Oral Answers to Questions
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
British-Polish relations are excellent and go from strength to strength. We enjoy a strategic partnership that is broad and diverse. The most recent milestone in the relationship was the second UK-Poland civil society Belvedere forum. May I say, Mr Speaker, that we remember with deep respect the Polish citizen who died in Harlow after a violent attack in 2016?
Robert Halfon
Will my right hon. Friend recognise the suffering of the Poles from Nazism and communism; their efforts, through the extraordinary Warsaw Jewish museums, to build relations with the Jewish community; and their prompt action in expelling Russian diplomats? Will he do everything possible to build relations between Britain and Poland and encourage our education system to recognise the Polish contribution to the United Kingdom?
Sir Alan Duncan
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend. We all have the utmost respect for the significant contribution that the 1 million Poles living in the UK make to our society. He has been very supportive of his own local Polish community and his constituents fully recognise that. May I say on this occasion that we would like to thank the Polish Government for their full and vocal support for the United Kingdom following the attack in Salisbury?
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Women’s rights are human rights and they include reproductive rights. Poland already has some of the most draconian abortion laws in Europe, with illegal and potentially unsafe abortions estimated to be in the tens of thousands each year. This weekend, we saw thousands take to the streets to protest against a further crackdown. What representations have Ministers made to their Polish counterparts about these worrying laws and how are the Government promoting reproductive rights, including access to safe terminations, more widely?
Sir Alan Duncan
I recognise what the hon. Lady says but, obviously, countries across Europe have different laws on abortion. However, where they breach the sort of human rights that she is describing, we will, of course, always make representations when we meet Ministers from other countries.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in recognising the contribution made by the million Poles, particularly those who served with RAF pilots and mechanics on the Spitfire in Birmingham? Will he apologise to the community for treating the rights of EU citizens in the UK as bargaining chips during the negotiations on our exit from the European Union?
Sir Alan Duncan
It is with deep regret that I must say to the hon. Gentleman that he belittles the respect that we have for the Polish community. I have a significant Polish community in my own constituency, in Melton Mowbray, and their contribution during the war remains deeply recognised and appreciated.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
Fisheries licensing is generally a matter for the Governments of the individual territories; only in the specific case of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands does the Secretary of State give advice on licensing in respect of foreign policy. In the last round, three of the six licences were given to overseas territories.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the case of Professor Clara Ponsatí, whom the Spanish authorities want to extradite. Does he agree with the principal of the University of St Andrews, who has said that
“there are legitimate arguments that Clara is being targeted for standing up for her political beliefs”?
Sir Alan Duncan
The issuing of a European arrest warrant is a matter for proper judicial process, not for political interference.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What does the strength of the Russian reaction say about the influence of the British Council?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Last month I was part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Albania, where Ministers emphasised how important the security links are between our two countries. That was further re-enforced at a follow-up meeting with the ambassador. What plans do the Government have to further links with Albania?
Sir Alan Duncan
We work very closely with Albania, particularly on organised crime, and all the more so as we approach the very important western Balkan summit, which we will host here in July this year.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Now the Prime Minister has put some backbone into the Foreign Office, is it not about time that we took some action against the Ecuadorian embassy? How long are we prepared to allow this situation to go on, where, as the Minister of State said in previous questions, a man is avoiding lawful arrest?
Sir Alan Duncan
It is of great regret that Julian Assange remains in the Ecuador embassy. It is of deeper regret that even last night he was tweeting against Her Majesty’s Government for their conduct in replying to the attack in Salisbury. It is about time that this miserable little worm walked out of the embassy and gave himself up to British justice.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
There are growing international concerns about Germany’s intentions to build an undersea gas pipeline directly to Russia. Does the Secretary of State share those concerns, because this will put at risk the energy security of our key NATO allies in central and eastern Europe?
Sir Alan Duncan
I recently met the head of Naftogaz, the main energy company in Ukraine, and we are fully aware of the issue my hon. Friend raises. We will look at the issue of Nord Stream 2 and the pipeline in the light of what has happened in Salisbury.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Turkey’s actions in Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone do not create the right climate for reunification negotiations to recommence. Will the Minister join me in condemning Turkey’s actions and call on it to withdraw its warships from Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone, where they have been since 9 February?
Sir Alan Duncan
We fully recognise the rights within the economic zone, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and fully support the right to drill for oil.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Last night, I and many colleagues across the House attended a huge demonstration to say “enough is enough” to anti-Semitism. What more can my right hon. Friend’s Department do to strongly send out the message to the Jewish community around the world that Britain is determined to stamp out this ancient hatred?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Our silence over—indeed, our tacit support for—the wholly unacceptable and Franco-esque crackdown on democracy and human rights in Catalonia by the Spanish state is shameful and indeed makes us complicit. Will the Minister please rethink, speak to his Spanish counterparts and urge them to draw back from their counterproductive actions?
Sir Alan Duncan
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of what is happening in Catalonia. We fully support the Spanish Government in upholding the proper workings of the Spanish constitution.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the matter of refugees and the global refugee crisis be on the agenda for next month’s Commonwealth meeting?
Foreign Affairs Council
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 19 March. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting will be held in Brussels.
Prior to the FAC there will be an informal meeting, over breakfast, with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister. The Foreign Secretary will brief EU Ministers on developments in our response to the incident in Salisbury. The FAC will then discuss Ukraine, Syria and Iran. There will also be a lunch with the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea to discuss recent events.
Foreign Affairs Council
Ukraine
Ministers will have a substantive discussion on Ukraine. This will address the twin strategic challenges facing Ukraine: its crucial reform agenda and ongoing Russian aggression, including in Crimea. The UK remains fully engaged in Ukraine, and will focus on continuing our support to Ukraine in tackling these fundamental challenges.
Syria
Ministers will be joined by UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura to discuss Syria, including implementation of UN Security Council resolution 2401 and support for the UN-led Geneva talks. Ministers will also discuss preparations for the second Brussels conference, which will take place on 24-25 April and will focus on humanitarian support and bolstering the UN-led political process in Geneva.
Iran
Ministers will discuss shared concerns around Iran’s destabilising regional activity and the EU’s role in responding to this.
[HCWS553]
Labour Reforms: Qatar
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for securing today’s debate. On behalf of the entire House, I wish the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) a very happy birthday. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East is currently elsewhere on ministerial duties, so it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government.
Working conditions in other countries obviously matter to us—not just for their own sake, but to give British workers employed in other countries confidence that they will be properly protected. The tragic death of Zachary Cox in Qatar last year has once again focused public attention on the working conditions there, particularly in the construction industry. May I, as I am sure we all do, extend sincere condolences once again to his family?
I would like to set out what the main concerns about labour conditions in Qatar have been, what steps the Qatari Government have been taking to address them, and what the UK Government have been doing to support reforms there. Public attention, as has been mentioned, was drawn to the working conditions in Qatar, and particularly the conditions endured by the mainly migrant workforce on construction sites, when Qatar won the competition to host the 2022 football World cup just over seven years ago. It would be wise of me to say nothing about my own enthusiasm for football or, if I were to be honest, lack of it.
In 2014, the International Labour Organisation raised a complaint against Qatar concerning the non-observance of the forced labour convention. As we have heard today, the ILO had particular concerns about the kafala, an Arabic term meaning, essentially, “sponsorship system”. The kafala gives responsibility for migrant workers’ visas and legal status to their sponsors in many Gulf countries. The practice has been widely criticised by human rights organisations because of concerns that it could leave workers open to exploitation. We believe that there are clear examples where that has definitely been the case. There have been reports that more than one million migrant workers in Qatar might be subject to kafala.
Following the ILO complaint, the Qatari Ministry of Labour committed to a number of reforms, including introducing laws to end the kafala. The Ministry also undertook to take other steps that go beyond the minimum required to address the ILO’s concerns. As well as changes to legislation to address the kafala system, the Ministry has made a number of specific commitments, which include addressing three main concerns. First, it has committed to improve health screening and access to healthcare for migrant workers. Secondly, it has committed to introduce a minimum wage. Thirdly, it has committed to establish a fund to help workers with their salaries in the event that an employer goes bankrupt.
In addition to those commitments, the Qataris have reformed the process for migrant workers leaving the country, and introduced an electronic wage payment scheme. They have also built new accommodation for the foreign labour force, and increased their health and safety inspection capability. Qatar has also introduced legislation to offer legal protection to domestic workers, and has made efforts to improve recruitment practices in workers’ countries of origin. That means that employers should in future hire only through independently monitored and licensed recruiting agents, and the Ministry of Labour must approve all contracts. That will help to avoid problems with the misrepresentation of contracts and salaries, and to end the high recruitment fees being charged by unscrupulous agents, as has happened previously.
Qatar has taken other practical steps to improve the situation for migrant workers. The supreme committee for delivery and legacy for the World cup has been working with a number of international companies and agencies to carry out regular audits and inspections of construction sites. It signed a memorandum of understanding with the Building and Wood Workers’ International union—the BWI—18 months ago, and has been conducting joint worksite inspections with the BWI, to assess standards for construction workers involved in all World cup projects. The committee is also inspecting the accommodation provided for the workers, to ensure that it is fit for them to live in.
The supreme committee and the BWI published their first report in January, which set out a number of observations and recommendations to improve safety standards further. Those recommendations include sharing health records between accommodation and work sites, improving standards in kitchen areas, and trying to prevent workplace injuries. It is clearly vital that all those recommendations are implemented as soon as possible, not least because the number of workers on World cup and associated infrastructure construction projects is likely to reach its peak of almost 2 million later this year.
Jim Shannon
The programme that was on TV the other morning referred to Qatar’s having one of the highest levels of income per head in the whole of the Arab world. There really should not be any financial reasons for not doing all the work that the Minister has pointed out. Does he agree that, given the finance that they have available, they should just get the job done?
Sir Alan Duncan
As we are discussing today, we want to see high standards, fair pay, and all the guarantees around those two structures, to ensure that people are not exploited and cheated, which appears to have been the case on a number of occasions in the past.
Qatar’s efforts to improve the situation for its migrant workforce have recently been welcomed by the ILO, Human Rights Watch and the International Trade Union Confederation. In fact, in November the ILO decided to close its complaint, in recognition of the progress being made by Qatar to address its concerns. Last October, Qatar and the ILO signed a technical co-operation agreement, which aims to bring Qatar’s labour laws in line with international standards. The agreement will last three years. During that time, an ILO office based in Doha will provide support and monitor progress on reforming labour rights and ending forced labour. That will include further work to improve the working and living conditions for construction workers, ensuring that workers have a voice through an improved grievance system, and tackling issues in recruitment. ILO staff are already working in Qatar ahead of the formal opening of the office in April.
The UK Government are committed to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, so we welcome the commitments and efforts being made by Qatar. Modern slavery is a particular priority for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and she has discussed the issue in detail with His Highness the Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.
The Qataris have shown a willingness to improve workers’ human rights. Last September, Qatar endorsed the Prime Minister’s call to action at the UN General Assembly to end modern slavery. The UK’s close bilateral relationship with Qatar has allowed us not only to raise concerns about working conditions and human rights, but to offer our assistance and expertise. The UK’s recent experience of hosting the Olympics, the Commonwealth games and the rugby world cup means that we have the expertise to help Qatar stage a safe and successful World cup in 2022. That includes improving health and safety on construction sites, as well as designing world-class stadiums and providing British expertise to keep the stadiums cool. We will continue to work with Qatar on labour reform and other issues, such as supporting its 2030 national vision—its ambitious vision to transform and diversify its economy away from the hydrocarbons sector.
Later this month, the Minister for the Middle East will travel to Qatar for talks on strengthening our relationship and to discuss what more we can do to help implement the national vision. At the same time, our embassy in Doha will continue to urge the British business community in Qatar, as well as its contractors and subcontractors, to adhere to the toughest health and safety standards. Our embassy staff have seen at first hand the positive steps that have been taken by Qatar over the past year to improve construction safety standards as well as the wider situation for migrant workers in the country. We will continue to encourage those measures and to follow the significant progress made by the Qatari authorities.
Although a number of challenges remain, we are encouraged by Qatar’s clear commitment to improving the labour conditions of migrant workers. For our part, the UK firmly believes that prosperity and respect for human rights should go hand in hand. We welcome Qatar’s willingness to introduce reforms that will bring their laws into line with international standards. We will continue to work with Qatar to support progress and reform, to give all workers in Qatar confidence to know that their safety, their wellbeing, and their rights will be properly protected.
Alex Norris
I am still a relatively new Member and this is my first hour-long Westminster Hall debate. A few minutes ago, I had the moment that new Members often have, when I realised I would get the chance, and the obligation, to sum up. Happily, I keep good notes and I am light on my feet, so I suspect I will be able to do so briefly.
My previous two debates were on advice services in Nottingham and voter registration in Nottingham North. They were much more solo ventures than today’s debate, and it has been lovely to have some company. I was slightly thrown because I was expecting the Minister for the Middle East, but I was very excited to see the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) in his place as Minister, because he and I have spent quite a bit of time in the last few weeks on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill Committee. This gives me another chance to remind him of our enthusiasm for the passing of a Magnitsky-type amendment to that Bill on Report.
Sir Alan Duncan
I would draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the commitment made by the Prime Minister in a statement today to table such an amendment, and assure the House that I am working very closely with his party in the hope that we can have a cross-party agreement on that that will give a strong voice from the United Kingdom, particularly given the background of Salisbury.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I call Alex Norris, on the subject of the debate.
Foreign Affairs Council
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 26 February. The Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting was held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
Current Affairs
Ministers called for urgent implementation of UN Security Council resolution 2401 of 24 February which demanded a cessation of hostilities in Syria to enable delivery of humanitarian assistance. They agreed that the High Representative would send a letter to the Foreign Ministers of Russia, Turkey and Iran—the three guarantors of the Astana Process—to ask them to work on implementation of the resolution.
Moldova
Ministers discussed the Republic of Moldova and adopted conclusions. Ministers reiterated the EU’s commitment to strengthening bilateral relations while underlining the need to continue adopting and implementing key reforms for the benefit of Moldovan citizens.
Venezuela
Ministers exchanged views on the political stalemate in the country following the suspension of the Santo Domingo talks between the Government and the opposition and the announcement of presidential elections scheduled for 22 April.
Ministers expressed their solidarity with Spain, following the decision by the Venezuelan authorities to declare the ambassador of Spain in Caracas persona non grata and agreed to continue closely monitoring the situation and to keep channels of communication open, both with the opposition and with the Government.
Middle east peace process
Ministers discussed recent developments in the middle east peace process in preparation for the lunch with representatives of the League of Arab States.
Informal lunch
Over lunch with the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States (LAS) and members of the LAS ministerial delegation on Jerusalem, Ministers discussed options for reviving the middle east peace process in an inclusive manner, with the objective of achieving a two-state solution and Jerusalem as the future capital of both states. Ministers also discussed the importance of increasing collective, international support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
Ministers agreed a number of measures without discussion:
The Council adopted conclusions on Burma;
The Council adopted conclusions on Cambodia;
The Council adopted conclusions on the Maldives;
The Council adopted conclusions on climate diplomacy;
The Council adopted conclusions on EU priorities at United Nations human rights fora in 2018;
The Council adopted conclusions on human trafficking in south/south-east Asia;
The Council increased the restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;
The Council added the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Information of the Government of Syria to the list of those targeted by EU restrictive measures;
The Council adopted legal texts imposing restrictive measures on one person for his activities in support of Daesh;
The Council adopted the common military list of the EU;
The Council adopted a decision on the continuation of EU funding for the activities of the European network of independent non-proliferation and disarmament think tanks;
The Council approved an extension for the implementation of EU strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
The Council adopted a decision on continuing to provide assistance to the provisional technical secretariat of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty organisation;
The Council agreed the annotated agenda for the first meeting of the EU-Cuba Joint Council;
The Council decided not to oppose the adoption of five Commission food regulations (Health)
[HCWS539]
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
States parties to the biological and toxin weapons convention (BTWC) held their annual meeting 4 to 8 December 2017. This was the first such meeting since the convention’s eighth review conference in November 2016, on which I made a statement to the House on 10 January 2017, Official Report, Vol. 634, column 8WS [HCWS400].
The convention is one of the foundation stones of the international disarmament and arms control system. The UK, one of the convention’s three depositary Governments, is strongly committed to its effective and universal implementation as an essential instrument in helping combat and mitigate the threats posed by biological warfare. Our objectives are to enable the convention to remain relevant in addressing the evolving threats of biological or toxin weapons being developed or used, and to keep pace with the rapid and diverse advances in many fields of science and technology.
At December’s meeting of states parties, we sought to agree a substantive new programme of work to advance our objectives, through a series of expert technical meetings leading up to the next review conference in 2021. The UK, with the US and Russia, the two other depositary Governments for the convention, worked with many other states throughout 2017 to build consensus around common elements of such a substantive new work programme.
I am pleased to inform the House that this hard work is paying dividends. States parties joined consensus to agree a new programme of expert meetings each year from 2018 up to and including 2020. The meetings will discuss issues such as the preparedness and response to any potential use of biological and toxin weapons, and developments in science and technology. The agreed programme will discuss and promote common understanding and effective action on these issues, aiming to strengthen the implementation of the convention as a whole to respond to evolving challenges. Importantly, future annual meetings of states parties have authority to respond to these expert discussions, including by taking necessary budgetary and financial measures by consensus with a view to ensuring the proper implementation of the work programme.
This outcome was the product of determined diplomacy over a number of years. The achievement is all the more notable after the disappointing result of the 2016 review conference, and a cycle of relatively unproductive meetings which had lowered expectations of progress on a more ambitious work plan.
The UK will continue to work hard to support further tangible progress towards universal and effective national implementation of the convention, and to enable it to maintain its relevance and vital role as a keystone agreement in the broader international disarmament and non-proliferation architecture.
[HCWS515]
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
As the hon. Lady says, clause 44 fulfils a Government commitment made at an earlier stage of the Bill in response to a call for clarity on our intentions for the delivery of a separate anti-corruption policy. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon committed us to reporting on progress made on our policy to create a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own or buy property in the UK or that participate in UK Government procurement. We are committed to the register being operational in 2021.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament three reports on the progress made towards putting the register in place, each of which will be due after the expiry of a 12-month reporting period. The first and second reports must set out
“the steps that are to be taken in the next reporting period towards putting the register in place, and…an assessment of when the register will be put in place.”
The third
“must include a statement setting out what further steps, if any, are to be taken towards putting the register in place.”
The obligation to report to the House on progress reinforces the commitments on our timetable that the Government have given elsewhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Crown application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
Clause 45 allows sanctions regulations under clause 1 and regulations under clause 43 to make provision binding the Crown, but not to make the Crown criminally liable. It also stipulates:
“Nothing in this Act affects Her Majesty in Her private capacity”.
Both are common provisions in law. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Regulations: general
Helen Goodman
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 47, page 34, line 33, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would remove paragraph 2(a) from Clause 47, which enables the appropriate Minister to amend, repeal or revoke enactments for regulations under section 1 or 43.
We return to the vexed issue of Henry VIII powers and the Government over-reaching themselves once again. I want to recount for the Committee what happened on this matter in the Lords. Lord Judge moved an amendment to leave out paragraph (a), because he was concerned that it was a Henry VIII provision. Our amendment covers the same issue. Lord Judge said that
“with Clause 44, there is no primary legislation at all...It just says, ‘Let’s give the Minister regulation-making powers for this, that and the other’...This is all being done on the basis of an unknown law, because the Minister has not yet brought the regulations into existence.”
One might say that clauses 47 and 48 are pure Henry VIII powers. They give Ministers the power to change this piece of legislation and other pieces of legislation in perpetuity before the regulations under the clauses have been made. This is perhaps slightly more difficult to understand than the problems with making new criminal offences by regulations, but it is wholly objectionable.
Lord Judge continued:
“In advance of the law being made by regulation, we are giving the Minister power to amend the regulations and to do away with statute. This is in a world where, as we discussed earlier, we already have the Terrorism Act, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, the Terrorism Asset-Freezing etc Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act…all of which bear on this Act, and all of which will be susceptible to amendment repeal at the Minister’s behest…the secondary will override the primary; and the Minister is in effect going to replace Parliament”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 718.]
It was not just the Cross-Bench peers who expressed concern about this. Viscount Hailsham, another Lord with a great deal of legal experience, also argued against it. He said:
“It could be used in amending, revoking or repealing existing legislation or to extend classes of offence to which the amended legislation applied. It could be used to increase penalties. It could be used to remove statutory defences. It could be used to amend the definition of criminal intent. Indeed, it could make absolute offences that presently require proof of a specific intent. Because it is an amending power, it could be used to give further powers to the investigating officials or to increase the penalties imposed by the courts.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 719.]
Lord Pannick, as everybody will recall, was the lawyer who ensured that article 50 was brought to Parliament rather than exercised through the royal prerogative, and he is a person with a strong commitment to this House. He argued that this excess of Henry VIII powers could lead to a point where,
“the courts are not prepared to accept them and are showing every sign that they will give them the narrowest possible interpretation because, as a matter of constitutional principle, they are objectionable”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 721.]
The Committee has gone over the argument about the problem with Henry VIII powers before, and we have debated it in the Chamber on the European Union (Withdrawal Bill.) People may begin to find it slightly boring, but we are debating it repeatedly because the Government have stuffed it into the Bill so many times. That is the problem, so we really need to persuade Ministers that it is excessive and we need to demonstrate how much they are going down that path.
Of course Ministers think, “When we write these regulations it will all be absolutely fine, because we are nice chaps. It will all be perfectly okay,” but they need to remember that they might not always be in power. Other Ministers might write regulations, about which the current Ministers might not be quite so enthusiastic. We need to be a lot more cautious. I do not understand why Minsters have structured the Bill in such a way. They should have put into primary legislation the overall structure for making regulations on both sanctions and anti-money laundering. Ministers are in an even weaker position on anti-money laundering than they are on sanctions.
There is a case for saying that individual sanctions must be made swiftly, and therefore having the negative resolution procedure for statutory instruments is common sense. We all understand that. However, I cannot fathom why Ministers have not said to the lawyers, “Can we please structure this so that we have the overall shape of the way these things work and the penalties in primary legislation?”, and Ministers could categorise them. They could say, “We will have a class A, a class B and a class C, and then we will name them quickly,” in the way that we do with drugs when people make new chemical formulae and we have to swiftly designate things. That would have got over the problem.
We started with clause 1(1), which states that Ministers may make sanctions regulations. Here we are, right at the end of the Bill, and the pattern is still the same. We still have the same problem.
Sir Alan Duncan
Amendment 39 would remove the power to make certain consequential modifications to existing primary and secondary legislation through regulations made under the Bill. Such power is not unusual. It is worth noting that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made no comment on the inclusion of the delegated power in its report on the Bill. I recognise that concerns have been expressed—we have just heard them—about the breadth of the regulation-making powers conferred by the Bill. The consequential power is both appropriate and necessary, and I hope I can provide reassurance on that.
The power can be used only to make consequential provisions. It also enables other provisions that are supplemental, incidental or transitional, or that make savings to the sanctions or money-laundering regulations. It is important to note that it does not confer the power to make any changes to legislation that are independent of the sanctions and money-laundering power. For example, the power can be used to repeal frozen EU legislation saved by the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, so when we use the powers in the Bill to replace a sanctions regime in frozen EU law with one in a statutory instrument, the power will enable the frozen EU law to be repealed even if all that has happened in practice is that the sanctions have been relabelled. Without the power we would be unable to do so without another Act of Parliament. I am sure hon. Members agree that that would not be a good use of parliamentary time and that it would be impractical.
The power simply provides a tool to make changes to ensure that the statute book works as a result of sanctions being imposed or anti-money laundering regulations created. It does not give the Government the ability to change swathes of legislation without regard to the purposes of sanctions and anti-money laundering.
I want to reassure hon. Members that any regulations made that use the power to amend, revoke or repeal any primary legislation would be required to use the draft affirmative procedure. That means both Houses would need to give their consent before the changes would come into effect, and it is fully in line with the standing advice of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the appropriate parliamentary procedure for such powers.
In other words, we know what these laws will be. They will be sanctions and anti-money laundering regimes of the types set out in the Bill and for the purposes listed in it. I hope that I have been clear that this power is appropriately limited to what is necessary, and that on that basis the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Helen Goodman
The Minister said that this power to amend primary legislation through regulations will apply only to sanctions and anti-money laundering; however, he did not and could not say, because it would not be true, that that will mean amendments only to this Bill. That is because sanctions and anti-money laundering offences are already covered by other pieces of legislation on the statute book. This will not be the one Act that says everything anybody ever dared to ask about sanctions and anti-money laundering. This is part of a large carpet, and it has been woven in, I feel, in a most unsatisfactory way. The principle is broken when Ministers take the power to make regulations that may amend primary legislation.
Sir Alan Duncan
May I point out that if there is an amendment to another Bill, it is because those offences would become out of date, and therefore these are consequential?
Sir Alan Duncan
The hon. Lady’s fears are utterly unfounded. I do not think there are any such examples. These are reserved matters, so changes are for this Parliament. The question of overriding the devolution settlement simply does not apply to this clause or to the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Parliamentary procedure for regulations
Helen Goodman
I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 48, page 36, line 1, leave out paragraph (d).
Helen Goodman
The clause relates to parliamentary procedure for regulations. Amendment 40 distinguishes between regulations relating to anti-money laundering and those relating solely to sanctions. As I have said in relation to other amendments and clauses, there is a question of whether it is appropriate, in the case of anti-money laundering measures, to use the swift regulatory approach, which does not give either House the opportunity to make changes to the regulations. Although it is proposed that the affirmative procedure be used at this point in the Bill, that does not give us the opportunity to amend. We feel that the Government have not made their case for going down this path. We think it would be better to use the super-affirmative procedure as a bare minimum. There was cross-party consensus on that in the Lords—it was not complete, obviously, which is why the proposal is still in the Bill.
New clause 7 would enable us to create a new Committee of the House. One of the problems with what the Government are doing in the Bill is that they are reducing the amount of scrutiny of regulations on sanctions. We have discussed that issue before. For UN sanctions, the same process—Delegated Legislation Committees and the negative resolution procedure—will be followed, but at the moment EU sanctions go to the European Scrutiny Committee and there is a scrutiny reserve. We will lose that part of the machinery. With this new clause, we seek not simply to replace but to enhance and strengthen that piece of the machinery.
In the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we agreed that there should be a sifting Committee of the House, which will decide, for any piece of delegated legislation, whether it is appropriate to use the negative procedure or the affirmative procedure. For sanctions, we all agree that we sometimes have to act quickly and use the negative procedure, so the affirmative procedure clearly would not be appropriate.
I am concerned about the use of Delegated Legislation Committees. I am sure that every member of the Committee will agree that they are the lowest form of parliamentary life; they are the weakest form of parliamentary scrutiny. They are pulled together, people often do not turn up to them, people do not read the papers and the papers are not given to the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson more than two days before. Again, there is no possibility of amending the substance of the measures being considered. Because every single Delegated Legislation Committee is a new Committee, no expertise is built up; there is no institutional memory.
One of the things that we kept being told during the referendum campaign was that we were going to take back control and have parliamentary sovereignty. Accepting the amendment would be a way of strengthening Parliament. It would provide a way for Parliament to structure things, to build up some expertise in this important policy area, to learn from experience and to bring the experience of one situation to the next situation.
It would also be sensible, obviously, for the new Committee to be the Committee that looks at the reviews that the Government have agreed to prepare annually for the House under clause 27. I take the Committee back to clause 27, which sets out that annual reviews will be carried out to consider the effectiveness of sanctions.
At the moment, there is not really a Select Committee that has an overarching view of sanctions policy. There is no Select Committee in this House that examines sanctions policy on a regular basis. That is partly because—
Sir Alan Duncan
There is the European Scrutiny Committee, which looks at every single sanction and every piece of legislation coming from the EU. There is a formalised procedure for that sort of thing.
Helen Goodman
First, we are going to lose that Committee under what Ministers are proposing. Secondly, the European Scrutiny Committee is not a Select Committee. Thirdly, that Committee does not look at the UN-based sanctions, which, as the Minister knows, make up half the sanctions we impose.
Sanctions encompass many things: foreign policy objectives, which is why the Minister for Europe and the Americas is leading for the Government on this Bill; financial measures, which is why we have a Treasury Minister on the Committee; trade measures; and travel bans. Because of that, many Departments are involved with sanctions and therefore many Select Committees have an interest in them, but at the moment we do not have a regular review of sanctions policy by everybody.
It might be possible to set up such a scrutiny Committee on a similar basis to the Committees on Arms Export Controls, which have people from a number of different Select Committees bringing their different expertise to a subject. However, I thought that that would be rather too complex and, in any case, it would not be something that one would legislate for in a Bill; it would be a matter for the Standing Orders of the House.
What we would do is to agree that we wanted to improve scrutiny—that is what the whole Brexit thing is all about—and improve the standing and the role of the House. Then, we could consider the detail as to whether we wanted the Committee to be free-standing or a sub-committee of other Committees when we came to amend the Standing Orders of the House.
Both the amendment and the new clause are designed to strengthen Parliament, to strengthen parliamentary sovereignty and to bring back control.
Sir Alan Duncan
Before I speak to the two amendments in this group, perhaps it would be helpful if I restated the Government’s case for the approach we are taking—the parliamentary procedures for secondary legislation under this Bill.
The Government recognise that it is important that Parliament scrutinises the use of sanctions and that this Bill allows for such scrutiny. A set of regulations dealing with UN sanctions regimes will be made under the negative procedure. Once sanctions are agreed at the UN Security Council, the UK has an obligation to implement them under the UN Charter. Not doing so would leave the UK in breach of international law.
A set of regulations that do not deal with UN sanctions regimes will be made under the made affirmative procedure. That will allow regimes to come into force immediately, while still allowing Parliament to debate the regulations. That will negate the risk that, before any restrictions take effect, assets are removed, individuals leave or enter the UK, or arms or other prohibited goods are exported to countries that they should not be. It negates that risk.
Helen Goodman
I do not think the Minister or the officials have understood what the new clause aims to do. It would not change the process or whether the negative, made affirmative or draft affirmative procedure was used for a statutory instrument; it would change the group of people who looked at it, so that we build up some expertise on the matter among parliamentarians across the House.
Sir Alan Duncan
Let me come to the detail of the amendments in a second. I am just outlining the principles behind the Bill and its context.
At present, anti-money laundering regulations are transposed into UK law through the negative procedure in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Under the Bill, the vast majority of anti-money laundering regulations will be made using draft affirmative procedures, so parliamentary scrutiny will be increased in that regard. Both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee accepted in their reports on the Bill that the use of delegated powers for sanctions is appropriate. The DPRRC thought that it is
“appropriate for this mechanism to operate through the exercise of delegated powers”.
The Constitution Committee confirmed that and thought that,
“In practice, a delegated powers model is inevitable, given the practical difficulties that would arise if Parliament had to legislate to create and amend individual sanctions regimes.”
Amendment 40 would delete subsection (5)(d) and so remove the reference to regulations made under clause 43 being made under the draft affirmative procedure, in all but narrowly defined circumstances. The effect of that—which I assume is not hon. Members’ intention—would be to reduce parliamentary scrutiny over future money-laundering regulations after the UK ceases to be a member of the EU.
Money-laundering regulations, most recently those that came into force last year, are typically made through the negative procedure. They do not usually require a debate or vote in this House or the other place before coming into force. To enhance scrutiny after the UK ceases to be a member of the EU, subsection (5)(d) provides that substantive changes to money-laundering regulations made under the Bill will be made through the draft affirmative procedure. That will require all such regulations to be debated and voted on by Parliament before coming into force.
The only exception is when the UK is updating the list of high-risk jurisdictions in connection with which enhanced due diligence measures are required. Changes to the list will be made via the made affirmative procedure, as set out in subsections (2) and (3). Again, that will enhance parliamentary scrutiny. Changes to the list are currently made at EU level. If accepted, the amendment would require most regulations under clause 43 instead to be made under the negative procedure, as is provided for clause 48(6). That would weaken parliamentary scrutiny under the Bill as drafted.
New clause 7 would require secondary legislation introduced under subsection (5) to receive the approval of a new House of Commons Committee before being laid before Parliament. I do not think that is necessary, because the new clause would apply to all regulations made using the draft affirmative procedure. Such regulations will be scrutinised directly by Parliament when they are made, as both Houses would need to give consent before they could come into force, thereby negating the need for a scrutiny Committee to look at any of them first.
Were parliamentarians to object, they could reject the regulations. That would force the Government to lay a new instrument, taking into account any concerns that had been expressed. The EU withdrawal Bill is an exception because of the very large volume of statutory instruments that will need to be passed under it in a very short space of time, ahead of the day the UK leaves the EU. That is why a Committee with such a sifting function is appropriate for the powers in that Bill. The same does not apply to the powers mentioned in the new clause. There will not be nearly as much secondary legislation to pass via the draft affirmative procedure. Given that, and together with the points I made on amendment 40, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Of course, improvements were made to the Bill in the other place in response to criticisms, and some processes were upgraded from the negative procedure in the original draft to the affirmative procedure in the Bill before the Committee. I do not wish to press amendment 40, but we will wish to press new clause 7 to the vote. I shall explain why, even though we are going to vote on it. First, it is for this House to decide on our processes. We would not dream of telling the other House how to run its affairs. What the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee or Constitution Committee in the House of Lords say does not cover procedures in this House. They are our responsibility. The Minister said there would be far fewer statutory instruments under this Bill, but he has given us no estimate. Does he have any sense of the number of statutory instruments that might come forward? Perhaps he will benefit from inspiration before I sit down, so that he can intervene and tell me what he expects.
Sir Alan Duncan
Our estimate of the regimes that will have to be transferred at the moment is in the region of 33.
Helen Goodman
Thirty-three whole regimes is quite a chunky number, is it not? That is not 33 individuals; it is 33 regimes. Of course, I was extremely concerned about the way that the EU withdrawal Bill looked, as were many Members. However, in one respect the problem is greater in this Bill. This is a Bill with permanent powers; the EU withdrawal Bill is one with temporary powers. Therefore, when we come to the right moment, we will wish to put new clause 7 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alison Thewliss
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 48, page 36, line 5,
‘(5A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 1 that repeals, revokes or amends—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales, or
(c) Northern Ireland legislation,
must receive the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, respectively.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to obtain the consent of the devolved administrations before repealing, revoking or amending devolved legislation using a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 1.
As I mentioned before, in this Bill the Government have given themselves the capability—although it is not necessarily their intention—to amend devolved Acts. It is not necessarily that the Government will do that, but we need to be mindful that future Governments may choose to. We cannot foretell exactly what the future will hold. In its response to the consultation on this issue, the Law Society posed the question about whether the Government have consulted the devolved Administrations and for what purpose the measure is in the Bill. Although the Government have given themselves this power, they have not explained the circumstances in which they might need to use it. If they say that nothing in the legislation has to do with the devolved Assemblies, why are they giving themselves the power to revoke devolved Assemblies’ legislation, when they would not have any competence to do so? It does make any sense that they would put something in the Bill if they have no intention or need to use it.
I would also like to know—given that the Government have not explained this either—the circumstances in which they would want to override devolved legislation and why they feel a consent provision such as the one I am suggesting is not appropriate. If the Government believe that devolved legislations have no power in this area anyway and would therefore not be legislating in it, why have they put the capability of amending devolved Acts within the scope of this Bill? Would the Minister also explain why our consent provision would be considered inappropriate? That has not been explained up to this point, or during deliberations in the Lords. I have read some of the background, and Baroness Northover and Baroness Sheehan did not quite understand the need for what the Government propose either, so I would be grateful if they made more information available. It is not clear to me, and, as I mentioned previously, this provision strikes me as a power grab, and an unnecessary one at that.
Sir Alan Duncan
If I can set this out again to the hon. Lady’s satisfaction I hope she will draw a conclusion. Under the UK’s constitutional settlement, matters of foreign policy are reserved to Westminster. This Bill will provide the UK Government with powers to be used in pursuit of the UK’s foreign policy as well as to ensure that our national security is intact and to deal with money laundering. The Bill therefore relates to matters that are accordingly reserved. The devolved Administrations were consulted during the Bill’s preparation, and they have not disagreed with our assessment that the Bill deals with a reserved matter. Amendment 37 would mean that the consent of the relevant devolved Administration was required for any sanctions or anti-money laundering regulations that made a consequential repeal, revocation or amendment to any law created by the devolved Administrations. This would effectively give devolved Administrations veto rights over legislation relating to UK foreign and security policy, or to anti-money laundering policy. That is contrary to the established devolution settlement between Westminster and the devolved legislatures.
With regard to regulations under the Bill, any amendment to laws created by devolved Administrations would only arise as the consequence of the sanctions or money laundering measures under the Bill. Regulations cannot make free-standing changes to devolved legislation. Their primary purposes will always be a reserved matter. Such consequential amendments are entirely consistent with the constitutional settlement, and it would not be consistent with our devolution settlement to give the right of veto to devolved Administrations. Given that the effect of this amendment would be to rewrite the devolution settlement without consulting other devolved Administrations or seeking their consent, I do not agree with it and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Anneliese Dodds
We have had an interesting exchange of views. The Minister, however, did not explain a couple of things that would be helpful for the Committee to understand. He indicated that there was consultation with the devolved Governments, but did not spell out what kind of arrangements he anticipates in future that might fall short of the requested veto but that could constitute consultation. This is important, because we have just been talking about the fact that money-laundering regulations in particular span a range of Government issues, not all of which are reserved. They cut across a number of different powers and it would be helpful to know whether, for example, he anticipates that these matters would be part of the ongoing dialogue between the Westminster Government and the devolved Governments, and whether there is regular exchange of information.
The Committee has discussed SLPs, and there is huge concern about whether there is sufficient action in Westminster on that. Devolved Administrations have raised the issue, and it would be interesting to know whether that was part of a structured dialogue or whether it was something that occurs in an ad hoc way, and how the Minister anticipates that developing in the future.
Sir Alan Duncan
We have continuous discussions with the devolved Assemblies and, of course, with Scottish Members of this House. Once again, I must make it clear that clause 48 is focused entirely on reserved matters, so it does not affect our devolution settlement in any way, whereas the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central most certainly does.
Helen Goodman
Clause 54 defines the territorial extent of the Bill. I did not include an explanatory statement for amendments 41 to 44 because I thought their effect so obvious that it did not need further explanation.
In the sanctions part of the Bill, at the moment, Ministers may, by Order in Council, provide for any of the provisions to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories, whereas the amendment would require an Order in Council to extend the provisions to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and any of the British overseas territories. We are obviously making the distinction that the Minister made earlier between Her Majesty in her personal role and Her Majesty as the Crown, which is the representative of the Executive. We think that it is appropriate to extend the sanctions part of the legislation in this way.
I am sure that Ministers have looked at the draft EU withdrawal document produced by the EU Commission last week, but in case not every member of the Committee has done so, I would like to draw their attention to article 3 on territorial scope:
“1. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or in Union law made applicable by this Agreement, any reference in this Agreement to the United Kingdom or its territory, shall be understood as referring to:
(a) the United Kingdom;
(b) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar and the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus to the extent that Union law was applicable to them before the date of entry into force of this Agreement;
(c) the overseas countries and territories listed in Annex II to the TFEU having special relations with the United Kingdom, where the provisions of this Agreement relate to the special arrangements for the association of the overseas countries and territories with the Union.
2. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or in Union law made applicable by this Agreement, any reference in this Agreement to Member States, or their territory, shall be understood as covering the territories of the Member States to which the Treaties apply as provided in Article 355 TFEU.”
Then there is a footnote to list the overseas countries and territories that have that special relation with the United Kingdom:
“Anguilla, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena and Dependencies, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands and Bermuda.”
This Bill is a Brexit Bill. We are trying to have new provisions that apply to the United Kingdom post-Brexit. It is absolutely clear that when we leave, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar and all the overseas territories will also be affected as set out in that draft agreement. Many things in the Commission’s draft were controversial and were challenged and questioned, but the territorial extent was not one of them. It seems reasonable to enable us to move from a situation where Union law applies in the existing way to the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories, and not to set up a situation where we have great big loopholes.
This raises a question for Ministers. At the moment, European law applies to the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar. There is still a question mark over Ministers’ intentions with respect to the fifth anti-money laundering directive. Although my amendment applies to the sanctions part of the Bill, it raises the question of whether Ministers plan to accept the contents of the fifth anti-money laundering directive. The UK is ahead in some respects, but not in all, and clearly the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories are not ahead. I wish to tease that matter out with this series of amendments.
Sir Alan Duncan
I suppose the overarching point is that Brexit will change the UK’s relationship with the EU; it is not designed to change the UK’s relationship with its overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The starting point is that EU law applies to a certain extent to Crown dependencies and overseas territories, but not entirely. Currently, overseas territories are not bound to apply EU sanctions, but choose to do so to ensure alignment with the UK’s foreign policy.
Let me explain that in more detail. As I said last Tuesday, the UK is responsible for the foreign affairs and security of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. That is the constitutional position. However, another important constitutional point is that our long-standing practice is that we do not generally legislate for these jurisdictions without their consent, except in exceptional circumstances. Sanctions are tools of foreign policy, or are used to protect our national security. We have been clear that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies must follow the UK Government’s foreign policy, including the sanctions that we apply.
Currently, there are two ways in which sanctions are implemented by the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The UK legislates directly for the majority of these jurisdictions, with their consent, through Orders in Council. Other jurisdictions choose to legislate for themselves, but they follow precisely the sanctions implemented in the UK. That model is well established, and respects the rights of the jurisdictions. The Bill is drafted in a way that reflects that reality. It is consistent with the current implementation model for UN and EU sanctions, as well as measures under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010. It allows those jurisdictions that choose to follow UK sanctions through their own legislation to continue to do so. It also allows the UK to legislate directly for certain overseas territories, where they choose.
I do not see the Bill as the right place to change those long-standing constitutional arrangements, nor do I see a compelling case for doing so at all. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to jeopardise the achievements that friendly co-operation with these jurisdictions has already made, nor would they seek to disenfranchise those territories that have chosen to legislate for themselves. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland to withdraw her amendment.
Helen Goodman
The Minister has set out the position in principle; he has not given any examples. Let me put it like this: if they always do what we want them to, why do we not just have an automatic system? What is the value of the divergence? That is the obvious rejoinder, but I feel that perhaps this is not the right way, and the right place, to deal with this matter, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Commencement
Helen Goodman
I asked the Minister about commencement last week and he did not have a clear answer. I hope he has had time over the weekend to think about the issue and can now explain the Government’s plan to us. While it is perfectly acceptable, normal and understandable, when dealing with some real technicality, to rely on officials, commencement is something for which Ministers themselves are responsible—how the Bill’s commencement provisions will interrelate with our withdrawal from the European Union, and whether the intention is to implement the sanctions on 1 April 2019, to wait until 1 January 2020—the projected end of the transition period—or to implement them at some other time.
I am concerned that, in looking at the Bill, thinking about what they wanted to do, and considering how this interrelates with everything else in EU withdrawal, Ministers did not seem to have a clear plan—last week, at any rate. They do not appear to have thought through what they are trying to achieve with these negotiations. It is all very well to say, “It’ll all come out in the wash and we’ll find out in the end,” but that puts us very much in the position of being recipients of whatever the European Union, from on high, prefers to give. I would have thought that Ministers would have an objective, and how they wanted it to happen. We need more clarity from the Minister, not on subsection (1) which covers sections 44 to 56, but on the earlier parts of the Bill. What is his plan?
Sir Alan Duncan
This clause sets out when the Act will commence. It is not part of the negotiations we are currently having with the EU, which are, of course, still a matter of negotiation. I urge the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland to appreciate that what we debating here is the detail of this particular Bill.
Clauses 45 to 49 and 51 to 56 will come into force on the day on which the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. Those clauses make up part 3 of the Bill, dealing with supplementary provisions, definitions and final provisions, with the exception of clause 50 which deals with consequential amendments and repeals. The remaining clauses will come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State, who may allow for clauses to commence on different days. That will enable the Secretary of State to commence the other clauses when required. With that flexibility—which I hope the hon. Lady appreciates— I urge that clause 55 stand part of the Bill.
Helen Goodman
The Minister has not given us a plan; he has not said how he sees this panning out, and he has not even made it clear whether the Secretary of State will implement chapters 1 to 5 on the same day, or on multiple days. I think we need to test the view of the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir Alan Duncan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In view of the debate in the other place I will discuss the new clause in some depth, which I hope will satisfy the Committee. I apologise in advance for speaking at length, but this matter exercised the other place in considerable detail and I feel duty bound to give a proper in-depth explanation.
We debated the offences provisions in the Bill in an earlier sitting, and I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members about returning control to Parliament. We have listened to the concerns raised here and in the other place by Lord Judge and others, and the new clause is intended to address them directly. As I mentioned in a previous sitting of this Committee, we have had meetings with Lord Judge and others, and my officials and I continue to make this offer. We are happy to meet hon. Members to answer their questions about the new clause and previous discussions.
It might be helpful if I remind hon. Members that the new clause proposes nothing new. Offences are regularly provided for in secondary legislation made under the European Communities Act 1972 by the negative procedure. Every current sanctions regime involves offences that are set out in the secondary legislation relating to that regime. None of the maximum penalties that we are providing for in the Bill are new. They reflect maximums provided for in existing secondary legislation relating to sanctions. However, the new clause recognises that concerns were raised in the other place and ensures that Ministers do not use the powers without good reasons, and that Ministers inform Parliament about the use of the powers so that they can be properly held to account.
The new clause will require the appropriate Minister to lay a report in Parliament whenever a sanctions regime includes criminal offences. The report will confirm that Ministers consider there are good reasons to do so and will set out what those reasons are. The clause specifies what elements should be included in the report, and I will address those in more detail in a minute.
I am sure that we all agree, as was the consensus in the other place, that sanctions are crucial to fulfilling our UN obligations and are a useful foreign policy and national security tool. To be effective, they must be enforced robustly, and those who breach sanctions must face the consequences—for example, it seems appropriate that those contributing to North Korean weapons proliferation should face financial penalties and criminal prosecution for their actions. In April 2017, the UK used the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to increase, using secondary legislation, the maximum sentences available for those who breach sanctions. We drafted this Bill with a view to continuing that practice, but were met with resistance in the other place on constitutional grounds. On Report, Lord Judge tabled an amendment that removed criminal offences provisions from the Bill, asking the Government to think again about the appropriate level of parliamentary oversight on criminal offences.
We accept that the powers of the Executive to create criminal offences and regulations should be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and we have carefully considered what we can do here. One option we considered was putting all criminal offences in the Bill, but that is both difficult and impractical, as was recognised by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Setting out the detail of the criminal offences in the Bill solely by reference to the powers under which sanctions regulations will be made would risk producing the wrong results. We would be creating criminal offences about prohibitions and requirements that have not yet been set.
Trying to set out the offences in primary legislation would risk producing offences and penalties that are defective or disproportionate, or both. That would also run counter to the general principle that provisions creating criminal offences should be precisely drafted and clear in their effect, and would not provide the necessary flexibility to respond to fast-moving international events and changing sanctions regimes. For example, we may need a new criminal offence if the UN adopts a new type of sanction to curtail the North Korean regime, which is entirely plausible as the North Korean sanctions regime has gone significantly further than any regime has gone previously, and it is entirely possible that it will continue on that trajectory. It is important that we can implement the sanctions without gaps in our ability to enforce them.
We also considered whether criminal offences relating to breaches of sanctions could be dealt with in their own separate regulations, which could be considered by Parliament in slower time than regulations that contain the sanctions themselves. However, I am sure that Members will appreciate that that is also unworkable because it would mean that, for a period of time, there would be no criminal penalties for breaches of sanctions and people could breach them with impunity.
After much consideration, including meetings with Lord Judge, we proposed that the Government should have to consider whether there were good reasons for creating offences and setting penalties and explain their rationale to Parliament in relation to every offence and penalty in every individual sanctions regime. The new clause and the resultant reports will ensure that the Government must properly consider that there are good reasons for any offences and penalties and justify those decisions in detail to Parliament.
As I said, the new clause indicates what should be included in the report to Parliament: first, the offences and the prohibitions or requirements to which they refer; secondly, the good reasons that the Minister has considered that justify why breaches of those prohibitions or requirements need to be criminal offences; thirdly, the maximum prison terms for any offences created that are punishable by imprisonment; and finally, the good reasons that the Minister considers justify setting the maximum sentences of imprisonment at the level they have been set. That will largely involve replicating the offences and penalties that currently exist in relation to existing sanctions. Where the Minister is using offences and penalties that already exist in law as a precedent, the report must identify the existing offences to Parliament.
Putting offences in secondary legislation is nothing new. The report would give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise offences and regulations to a greater extent than currently. Importantly, it would give Parliament greater opportunity to scrutinise sanctions regimes than it has while we are in the EU. The new clause would hold the Government accountable to Parliament, ensuring that new criminal offences for sanctions can be questioned following the report.
To clarify, and in response to comments from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland on the first day in Committee, the enforcement provisions in the Bill do not create Henry VIII powers. Henry VIII powers would allow the Government to alter primary legislation by statutory instrument. The enforcement provisions in the Bill just enable the Government to provide appropriate criminal penalties in secondary legislation. For example, the North Korea regime statutory instrument may say something to the effect that a person who contravenes any of the prohibitions or requirements and regulations commits an offence.
Helen Goodman
Yes, indeed. Our authorities can ask the BVI registry to check what is going on, which I understand has been quite helpful. However, unlike our register, the BVI registry is not public, which means that our authorities are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions; they need a reason to ask for information. The problem is that they cannot see the full pattern of ownership. That can make it very difficult to work out what is going on, because people involved in money laundering set up extremely complex structures and relationships. In other areas of organised crime, the NCA maps nodal interconnections, which helps it to find criminals, but a secret register makes that impossible.
Another relevant point is which EU list people are on—whether they are on the greylist, or whether they are not on the list, for lacking transparency. The BVI were given more time in order not to be on the greylist.
The situation in the Cayman Islands is similar. We have an exchange of beneficial ownership information—a central register—but it is done in secret. They are on the European Union’s greylist. The Turks and Caicos have a private register. Like the British Virgin Islands, they were given more time by the European Union because they were affected by the hurricanes. Bermuda has a private register and is on the European Union greylist. The legislation is in place for Montserrat, but no register has been set up. Mind you, Montserrat does not have any particular financial expertise, so it does not matter very much.
Sir Alan Duncan
The hon. Lady is trying to paint a picture of the OTs and we all understand what she is trying to do. She said a moment ago that progress in the Crown dependencies and Overseas Territories was “extremely limited”. However, I think it is undeniable—and I would ask her to confirm that she admits this—that progress in these areas is steps ahead of all the other G20 countries, except the UK. Can she put it on the record that she admits that that is the case?
Helen Goodman
I was going to come to that point at the end, because I anticipated that that was an argument. If the Minister will be a little patient, I will stick to the structure of my speech. In the case of Gibraltar, we have exchange of beneficial ownership information. Gibraltar is in a different situation because it is subject to European legislation. In Anguilla, we have exchange of beneficial ownership information. Like the BVI, it was given more time due to the hurricanes.
In the case of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, there is exchange of beneficial ownership information legislation in place, but all three are, unfortunately, on the greylist. This is obviously a matter of regret and it is also extremely damaging to our reputation.
Sir Alan Duncan
It is very important that some of the basic facts are established as either true or false, and I hope the hon. Lady will not object to my pointing out another thing that she has got wrong. She spoke about the greylist. There is no greylist. The EU Council conclusions, which I could explain at length, set out the jurisdictions that have been cleared. She is wrong on the greylist in the way she explained it earlier.
Helen Goodman
I am interested that that is the Minister’s perception, but I think there might be a competing perception.
Sir Alan Duncan
No, no, the hon. Lady cannot allow that to lie on the record. The decision on Bermuda was taken—
Sir Alan Duncan
Bermuda introduced a gay marriage Act that gave no particular rights. When it introduced civil partnerships for everybody, it gave proper pension and equality rights, which was in itself a good step, even though it is not called gay marriage.
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to the Minister for that interpretation. I will come now to the counter-arguments. The first is the one the Minister put to me a few minutes ago, that the overseas territories are ahead of others and we should not focus on them.
The problem with that argument is twofold. First, everybody else will catch up soon: there is the EU anti-money-laundering directive, and other countries across the world are introducing public registers. Secondly, we are responsible for what happens, to some extent, and we can influence it. We can make a change if we want to. I will end by asking why Ministers are not making a change. Furthermore, these secret jurisdictions are the most used: the BVI was by far the most popular tax haven in the Panama papers and Bermuda ranked as number one on Oxfam’s list of worst corporate tax havens. So we are talking not about obscure little operations, but about the centre of this financial secrecy problem.
The next counter-argument is that we should wait until public registers of beneficial ownership become a global standard, and then expect swift change. I will not be able to speak as eloquently as the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) did on Second Reading, but he put the kibosh on that argument very effectively. We do not say about other crime or problems that we are not going to deal with that thief over there until we have caught this one somewhere else. That is not a sensible way to run policy. The fact is that the UK is at the centre of this problem. Post-Brexit we could do so much to regain leadership on anti-corruption.
The third counter-argument is that the overseas territories’ economies are heavily reliant on financial services. There are a number of things to say about that, but first being that, were we to have more tax revenues, we would be able to support the overseas territories better in trying to shift their economies from where they are now to where we would like them to be. Examples of alternatives include tourism and the geothermal resources in Montserrat. There are a number of ways in which we could support a better and more balanced development of their economies.
Another reason is that, in the long run, people want to use financial services in jurisdictions that are trustworthy, have a high reputation and where the rule of law is enforced. The rule of law is one reason why London is such a successful financial services centre. Some of the overseas territories’ activities—for example, the insurance market—are perfectly legitimate and reasonable, and they can get an income from that. Leaders of large businesses are now calling for that, including at HSBC—notorious for its involvement in the Mexico problem.
We then have the argument that trying to intervene in the overseas territories is neo-colonialist. I think that is a problem of missing the wood for the trees, given that it cannot be neo-colonialist to want to ensure that African countries are not ripped off and lose their tax revenues and the value of their assets. That is not neo-colonialist; it is supportive of their development. That is why, for examples, the South Africans were very pleased with the information they got from the Panama papers, and they used it.
The next argument is that public beneficial ownership registers degrade the quality of information available to law enforcement. I am puzzled by that argument, as that does not seem to be the case, given that the more people are scrutinising something, the more likely it is that the quality of information will be improved.
Another argument is that such a policy threatens the privacy and security of people using the secrecy jurisdictions. There are two things to say about that: first, we seem to be extremely worried about the privacy and security of a very small number of rich people, but not at all worried about the massive and violent crimes inflicted on people who are suffering from human trafficking, drugs gangs or other kinds of violence. Even if we say that we need to address that, though, it is adequately addressed in the British regime; and we are suggesting that they run a similar publication regime. An analysis commissioned by the Government found that the UK register would actually save our law enforcement authorities £30 million a year; so I think that that argument is also extremely weak.
When David Cameron was in power we were making progress on this. I do not know what has changed or why this Government seem to be in a different place. Perhaps it is because there are too many people influencing the Government who keep their money in these offshore havens. For example, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) was referred to in the Paradise papers because of a $680,000 payment he received when the BVI-based investment firm he worked for was bought by a Canadian bank. Everybody knows that the hon. Gentleman is extremely rich and his finances are complex, but his stake in Somerset Capital is managed by subsidiaries in the tax havens of the Cayman Islands and Singapore. Or are we seeking to protect the interests of Philip May, who works for an investment management firm—
Sir Alan Duncan
On a point of order, Mr McCabe, I think these ad hominem attacks are highly inappropriate for this stage of the Committee, or indeed any stage in our Parliamentary proceedings.
The Chair
That is not strictly speaking a point of order. Perhaps we can stick with the detail of the new clause, though.
Helen Goodman
I know what the rules of the House are and I wrote to the hon. Member for North East Somerset yesterday, telling him I would be mentioning him in the Committee today. However, the rules and courtesies of the House do not apply to people who are not Members of the House. It is perfectly reasonable to tell the Committee that Philip May works for an investment management firm, Capital Group, which reportedly used offshore-registered funds to make investments in a Bermuda registered company.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Chalk
My overriding concern is that I do not like the drafting because it is inconsistent. Although I am very sympathetic to the Magnitsky principle, for which the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury have powerfully advocated—I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that—this drafting has gone not just a bit awry but quite seriously awry. Creating confusion and inconsistencies between the two key pieces of legislation will mean that lawyers have a field day and that the victims are not be protected. For those reasons, we need to look at this again, get it right and ensure that what ends up on the statute book is truly fit for purpose.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
We genuinely appreciate that this issue is of significant concern to right hon. and hon. Members, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and hon. Members on both sides of the House who spoke on Second Reading made clear. I acknowledge the long-standing and heartfelt commitment to this important cause that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has demonstrated. We do not want to do anything other than take seriously what Members from both sides of the House are arguing.
Let me go into some of the details and suggest how we might proceed. Amendments 1 and 2 relate to including in the Bill gross human rights abuses as a basis on which sanctions may be imposed. As Lord Ahmad made clear in the other place, the list of purposes currently in the Bill ensures we can continue to implement sanctions for the same reasons we do now—for example, in the interests of international peace and security or to further a foreign policy objective of the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on Second Reading last week, we already implement human rights-based sanctions against 10 countries, including Iran, Libya, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Overall, that means that sanctions against more than 200 individuals and entities are in place now, and that approach will continue under the Bill.
Richard Benyon
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and I have gone quite a long way in looking at an alternative definition that would meet the requirements of the Magnitsky standard and that is consistent across our judicial system. Does my right hon. Friend support that direction of travel, and will what he commits to bringing forward on Report satisfy those who have campaigned on the matter for a long time?
Sir Alan Duncan
I can certainly say to my right hon. Friend that we will endeavour to work towards that destination. He will appreciate that in Government, agreement to certain processes requires collective responsibility. I want to see what we can do to head in the direction that he has campaigned for, but we will have to wait until the days leading up to Report to get to the point when I can say so for certain. I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment 1.
Helen Goodman
That was a very interesting exchange. I wish to thank and commend the right hon. Member for Newbury for what he has said and for the thought that he has put into this matter. Obviously, we all want legislation to be good, and we do not wish to create a fest for lawyers. That is not the purpose here. The Government might have done the more reasonable thing and accepted amendments 1 and 2 and said, “By the way, they are not absolutely perfect, so parliamentary counsel will have to dot the i’s and cross the t’s and get the drafting absolutely perfect.” The Minister has not done that. In the spirit of compromise and consensus building, in which the Minister has said consistently that he is interested, I would like to draw a distinction between amendment 1 and amendment 2. Questions about the drafting seem to relate to amendment 2, but everybody who has spoken seems to agree with amendment 1. For that reason, I will press amendment 1 to a vote.
Sir Alan Duncan
In my everlasting search for consensus, may I put this logical argument to the hon. Lady? Those who feel fervently about this issue see the two amendments as part of a package. If we were to take one without the other, it would deny us the opportunity to have a broader debate in the whole House on the entire issue known as the Magnitsky Act. Cutting off one from the other would not necessarily please the campaigners, so it would be advantageous to put this matter to the whole House, should it get that far.
Helen Goodman
Our objective is not to satisfy campaigners in this House, but to get the law right.
Richard Benyon
I am confused by this one. I may be a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I would not want anyone in this Committee to think that I have gone native and that somehow we want everything hushed up. I am entirely in favour of transparency of strategy, because that is the easiest way for Parliament to hold the Government of the day to account. But it seems to me that elements of this amendment would make it unworkable. It would favour the kind of state that we might seek to sanction, by laying bare before the world a strategy that, at times, it is worth while keeping within the corridors of power. I am sure some people will accuse me of being part of some sort of elite or believing in closed government, but it is absolutely not true.
The amendment calls for a memorandum that would show
“clear objectives for the relevant sanctions, including well-defined and realistic demands against which compliance can be judged…a coherent overarching diplomatic strategy”.
That is available, to an extent, and is discussed. It is part of our national security strategy. But to communicate in a way that would be helpful to—the actual words used in this amendment—“targeted countries,” would burden future Governments and that of today in a way that concerns me. I hope we may get some clarification on this, either from my right hon. Friend the Minister or the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
Sir Alan Duncan
I can confidently say that if anyone has a hot water bottle, I am prepared to offer them very good money for it. I have not got quite as many layers on as some others in the Committee. I will respond to the points made about this amendment and in large part concur with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury.
The Bill as drafted already requires a Minister to lay before Parliament a report alongside the introduction of any sanctions regulation. Amendment 14 appears to duplicate that duty, setting out a number of specific factors to be included in such a report. I have some sympathy with the aim of the amendment. Given the potential effects of sanctions, they should only be used where it is appropriate and where the Government have thought through all of the consequences. It is right and proper that the Government can and should be held to account over the use of this power. As I have said, clause 2 already requires the Government to lay a report before Parliament alongside the introduction of any sanctions regulation.
The report would set out why a Minister considered the sanctions regulations to be consistent with the purposes outlined in the Bill, and why they were a reasonable course of action. I assure hon. Members that it will clearly state the objectives of the sanctions, their place within a broader diplomatic and foreign policy strategy and, if appropriate, the conditions under which they might be lifted—for example through the resolution of an armed conflict to which they were designed to apply.
In addition, the Government have committed to publishing an annual review of each of the sanctions regimes, which will be laid before Parliament as set out in clause 27. That report will explain why the sanctions regimes continue to be appropriate and how they meet the objectives set out in the original report.
Sir Alan Duncan
Clause 27. I hope that helps the hon. Lady.
The requirements in the Bill demonstrate that we are committed to being open before Parliament about the objectives of our sanctions regimes. To that extent, I do not disagree with the principle behind the amendment; rather, it is our view that the provisions are already sufficiently covered by clause 2 and the annual report under clause 27.
I want to make it clear that the Government will ensure that we have a coherent diplomatic strategy in place as part of the process by which we consider whether sanctions are appropriate; but to set that out publicly on the introduction of the regime, as would be required under new subsection (3A)(c), which the amendment would add to the clause, would, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has said, risk exposing our hand in sensitive areas and at inopportune times. It could be counterproductive and result, therefore, in less effective sanctions and foreign policy overall.
That is also the case with setting out an exit strategy at the start. Sometimes an exit strategy is clear from the purpose of the regime—for example, as I have said, promoting the resolution of an armed conflict. However, it might be inadvisable to oblige the Government to be so explicit in advance, especially where doing so might prejudice sensitive negotiations or affect our work with international partners.
The same is true for the amendment’s new subsection (3A)(e), which would oblige the Government to take the steps that we are taking with our international partners to promote co-operation on our individual sanctions regimes. As we have said many times, sanctions are most effective when they are implemented multilaterally, and we are committed to working closely with our partners to ensure that sanctions are implemented by the widest possible groupings. Setting that out in Parliament in advance risks undermining those discussions, which, by their nature, are private and sensitive. Therefore, while we respect the intentions behind the amendment, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw it, on the basis of the detailed explanation I have given.
Helen Goodman
I was interested to hear what the Minister said. In the previous debate, on Magnitsky, he prayed in aid of his position paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) of clause 1(2), which were of course tabled by Labour Lords and added to the Bill in the other place. I notice that he has just done the same thing again: he prayed in aid clause 27, which was also added.
I take seriously the points about not being foolhardy in being open. It is a difficult, tricky balance, but in view of the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Newbury and the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir Alan Duncan
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 3, line 2, leave out “(d)” and insert “(h)”.
This amendment expands the reference in Clause 1 to subsection (2) so that it covers paragraphs (e) to (h) of that subsection (as well as paragraphs (a) to (d)).
Sir Alan Duncan
These are straightforward consequential amendments to the Bill. The purposes for which sanctions regulations can be introduced, set out in clause 1(2), were amended in the other place through an amendment tabled by Opposition peers. That amendment added four additional purposes for which sanctions could be imposed, as we have just discussed. They are: promoting the resolution of armed conflicts or the protection of civilians in conflict zones; promoting compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law; contributing to multilateral efforts to prevent the spread and use of weapons and materials of mass destruction; and promoting respect for human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance.
The Government opposed the amendment at the time, on the basis that those areas were all covered by the Bill as it was drafted. However, I reassure hon. Members that we will not seek to overturn the change. Given that, consequential amendments 3, 5 and 6 are necessary to update cross-references to the list of purposes throughout the Bill. They update references to purposes (a) to (d) in three separate places to include the additional purposes (e) to (h) in clause 1(2). I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Sir Alan Duncan
The purpose of the clause, as we have discussed in detail, is to enable the Secretary of State or the Treasury to make sanctions regulations for a number of purposes, such as to comply with international obligations or for other specified reasons, including in the interests of national security or the prevention of terrorism in the UK or elsewhere. Mr Speaker, the clause is in many ways the core of the Bill.
Sir Alan Duncan
Did I say Mr Speaker? I have been so chilled to the marrow, Dame Cheryl, that I am losing my bearings.
Sir Alan Duncan
Dame Cheryl, the clause gives the Government the ability to create sanctions regulations and to ensure that we can do so in order to continue to comply with our international obligations, such as UN Security Council resolutions, after we leave the European Union. Alongside allowing us to meet our international obligations, it will ensure that we can continue to use sanctions to meet our foreign policy and national security goals.
As a result of the amendment in the other place, the clause now specifies a range of other purposes for which sanctions can be imposed, including to promote compliance with international humanitarian law and international human rights law and to promote respect for human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance. That list shows that we can continue to implement sanctions for the purposes for which they are currently used. I reassure colleagues that the UK will also be able to implement measures in the same sectors as currently—financial, migration, trade, aviation and maritime. The clause is the foundation of the legislation, so I ask that it stand part of the Bill.
Helen Goodman
This is the most important clause in the Bill, and it was much improved in the Lords. I am slightly disappointed that we have not been able to make more progress, but it was clear from the debate that the right hon. Member for Newbury felt that he had been given assurances that progress will be made between now and Report. We hope very much that that progress is made. We take the Minister at his word on that, and we will undoubtedly come back and look at these issues on Report. For now, we are completely happy for the clause to stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Periodic review of certain designations
Sir Alan Duncan
I rather sense this will forever be known as the bobble hat amendment.
Sir Alan Duncan
I certainly am.
Reviews are crucial to maintaining effective sanctions regimes, and sanctions should not remain in place where there is no longer a reason for them to do so. Clause 21 requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive re-examination of each designation decision at least every three years. That is one of a number of safeguards that the Bill provides for designated persons. The amendments would oblige the Government to re-examine each designation annually.
I agree completely that sanctions designations need to be based on solid, legally robust evidence. The UK has pushed hard for that in the EU—that is widely recognised, including, for example, in the House of Lords European Union Committee’s recent report, “The legality of EU sanctions”—and we are committed to maintaining those high standards. I recognise that the EU generally reviews its sanctions regimes annually. However, as noted during the passage of the Bill in the other place, EU reviews are relatively light touch. Designated persons are invited by the Council to present new information, and member states are able to make observations, but they are under no obligation to engage. In contrast, the triennial review envisaged in the Bill would be a comprehensive re-examination of each and every designation.
The Bill as drafted includes a robust package of procedural safeguards, including a number of amendments introduced in the other place. The combined package would provide a higher level of protection for designated persons—at least as strong as current EU standards, if not better. The Government would review all sanctions regulations annually and present the results in a written report to Parliament. If the report concluded that there were no longer good reasons for maintaining a UK sanctions regime, we would lift it. Any changes made to the equivalent sanctions regimes of the EU or other international partners would be examined closely as part of the annual review.
Alongside this annual review of the regulations, the Bill requires the Government to put in place a dynamic process to reassess designations on request. The triennial review is not the only opportunity; a designated person can request a reassessment of their designation at any time, and can request a further reassessment where a significant matter has not previously been considered by the Minister. I take the point that a designated person who has requested a reassessment, challenged it in court and failed to establish any unlawfulness will not have a further review until a significant new matter arises or until the triennial review. However, there will be no need for a further review if the lawfulness of the designation has been established and nothing has changed since. If there are new arguments to be tested or if the passage of time has changed the situation, a further reassessment can be requested. If not, there will be no need for one.
Ministers can instigate a reassessment at any time—for example, if the person concerned has been delisted by the EU. They will have every interest in initiating reassessments proactively, both in the interests of justice and to minimise the risk and cost of legal challenges— a compelling argument in many a ministerial decision. In any case, if the EU decided to revoke the designation of a person also designated in the UK, I would certainly want to reassess the corresponding UK designation.
The provisions will ensure that UK sanctions are under constant scrutiny and that the Government are obliged to respond swiftly to new information and challenges. The triennial review will provide a further backstop to ensure that each and every determination is considered afresh on a regular, predetermined cycle. This aligns with current practice in Australia and will put us ahead of countries such as the US and Canada, which have no such process at all. It will not prevent more frequent reviews; indeed, we have mechanisms in place that oblige us to carry out more frequent reviews where appropriate.
Requiring the Government to conduct such reviews every year would be extremely resource-intensive and—given the finite Government resources dedicated to sanctions—would take resources away from other important areas. It could also make litigation more complex.
Sir Alan Duncan
I am on my last three words, but yes. The hon. Lady has got in under the wire.
Alison Thewliss
I did not realise that the Minister had reached his last three words. He mentions resources and cost implications. Can he give us more specific detail?
Sir Alan Duncan
If something has to happen three times as frequently, it will take up a lot more resource.
I hope that the arguments I have put to the Committee have convinced the hon. Lady that the compulsion to have a review every year is superfluous, given all the other layers and safeguards that exist in the Bill.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
If the Minister cannot tell us what the triple cost is, can he tell us what this costs at the moment?
Sir Alan Duncan
We do things as part of the EU, so it is not possible to segregate the cost in the way the hon. Lady asks. What we are doing is setting up an autonomous regime instead of being part of a collective regime.
I hope that the arguments that I have put to the Committee have persuaded the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland to withdraw her amendment.
Helen Goodman
I think the Minister has noticed some scepticism towards the points he made. We will press the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sir Alan Duncan
Reviews are crucial to maintaining effective sanctions regimes. Sanctions should not remain in place where there is no longer a reason for them to do so. This clause ensures best practice by requiring a comprehensive re-examination of every sanctions designation at least once every three years. The process will ensure that all sanctions designations are based on up-to-date information and that any that are not are revoked. There is nothing preventing a Minister from instigating a reassessment at any time, for example if new evidence comes to light. An individual is also able to challenge their designation, requiring a reassessment by the Minister—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Could the Whips have conversations outside the Committee room on this matter, please? I am trying to give them a break; it is warmer out there.
Sir Alan Duncan
An individual is also able to challenge their designation, requiring a reassessment by the Minister and potentially further examination by a court.
The clause should be seen alongside other safeguards in the Bill, in particular clause 27, which requires the overall sanctions regime to be reviewed annually. In that review, the Minister must be assured that sanctions are appropriate for their purpose; that, apart from United Nations or other international obligations, there are still good reasons to pursue that purpose; and that proposing sanctions is a reasonable course of action for that purpose. The results of the review must be laid before Parliament. I make it clear that the only time a designated person will not be able to request a reassessment is when they have challenged their designation, it has been upheld either by a Minister or by the court, and there have been no significant changes.
The review provided by this clause is a provision that stands behind all the others. Therefore, combined with the other safeguards in the Bill, I believe that reviewing each individual listing at least every three years is appropriate. This is a backstop measure to ensure that each and every designation is reviewed afresh at least every three years.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 22 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Freer.)
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, can I ask everyone to ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? I remind Committee members that Mr Speaker says that teas and coffees are not allowed during sittings. Today, we will consider first the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 27 February) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 27 February;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 1 March;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 6 March;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 2 to 5; Schedule 1; Clauses 6 to 18; Clause 1; Clauses 19 to 43; Schedule 2; Clauses 44 to 50; Schedule 3; Clauses 51 to 56; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill.
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 6 March.
May I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr McCabe, and say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? Because the Bill in its principles enjoys cross-party support, in the spirit of what I believe is cross-party agreement I am happy to offer to any member of the Committee the services of my officials, should they want any briefing or advice on any detail of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chair
The deadline for amendments to be considered during the first two line-by-line sitting days of the Bill has passed. The deadline for amendments to be considered on the third line-by-line sitting day is the rise of the House on Thursday.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Sir Alan Duncan.)
Helen Goodman
May I say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair on this bright and sunny, if cold, morning, Mr McCabe? I will not press the amendments, as they are simply a vehicle enabling me to ask a question: on trade sanctions, is there a loophole in relation to the Isle of Man?
Sir Alan Duncan
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is never unhelpful to be able to clarify a point of detail of this sort, and I hope I can now do that to her satisfaction.
Amendments 29 to 31 would cause the Bill to deviate from the established practice in export controls and customs matters where transfers of goods to the Isle of Man are not classified as exports and imports. The Isle of Man is part of a joint customs and indirect tax area within the United Kingdom, and across all customs matters goods transferred to the Isle of Man are not said to be exported from the United Kingdom, and goods transferred from the Isle of Man are not said to be imported into the United Kingdom. That is a long-standing customs arrangement and has been reflected in legislation as well as in custom and practice.
The Isle of Man is integrated into HM Revenue and Customs’ CHIEF—customs handling of import and export of freight—computer system, which enables it to operate UK customs. The Isle of Man mirrors UK export control and sanctions legislation and makes licensing decisions on exactly the same basis as the UK. The amendment, if it were carried, would put sanctions policy out of step with export control and customs. Only goods covered by sanctions legislation would be affected by this change and would in essence be subject to the same export controls twice. If a good were travelling to a sanctioned destination, via the Isle of Man under a licence, it would require one licence from the UK and another from the Isle of Man. The amendment would cause procedural and legal difficulties and increase administrative burdens for business and Her Majesty’s Government, and all for no observable benefit
I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Lady and given a satisfactory explanation in response to the amendment, which in any event she does not intend to press.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Like my hon. Friend, I am grateful to you for chairing the Committee, Mr McCabe.
I am also grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Very briefly, he referred to the Isle of Man’s treatment under the CHIEF system, but we are moving to the contractual disclosure system—CDS—for customs policies. That should have happened by last year, but it has been delayed and there are many concerns about it. Will the Minister assure me that the Isle of Man will be treated properly in any new customs arrangements, and that is the Government’s understanding of the situation?
Sir Alan Duncan
Although I am not familiar with the exact details of the system the hon. Lady mentions, I think I can say confidently that the Isle of Man will be treated in the way that I described in my previous remarks.
Helen Goodman
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 6
Aircraft sanctions
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am happy to rise in support of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). She makes some good points. We need to be mindful that there are people who are trapped in difficult situations, and if getting on a plane or into a boat is the only way to get out of that situation, and the alternative is almost certain death—particularly for people in Syria and Yemen—they will do that. We need to seek protection for those operating services for such people. I do not know whether Migrant Offshore Aid Station or Médecins Sans Frontières or any of those other people operating boats in the Mediterranean could fall foul of any sanctions regime. It would be good to get reassurance from the Minister on that, because those are important humanitarian services that rescue people and ensure that they are kept safe.
People are taking a huge risk. Recently there was a case of Somali refugees who sought first sanctuary in Yemen and then tried to leave Yemen because it is so dangerous there, and ended up being shot out of the sea by an airstrike. There are huge risks for people in the choices they make when they are trying to flee. We need to do everything we can to protect them in their efforts to get to a position of safety. I support the amendment.
Sir Alan Duncan
I genuinely thank hon. Members for raising this issue, which we dwelt on at some length on Second Reading. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland says, I am a former DFID Minister, so I feel these issues deeply. I am familiar with not only the plight of refugees, but the legal void in which they sometimes have to try to survive. The amendment is a laudable attempt to address that very issue and I make no criticism whatsoever of the intent behind it, because it is one that we all share.
The Government take seriously the impact that sanctions might or can have on a country’s civilian population. We also acknowledge the important work of NGOs and other humanitarian organisations working in difficult and often threatening situations—look at what is happening in Ghouta in Syria at the moment. The amendments are designed to exempt ships or aircraft from sanctions if they are being used to transport refugees. I agree with the principle, but in my opinion this is not the right way to achieve the desired effect.
I hope that hon. Members recognise that refugee status—and hence the ability to deem someone a refugee under the amendment—is usually granted after a person has fled from their country of origin: once they have reached safety, they can apply for asylum and be recognised as refugees. The amendment would not cover persons fleeing from their country of origin in order to claim asylum. I suspect that that does not reflect the good intentions of those who tabled it.
As I said earlier, the UK is very proactive in ensuring that NGOs can operate in countries subject to sanctions by providing licences and exceptions. In fact, the Bill would make it easier by allowing us to draft exceptions and grant general licences specifically aimed at assisting humanitarian activities, which include assisting refugees or displaced persons. There are good reasons why broad prohibitions are applied to a country, and licences are used to provide targeted exceptions. If we were to provide a general exception for ships and aircraft in those circumstances, aside from the practical difficulty with these amendments that I have mentioned, it could be subject to abuse and would be pretty well impossible to enforce.
Sir Alan Duncan
I will just take this through to the logical conclusion, and then of course I will give way. I am sure the hon. Lady can understand the difficulty that the situation I described would pose in respect of a person on a ship or aircraft making such a claim.
Helen Goodman
I understand the Minister’s point, but since he accepts the humanitarian case we are making, why did he not put down his own amendments to cover those asylum seekers, as well as refugees?
Sir Alan Duncan
Because the provision is already in the Bill. I would argue that it is in the Bill to the satisfaction of the hon. Lady, because the system of licences and exceptions in the Bill offers the best way to maintain the integrity of sanctions, while ensuring that NGOs can provide humanitarian support to refugees, asylum seekers and displaced persons. It is often the displaced persons who are greatest in number.
That is not a difference of principle; that is simply our interpretation of why this proposal would not work in practice and why the Bill does work in practice and achieves the objectives of the amendments that the hon. Lady has tabled. On that basis, I ask her not to press her amendments, because provision is in the Bill to meet the demands that she seeks.
Sir Alan Duncan
It might be helpful, given the debate we have had, to rehearse the arguments for why we think clause 6 deservedly stands as it does without amendment. Clause 6 introduces provisions to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to impose sanctions in respect of aircraft, most notably disqualified aircraft. Sanctions on transport form an important part of the suite of measures available to the UK. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the UK fully supports the imposing of transport sanctions on prescribed countries.
These powers would allow prohibitions and requirements to be introduced and directions to be issued to control the movement of disqualified aircraft as defined in subsection (6). Directions include preventing disqualified aircraft from entering UK airspace or, if they have already done so, detaining them in a UK airport or compelling them to leave UK airspace. More generally, where a designated person has a prescribed interest in an aircraft, the UK will ensure that this aircraft cannot be registered on the UK register. The UK will also have the power to remove such aircraft from the register. This clause also enables the UK to prevent aircraft from being registered in the prescribed country. Finally, the provisions would enable the UK to prevent British-controlled aircraft from overflying or landing in a prescribed country.
These clauses, therefore, will allow the UK to prevent the use of aircraft—where transport sanctions apply—by people connected to sanctioned countries such as North Korea. The powers in this clause are necessary for the UK to be able to develop and enforce transport sanctions and meet its international obligations. The implementation and enforcement of transport sanctions are a crucial element of the UK’s future foreign policy, and I believe this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 7 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Exceptions and licences
Helen Goodman
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 15, page 14, line 41, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations must include provision for the establishment of a fast-track process for dealing with requests for exceptions and licences for humanitarian purposes.”
This amendment would mean that regulations have to provide a fast-track process for dealing with any requests for exceptions and licences for humanitarian purposes.
Helen Goodman
Right. The situation has left responsibility for the due diligence required for funds transfers with humanitarian NGOs operating in high-risk zones.
Banks and NGOs must cultivate relationships, with the support of the Charity Commission, that allow for reciprocal education with respect to compliance expectations, operating risks and mitigation steps. The Government therefore have a challenge in this situation. They need to provide guidance and clear messaging where there is ambiguity at the moment with respect to sanctions and counter-terrorism legislation.
I want to give the explanation for the fast-track process. We have a serious situation in Syria. Everyone knows that 400,000 people have died; 5 million have sought refuge overseas; 6 million have been displaced internally; and half a million people are in besieged areas. Yet this is what is going on. Saleh Saeed, the then chief executive of the Disasters Emergency Committee, said a couple of years ago about Syria:
“The DEC is concerned that the current regulatory regime is significantly slowing and seriously complicating legitimate transfers of much needed funds to pay for humanitarian aid operations inside Syria.”
The lengthy process for getting the money means that on one occasion a programme supporting 10,000 people simply had to close in 2013.
Emanuela Rizzo, who works for what I think is a French organisation, Terre des Hommes, is quoted as saying:
“Receiving money from Europe to Syria is a disaster,”.
The report states that the organisation made a request and waited:
“After 15 days of delay, it contacted the bank in Italy, which informed the NGO that the transfer had been rejected…The bank required a long list of documents, including the NGO’s agreement with the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, its memorandum of understanding with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, a letter vowing not to fund ‘terrorist’ groups, and a list of implementing partners.
After two months and a 200 euro…fee, TDH was able to get the money transferred through a different Italian bank with an affiliate in Syria. ‘But it’s becoming incredibly difficult’”.
The report states:
“Other aid agencies struggling to transfer money have resorted to wiring money to banks in Lebanon and physically driving across the border to pick it up. Aid coming in via social solidarity networks has had to do the same.
Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis in 2011, the USA, European Union, Turkey and the League of Arab States…have imposed a series of sanctions on Syria’s arms, banking, energy and oil sectors”—
all for perfectly good reasons—
“as well as on specific individuals, with the stated aim of stopping state repression of protests, initially, and later, of weakening the government.”
However, the sanctions regime has had significant unintended repercussions and second-order effects.
About 15 months ago, when I was on the Treasury Committee, we took evidence from the Charities Aid Foundation and UK Finance. We had some interesting exchanges, so I asked the Charities Aid Foundation what representations it had made. The witness said:
“We worked, for example, in changing proposition 8 in the FATF arrangements, which has a presumption that charities are high risk. We have now had that changed to a risk-based approach”.
However, that
“has created terrible distortions in the assessment of charities.”
The witness added:
“The best example that I could give you is in Egypt, which is scored very highly by FATF because it follows explicit rules in the treatment of charities. Yet all we have seen is a closing of civil society space in Egypt, where charities are simply closed down. That produces the best result, as far as FATF is concerned, because there is then no risk, since they are inherently high risk. Many of these charities are the ones that criticise the Government, so there is a real adverse effect coming through from some of these actions.”
On the question of compliance costs, I asked about the Financial Conduct Authority’s report, which had said that one large, well-known
“charity required £40k of advice on sanctions regimes in order to maintain operations in a number of jurisdictions.”
The Charities Aid Foundation witness said:
“The large international NGOs are spending significant amounts of money on compliance...DFID’s own recommendations in terms of the funding that it provides is that 7% of the cost of any grant that it gives may be used on compliance costs.”
In practice, he said, it is often twice that: between 7% and 14%. It is underwhelming for people who write their cheque for £100 to the Red Cross to know that only £86 of it gets through because the other £14 is spent on lawyers in the UK.
The Charities Aid Foundation would also like more guidance about acceptable risk. Its witness said:
“You could have Treasury-approved guidance, developed along the lines of the guidance that is available from the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce for other areas of activity.”
There is a question as to whether we want general exemptions for large, well-known organisations such as the Red Cross or UNICEF, or particular, small licences. Our view is that there is a lot of confusion, and that the individual licences system is not working that well. It is not only non-governmental organisations that agree with that, but the banks too.
UK Finance says it is
“imperative that the UK legislative architecture clearly defines how new legislation will be applied…Our members are clear that the UK’s departure from the EU offers a timely opportunity to create a domestic licensing regime”.
It is asking for a consultation, because that is a complex matter. It is not something that we can sort out in five minutes or in a Bill Committee of amateurs—albeit well-intentioned ones—such as ourselves. It needs expertise.
Alongside the legislation, UK Finance is asking for consideration through
“a wider dialogue on longer-term sanctions implementation.”
It says that
“the impending UK legal sanctions framework will…introduce a new and extremely important dynamic…This will result in an increased scrutiny among globally operating corporate and financial institutions on the approach that will be taken by the UK towards pursing unilateral sanctions and extra-territorial enforcement activity…we would not wish either EU or overseas business to withdraw from the UK due to legal uncertainty, or for it to impede business reacting to potential future relaxation of sanctions”.
The situation is complex. UK Finance does not want people to not use British banks because we have a different and unclear set of rules that might bang up against the risk rules run by the Europeans or the Americans.
To summarise, UK Finance says that banks and international NGOs,
“have increasingly articulated that the current framework permitting humanitarian transactions into sanctioned and conflict environments needs re-thinking and an update.”
It proposes that,
“a new equilibrium be found that recognises the strategic importance of facilitating both humanitarian aid and permissible civilian transactions to higher risk jurisdictions subject to economic sanctions, whilst balancing expectations of appropriate sanctions compliance and counter terrorist controls”
that are required to make such movements of funds.
At the moment, banks and charities are,
“required to navigate a combination of complex multi-jurisdictional regulatory guidance and an inconsistent licensing regime which has led to a significant impact on the funding of humanitarian projects into certain conflict zones”
and other high-risk countries. The banks would like
“mutual recognition for humanitarian licences issued by ‘like minded’ competent authorities”
and
“general exemptions for certain mission critical activities”.
They, too, are interested in having a consultation.
Foreign Affairs Council
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right Hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Field) will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 26 February. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting will be held in Brussels.
Prior to the FAC there will be an informal meeting, over breakfast, of the European Action Group for the Republic of Moldova with the Foreign Minister of Moldova. The FAC will then discuss Moldova, Venezuela and the middle east peace process (MEPP). There will be a lunch with the Secretary General of the Arab League and some Arab Foreign Ministers.
Moldova
Ministers will have a substantive discussion of the key challenges facing the Republic of Moldova, including its implementation of the association agreement and its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA), and engagement by the EU and member states. The UK remains fully engaged in the reform process in Moldova, and will focus on the need to encourage the Republic of Moldova to maintain progress in this process.
Venezuela
The FAC will discuss the political and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, following the announcement that presidential elections will take place on 22 April. The FAC will consider the recent breakdown in political dialogue between the Government and Opposition, what conditions would constitute a credible election, and what more can be done to address the humanitarian situation.
Middle East Peace Process
Ministers will discuss the latest developments in the MEPP ahead of a lunch with the Secretary General of the Arab League and Foreign Ministers from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan to discuss prospects for the MEPP, including long-standing EU support for a negotiated two-state solution.
Council Conclusions
The FAC is expected to adopt conclusions on Burma, Cambodia, Moldova, the Maldives, climate diplomacy and the Special Report on EU Support to the Fight to End Human Trafficking in South and South East Asia.
[HCWS482]
EU Foreign Ministers: Informal Meeting (Gymnich)
Alan Duncan Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the biannual informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers (known as the Gymnich) on 15-16 February in Sofia, Bulgaria. The Gymnich was hosted by Deputy Prime Minister for Judicial Reform and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Bulgaria, Ekaterina Zaharieva and was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. Discussion centred on Syria, the western Balkans and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).
EU Foreign Ministers met Foreign Ministers of the candidate countries over dinner on 15 February and on the morning of 16 February.
The format of the Gymnich is designed to allow EU Foreign Ministers to engage in informal discussion on a number of issues. In contrast to the Foreign Affairs Council (the next of which will be held on 26 February), Ministers do not take formal decisions or agree conclusions at the Gymnich.
Gymnich discussion
Syria
Ministers expressed concern about the security situation. My right hon. Friend spoke about the importance of the Geneva peace talks and maintaining pressure on the Syrian regime.
Western Balkans
Ministers discussed the strategy, recently published by the Commission, and agreed the importance of remaining engaged in the region.
DPRK
Ministers briefly discussed the DPRK. They welcomed renewed engagement between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea while emphasising the importance of maintaining pressure, including through the full implementation of sanctions.
[HCWS483]