD) measures if the person establishes a business relationship (regulation 27). Whilst CDD measures include conducting ongoing monitoring of a business relationship, as outlined in my previous answer, the extent of the measures taken must reflect the risk assessment carried out by the relevant person under regulation 18(1) and its assessment of the level of risk arising in any particular case. Therefore, if a customer is deemed low risk, the extent of ongoing CDD measures would be tailored to that risk assessment and minimum monitoring would be expected.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Young of Cookham on 18 June (HL16068), what guidance they provide, if any, to banks and other businesses about ensuring that routine anti-money laundering checks do not cause stress to customers, particularly when those banks or businesses have not been made aware of any change to the circumstances of and have no concerns as to the identity of an existing customer as set out in regulation 27(8) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/692), and when those organisations may not be required to conduct such checks.
Answered by Lord Young of Cookham
HM Treasury is responsible for the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, which set out the high-level requirements on regulated businesses to combat money laundering. These Regulations are not prescriptive in setting out how customer due diligence (CDD) checks must be carried out, and instead require businesses to take a proportionate approach. Each business will therefore have their own policies based on their assessment of risks.
Specific guidance for banks on applying customer due diligence measures and ongoing monitoring of customers is included in guidance published by the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group. This guidance is approved by HM Treasury, and it highlights that a firm must apply CDD measures at appropriate times to its existing customers on a risk-sensitive basis.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether all existing banking customers must provide proof of identification to banks to check for possible money laundering; if so, under which regulations this policy was brought in; whether an impact assessment was carried out on the costs to customers, particularly those in rural areas, of any such requirements; and what estimate they have made of the total cost of any such policy.
Answered by Lord Young of Cookham
The Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (‘the Regulations’) do not require banks to carry out customer due diligence – including identity checks—on all existing customers. The Regulations instead require banks to take a proportionate approach to applying customer due diligence checks commensurate with the risk of money laundering. The legal requirements on banks to carry out customer diligence for existing customers are set out in Regulations 27(8)(9) and 29(7). The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group’s guidance provides further detail on applying these requirements.
The impact assessment for the transposition of the 4th EU Money Laundering Directive (which led to the most recent revision of the regulations) estimates the total cost of the changes made, while concluding that industry has difficulty in identifying costs caused by the money laundering regulations. This is particularly the case for customer due diligence as many of these are costs that a prudent business would take on in any case as a matter of commercial practice, to comply with UN or EU sanctions, or to protect themselves and their customers from fraud. The full impact assessment is available on gov.uk.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Education:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the government of Western Australia’s policy to exempt parents from a criminal records check when volunteering in certain cases to support and participate in their child’s education; and whether they intend to introduce a similar policy in the UK in view of the decline in overall voluntary activity.
Answered by Lord Agnew of Oulton
It is paramount that children are protected at school and there is robust safeguarding in place. The department’s statutory safeguarding guidance ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’, attached, makes clear that any volunteer should not be deployed to work unsupervised with children without appropriate checks. There are no plans currently to change these arrangements.
Many parents play an important role by volunteering to support children in our schools. Unlike in Australia, there is no legal requirement for schools to carry out Disclosure and Barring Service criminal record checks on volunteers, therefore it is unnecessary to consider an exemption for parents from these checks.