Foreign Affairs Council

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 28 May. 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.

The FAC will discuss current affairs, Iran, DRC, Post-Cotonou and Venezuela and possibly the middle east peace process (MEPP).

Foreign Affairs Council

Iran

Ministers will have a substantive discussion on the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPoA) following the decision of the US to withdraw from the agreement. The FAC will consider a package of economic measures being drawn up by the EU that aim to protect European business interests and enable the EU to continue to meet commitments to sanctions relief to Iran under the JCPoA. The UK continues to view the Iran nuclear deal as important for our shared security, and therefore remains firmly committed to ensuring it is upheld. To this end, we are working with the remaining parties to the deal.

Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

Ministers will have an initial discussion on the political situation in the DRC. They will consider progress towards overdue presidential elections, now scheduled for 23 December 2018, which we hope will see the first peaceful transition of power in the independent history of the country. The UK is a leading voice in international efforts to ensure these elections take place as planned. We will focus on the need to ensure that the international community remains united in putting pressure on the Government of the DRC to meet the democratic aspirations of its people.

Post-Cotonou

The FAC will adopt the negotiating mandate for a post-2020 agreement between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries. The FAC will give an initial political steer to the Commission ahead of the negotiations, which will be formally launched at the EU-ACP Council of Ministers in Togo on 31 May.

Venezuela

Ministers will discuss the political situation in Venezuela following presidential elections held on 20 May. The FAC will also consider how to respond to the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Venezuela and its impact on the region.

MEPP

Following the opening of the US embassy to Israel in Jerusalem and recent violence along the Gaza border, Ministers will have an exchange of views on prospects for the middle east peace process.

Any other business (AOB)

Under AOB, the UK and France are planning to update the FAC on their ongoing efforts to strengthen compliance with the chemical weapons convention.

Council conclusions

The FAC is expected to adopt conclusions on strengthening civilian CSDP, enhanced EU security engagement in and with Asia, the special report by the European Court of Auditors: “Election Observation Missions—Efforts made to follow up recommendations but better monitoring needed”, and on small arms and light weapons.

[HCWS721]

Foreign Affairs Council

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Written Statements

[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 Foreign Affairs Council on 16 April. 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 Luxembourg.

Foreign Affairs Council

Syria

The Council discussed the latest developments in Syria, including the targeted US, French and British airstrikes on chemical weapons facilities. Ahead of the Brussels Conference on Syria and the region, Ministers discussed the need to relaunch a political solution to the conflict in the framework of the UN-led Geneva process. The Council adopted conclusions on Syria.

Iran

Ministers agreed on the need for unity on continuing the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA). They encouraged the diplomatic efforts to ensure that there continues to be strong commitment to the agreement by all the parties involved. Ministers also discussed other issues outside the scope of the JCPOA, in particular the role of Iran in regional conflicts, not least in Syria and Yemen, as well as the EU’s concerns at Iran’s ballistic missiles programme and its human rights situation.

Russia

The Council agreed unanimously on the continued relevance of the five guiding principles that were agreed in March 2016. Following the Salisbury attack and the European Council conclusions that were agreed in March 2018, Ministers highlighted the need to strengthen the resilience of the EU and its neighbours against Russian threats, including hybrid threats such as disinformation campaigns. Ministers commended the work carried out by the East StratComms taskforce in the European External Action Service. Ministers also highlighted the importance of supporting Russian civil society and continuing to develop people-to-people contacts.

Western Balkans

Over lunch, Ministers discussed the Western Balkans in preparation for the EU-Western Balkans summit in Sofia on 17 May 2018.

External action financing instruments

The Council held a preliminary exchange of views on the future financing of external action instruments after 2020. The Commission is preparing its proposal for the EU’s next long-term budget (the future multiannual financial framework, MFF).

Members agreed a number of measures without discussion:

The Council approved the annual progress report on the implementation of the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which covers activities carried out in 2017;

The Council adopted conclusions on chemical disarmament and non-proliferation ahead of the Fourth Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to review the operation of the chemical weapons convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. This session will take place in The Hague on 21-30 November 2018;

The Council adopted conclusions on South Sudan;

The Council adopted conclusions on malicious cyber activities that underline the importance of a global, open, free, stable and secure cyberspace where human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law fully apply;

The Council approved the High Representative’s six-monthly report on Operation Althea, which covers the period from 1 September 2017 to 28 February 2018;

The Council adopted a decision approving Mazars and KPMG S.A. as the external auditors of the Banque de France, the National Central Bank of France, for the 2018-23 period.

[HCWS707]

Draft European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2018

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 General Committees

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2018.

The order was laid before the House on 29 March. It amends the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1978 and the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2009.

The European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere—the ESO—was established by a convention in 1962. The United Kingdom acceded to the convention and joined the organisation in 2002. In 2012, we acceded to the ESO privileges and immunities protocol, which had been given effect in domestic law by the 2009 order. This order corrects various errors in the 2009 order that unduly limited the privileges and immunities given to British nationals and permanent residents working for the ESO. It is necessary to correct them to ensure that we are fully compliant with our international obligations under the ESO privileges and immunities protocol.

The amendments made by this order concern three issues. First, on the taxation of employees, the protocol requires the United Kingdom to exempt from taxation the emoluments of officers who are British nationals or permanent residents. Secondly, the protocol requires the United Kingdom to confer on officers of the organisation who are British nationals or permanent residents immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts. Motor vehicle offences and motor vehicle damage are excluded from that immunity. Thirdly, the protocol requires the United Kingdom to grant social security exemptions to all officers of the organisation who are British nationals or permanent residents. This order does all those things. An earlier version of the amendments contained in this order was laid in Parliament in 2017 but withdrawn when this order was laid, because the earlier version had not exempted all officers of the organisation from social security contributions.

The second organisation that this order concerns is the European Space Agency, which was established by a convention in 1975. The United Kingdom acceded to the convention and joined the agency in the same year. In 2009, we welcomed the European Centre for Space Applications and Telecommunications to Harwell in Oxfordshire. With the establishment of that new UK ESA campus, we need to amend the original UK legislation—the 1978 order—that gave privileges and immunities to ESA staff and high-ranking officers.

The revisions contained in this order confirm the immunities and privileges to which staff are entitled and the number of high-ranking officers that the UK will recognise. That number has grown as a result of the new UK ESA campus. Specifically, it confers the status of high-ranking officer on the head of the Harwell centre, and it provides that the ESA director general and a maximum of seven further members of staff working at the centre can also be considered high-ranking officers. That means that they are entitled to certain privileges and immunities, for example relief from taxes and certain exemptions from social security contributions. However, they are not entitled to immunity from suit or legal process, except for actions carried out during their official functions.

The privileges and immunities afforded to officers of both these organisations—the ESO and the ESA—including those who are British nationals or permanent residents, are limited to those that the organisations need to conduct their official activities. They are in line with those given to officers of other international organisations of which the UK is a member. Leaving the European Union will have no direct impact on the United Kingdom’s membership of the ESO or the ESA. The ability of British and permanent resident staff to work for the organisations is dependent on the domestic legislation, which accurately reflects the relevant international conventions and protocols, and the privileges and immunities that they afford to staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

In answer to my right hon. Friend, I believe—but I am ready to stand corrected—that explanatory notes are put together by Parliament. [Interruption.] They are put together by us. I take the entire blame, and I will endeavour to be clearer in the way we publish those bits of paper in future, and try to get them raised to the standard I was able to reach earlier. I rather agree with my right hon. Friend that as far as possible all language should be free of jargon. The measure should be explicable to any intelligent person, and it should be possible to understand every bit of paper in the House.

As I have said, the amendment order simply corrects a number of errors and omissions in, and makes necessary updates to, the orders it amends. It aligns domestic law with the obligations that we have entered into with European partners, with whom we share an endeavour to increase our knowledge of space.

I believe that I can give the hon. Member for Glasgow North the assurance he seeks about future-proofing, and I can answer the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who speaks for the Opposition, by telling her that the affirmative procedure is required by the parent legislation. If it is stated in the primary law, we must follow that procedure.

This latest amendment order is necessary to give full effect to the UK’s international obligations, so that we can continue our fruitful relationship with both the organisations, to which we remain fully committed. I trust, therefore, that right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that our approach is straightforward and fully support the order.

[The Chair]

Just to make it absolutely clear, explanatory notes are not prepared by Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill: Impact Equalities

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

During the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill through the House of Commons, the Government committed to providing a statement on the impact of EU-exit primary legislation on either the Equality Act 2006 or the Equality Act 2010. The expectation is that this statement will usually be included in the explanatory notes for the relevant Bill. However, as the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] has already completed its passage through the House of Lords, and has Report and Third Reading in the House of Commons today, the explanatory notes will not be updated again until Royal Assent. I am therefore making this statement now, while the Bill is still before Parliament.

I can confirm that the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] does not amend, repeal or revoke any provision of the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under either of those Acts (“the equalities legislation”).

In relation to the Bill, I have had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010.

[HCWS659]

Beneficial Ownership in Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

Illicit financial flows are a global threat to prosperity and the rule of law. The IMF has estimated that money laundering globally represents between 2 and 5% of GDP. This criminal activity facilitates other crimes—including corruption, tax evasion and fraud. Successive Governments have led on this issue by promoting transparency, including through the OECD, G20 and Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and UK-led initiatives such as the 2016 anti-corruption summit. Increasing transparency about who owns companies registered or residing in the UK (beneficial ownership) is part of this agenda. We were the first country in the G20 to establish a public register of company beneficial ownership and—in December of last year—published our anti-corruption strategy covering the period from 2017 to 2022. The UK is rightly seen as a global leader on this agenda and, last month, Transparency International listed us as one of just three G20 countries with a “very strong” legal framework around beneficial ownership.

We recognise the concerns about money laundering and corruption in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories and we are committed to increasing transparency about the companies who operate there. We have worked co-operatively with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories over the last four years, including through entering into the exchange of notes in 2016 through which UK law enforcement has near real-time access to beneficial ownership information on companies incorporated in those jurisdictions. This has resulted in tangible benefits to law enforcement; as of February, the exchange of notes arrangements have been used over 70 times to provide enhanced law enforcement access to beneficial ownership data. This information has enhanced intelligence leads and investigations on illicit finance. We continue to work closely with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to further strengthen their approach in this area.

At EU level, the UK went beyond the requirements of the fourth anti-money laundering directive in establishing a public register, and supported the inclusion in the fifth anti-money laundering directive of a provision that will require all EU member states to have the legislation in place to establish publicly accessible registers by the end of 2019. Non-EU countries including Afghanistan, Ghana, Nigeria and Ukraine have all either committed to establishing public registers or are in the process of doing so.

Domestically, the UK has committed to create a new register for overseas companies and to pass legislation by 2021. Once in place, overseas companies will not be able to buy property in the UK, or secure UK Government contracts, without submitting the necessary beneficial ownership information. We will urge and support other countries to take similar action.

Internationally, the UK has been promoting beneficial ownership transparency at relevant international fora—including the G20, FATF and the OECD. The UK is supporting the open ownership register (the global register holding beneficial ownership information) and is working with countries that are committed to using the beneficial ownership data standard. The UK is also supporting the extractive industries transparency initiative to implement its enhanced standard which requires the collection of beneficial ownership information. The UK has and will continue to offer technical assistance to other nations looking to establish beneficial ownership registers.

In 2016 the overseas territories and Crown dependencies agreed the exchanges of notes with the UK on the exchange of beneficial ownership information. They have made significant progress in implementing the commitments by introducing legislation and establishing, where they did not already exist, central registers or similarly effective systems. We are continually monitoring the implementation of the arrangements and the latest six-month review demonstrates that these are now in force and delivering benefits to UK law enforcement. They enable UK law enforcement authorities to establish the ultimate owner of companies registered in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and strengthen their ability to investigate serious and organised crime, including money laundering and tax evasion. The commitments they have made in the exchanges of notes with the UK exceed current Financial Action Task Force standards and put them ahead of most jurisdictions, including many of our G20 partners and some states in the United States. The bilateral arrangements provide for further, annual reviews and the basis for taking further action if required. In addition, there will be a statutory review of the arrangements next year, which will ensure parliamentary scrutiny. It is right that we continue to focus on the effective implementation of these arrangements, rather than imposing new requirements on the territories.

Furthermore, I can today confirm that the Government will use their best endeavours, diplomatically and with international partners, including through multilateral fora (such as the G20, FATF and the OECD), to promote public registers of company beneficial ownership as the global standard by 2023.

When all of this is put together, it is clear that the UK is the international leader on setting high standards for transparency on beneficial ownership. The Government are committed to influencing others in this regard, including the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

[HCWS660]

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Alan Duncan Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Scottish Limited Partnerships: partner requirement—

“(1) For the purposes of preventing money laundering, where a limited partnership registered in Scotland has general partners at least one of those must be a British citizen.

(2) Where a limited partnership registered in Scotland has limited partners at least one of those must be a British citizen.

(3) In this section—

a “limited partnership registered in Scotland” means a partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907;

“British citizen” has the meaning given in part 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

“general partner” has the meaning given in section 4(2) of the Limited Partnership Act 1907;

“limited partner” has the meaning given in section 4(2A) of the Limited Partnership Act 1907”.

New clause 6—Public registers of beneficial ownership of companies registered in British Overseas Territories—

“(1) For the purposes of the detection, investigation or prevention of money laundering, the Secretary of State must provide all reasonable assistance to the governments of the British Overseas Territories to enable each of those governments to establish a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies registered in each government’s jurisdiction.

(2) The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 December 2020, prepare a draft Order in Council requiring the government of any British Overseas Territory that has not introduced a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies within its jurisdiction to do so.

(3) The draft Order in Council under subsection (2) must set out the form that the register must take.

(4) If an Order in Council contains requirements of a kind mentioned in subsection (2)—

(a) it must be laid before Parliament after being made, and

(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the end of 28 days beginning with the day on which it is made, it ceases to have effect at the end of that period (but without that affecting the power to make a new Order under this section).

(5) In calculating a period of 28 days for the purposes of subsection (4), no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(6) For the purposes of this section, “British Overseas Territories” means a territory listed in Schedule 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

(7) For the purposes of this section, “a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies” means a register which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, provides information broadly equivalent to that available in accordance with the provisions of Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take steps to provide that British Overseas Territories establish publicly accessible registers of the beneficial ownership of companies.

New clause 14—Public registers of beneficial ownership of companies in the Crown Dependencies—

“(1) For the purpose of preventing money laundering, the Secretary of State must provide all reasonable assistance to the governments of the Crown Dependencies to enable each of those governments to establish a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies registered in that government’s jurisdiction.

(2) The Secretary of State must, by the deadline set for the implementation of the European Union’s 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, prepare a draft Order in Council requiring the government of any Crown Dependency that has not introduced a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership of companies within their jurisdiction to do so.

(3) The draft Order in Council under subsection (2)—

(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made, and

(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the end of the 28 days beginning with the day on which it is made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period (but without that affecting the power to make a new Order).

(4) In calculating a period of 28 days for the purposes of subsection (4), no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a “publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership of companies” means a register which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, provides information broadly equivalent to that available in accordance with the provisions of Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006 (information about people with significant control).

(6) For the purposes of this section, “Crown Dependency” means—

(a) any of the Channel Islands;

(b) the Isle of Man.”

New clause 19—Scottish Limited Partnerships: UK bank account requirement—

“(1) For the purposes of preventing money laundering, where a limited partnership registered in Scotland has general partners at least one of those must have an active UK bank account.

(2) Where a limited partnership registered in Scotland has limited partners at least one of those must have an active UK bank account.

(3) In this section—

a “limited partnership registered in Scotland” means a partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907;

“general partner” has the meaning given in section 4(2) of the Limited Partnership Act 1907;

“limited partner” has the meaning given in section 4(2A) of the Limited Partnership Act 1907.”

Government amendments 10 to 12.

Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(i) further accountability for, or act as a deterrent to, the commission of a gross human rights abuse or violation.”

This amendment would enable sanctions to be made for the purpose of preventing, or in response to, a gross human rights abuse or violation.

Amendment 33, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(5A) In this section, conduct constitutes “the commission of a gross human rights abuse or violation” if each of the following three conditions is met.

(5B) The first condition is that—

(a) the conduct constitutes the torture of a person who has sought—

(i) to expose illegal activity carried out by a public official or a person acting in an official capacity, or

(ii) to obtain, exercise, defend or promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, or

(b) the conduct otherwise involves the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of such a person.

(5C) The second condition is that the conduct is carried out in consequence of that person having sought to do anything falling within subsection (2)(a)(i) or (ii).

(5D) The third condition is that the conduct is carried out—

(a) by a public official, or a person acting in an official capacity, in the performance or purported performance of his or her official duties, or

(b) by a person not falling within paragraph (a) at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence—

(i) of a public official, or

(ii) of a person acting in an official capacity, who in instigating the conduct, or in consenting to or acquiescing in it, is acting in the performance or purported performance of his or her official duties.

(5E) Conduct that involves the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering on another person is conduct that constitutes torture for the purposes of subsection (2)(a).

(5F) It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or omission”.

This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 32, would define what constitutes the commission of a gross human rights abuse or violation. The commission of a gross human rights abuse or violation would include the torture of a person who had sought to expose the illegal activity of a public official, or the torture of a person who had sought to defend human rights or fundamental freedoms, by a public official or a person acting in an official capacity.

Government amendments 13 to 17.

Amendment 20, in clause 56, page 43, line 7, after first “1”, insert

“, section (Public registers of beneficial ownership of companies registered in British Overseas Territories)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC6.

Government amendment 18.

Amendment 31, in title, line 5 after “objectives”, insert

“or to further accountability for, or act as a deterrent to, the commission of a gross human rights abuse or violation”.

This amendment to the long title would be consequential on Amendment 32.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

This group contains new clauses and amendments regarding three related issues that I will discuss in turn: imposing sanctions for gross human rights violations, or what is now popularly known as the Magnitsky amendment; Scottish limited partnerships, which are of deep concern, particularly for the Scottish National party; and public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories. In two of those areas, the Government are taking action to tackle abuses and tighten up standards: through Government amendments on Magnitsky and through a consultation document on Scottish limited partnerships.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is a bit early, but I will do so if the hon. Lady insists; I am ever obliging to the hon. Lady.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister mentions the consultation on SLPs. Does he not accept that there has already been a consultation on SLPs and that it closed over a year ago, so to have another consultation is just wasting time?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

If I might say so ever so politely to the hon. Lady, she is jumping the gun slightly given that I am only at the end of my first paragraph, and as she knows there have been some detailed discussions through the usual channels. I will address the matter she has asked about in more detail later on; if I may, I will tackle the three issues to which I have referred in the order that I raised them, in order to satisfy the House that we are looking at all concerns in detail and genuinely.

First, sanctions for gross human rights violations have clearly been an issue of significant concern to Members on both sides of the House, as was made clear by many who spoke on Second Reading and in Committee. I fully recognise why Members and many people outside this House want to include gross human rights abuses in the Bill explicitly as a reason why sanctions can be applied, particularly in reference to the abhorrent case of Sergei Magnitsky in Russia.

In her speech to the House on 14 March, the Prime Minister made clear the Government’s intention to bring forward a Magnitsky amendment to the Bill, and as the House can see we have fulfilled that obligation by doing so for discussion in the House today. As a result of that commitment, we have worked closely, constructively and genuinely with Members on both sides of the House, including some who have campaigned for this amendment at great length, particularly my right hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I also genuinely thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), my opposite number, and the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). Together we have worked to put together a form of words that now enjoys cross-party support. We have tabled amendments that we hope will capture the maximum possible consensus in this area.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am truly grateful for everything that the Minister and all those he has referred to have done in relation to the Sergei Magnitsky amendment. It is obviously important that he has captured the consensus of the House, but it is even more important that we capture all those, in particular those from Russia, who have come to this country and used it for money laundering purposes and for hiding their assets. Is he confident that we will be able to do that as a result of this legislation?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am confident of that, as I will explain further in a moment.

As is traditional on Report, it is important that I explain what the amendments do, if ever so briefly. Amendment 10 relates specifically to putting gross human rights abuses on the face of the Bill as a basis on which sanctions may be imposed. Amendments 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are consequential to that, introducing technical changes that will follow. Amendment 13 links the definition of a gross violation of human rights to the existing definition in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, so that it includes the torture of a person by a public official or a person in an official capacity, where the tortured person has sought to expose the illegal activity of a public official or to defend human rights or fundamental freedoms. That will ensure that all gross human rights abuses or violations are explicitly captured.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Minister will not be surprised to know that I fully support the Government in bringing this change forward, as I am sure all Labour Members do, given that we have been asking for it for some time. On the subject of sanctions, will the Government publish the names of those who have been sanctioned under the Bill, notwithstanding what subsection (2) of new clause 3 says about not risking damage to

“national security or international relations”?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

There is an obligation to report, which I will come to in a minute. I would be happy to explain the exact details to the hon. Gentleman, although of course they are still being devised on the back of the obligations laid down in the Bill.

New clause 3 requires reports to be made—this relates to the question that the hon. Gentleman has just asked—about the use of the power to make sanctions regulations, including the specifying of any recommendations made by a parliamentary Committee on the use of that power and the Government’s response. It is right and proper that an independent review of the powers should be carried out by Parliament. This is a strong set of measures to address the Government’s approach to imposing sanctions for human rights abuses, and I would like to put it on record again that the Government are committed to promoting and strengthening universal human rights and holding to account states and individuals who are responsible for the most serious violations.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Will the Minister outline how he envisages such a parliamentary review operating? Will it be done through specific Committees, or on the Floor of the House? Will we be able to have confidence that that procedure is robust enough to ensure that the review is appropriate?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The hon. Lady hits on a point that illustrates the important distinction between the Executive and the legislature, even though the Executive are drawn from the legislature. We, as Ministers, are the Executive. The hon. Lady is a Member of the legislature. I will not say, “Long may that continue”, but it might. It is therefore inappropriate for us to determine in primary legislation exactly how the House should go about its business. That is for the House itself to decide. We believe that we have included in the Bill the proper impetus for the House to be able to structure itself as it wishes—through the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the Foreign Affairs Committee, for example—while saying in advance that we as the Executive will have an obligation to report back and respond to any such independent activity.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Along with other colleagues, I absolutely share the objectives of the Magnitsky provisions. I have been in touch with Bill Browder, for whom Sergei Magnitsky worked at the time of his brutal murder by the Russian authorities, and Mr Browder has made it absolutely clear to me that if this does not lead to the full publication of the names of the people who are being sanctioned and to absolute clarity on the nature of the independent review that has just been mentioned, the Bill will have failed in its objectives. It is important that the Minister understands what Mr Bill Browder is saying on this matter.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I can say that any person sanctioned under this Bill will have their name published on an administrative list, which will be publicly available. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman, the House and all those interested in this issue.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

I was about to ask the same question, and the answer that the Minister has just given will be enormously reassuring to many of us, particularly because the thing that many of these kleptocrats and organised criminals really fear is the glare of public disclosure.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I hope that I will be able to continue to address the House with similar such effect this afternoon.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I doubt that there is anyone in this House who does not want the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to have open, public registers of company interests. If new clause 6, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Andrew Mitchell) does not pass, how will the House be able to have confidence that the Executive will make sufficient progress as though we had compelled them to issue Orders in Council?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I will be saying more about the overseas territories in a moment. I fully recognise the interest that my hon. Friend has shown, over many years, in the importance of protecting the interests of the overseas territories, particularly in the Caribbean. I will be able to give him deeper reassurance on this in a moment, but if I may, I will continue with my points in the order that I was planning to make them, by addressing the Magnitsky issue first, then Scottish limited partnerships, before turning to that rather more vexed issue.

Looking at the Scottish National party Benches, I turn to the separate amendments on Magnitsky tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). While we agree with the driving principles behind the amendments, we are satisfied that the package of amendments that we have tabled—which have been signed by Members on both Front Benches—sufficiently cover the same objectives. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel that they do. As she knows from our discussions in Committee, we have approached this entire issue in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Indeed, she has played an important part in that in her campaigning.

[Alison Thewliss]

I should like to take this opportunity to say that, having heard what the Minister has said on this matter and others, I am content not to press my amendments relating to Magnitsky.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am hoping for a similar response on other parts of the Bill as I proceed gingerly through the new clauses and amendments that we are discussing today. I hope that, when I proceed gingerly, no one can see that I am here at all.

Opposition amendments 31 and 32 would insert a purpose into the Bill to allow sanctions regulations to be made for the purpose of preventing, or ensuring accountability for, a gross human rights abuse or violation. As the hon. Lady has already suggested, however, our amendment 10 would add a similar purpose, so I sense that we have found common ground here. Also, just to make the record clear, Opposition amendment 33 would define what constitutes a gross human rights abuse or violation on the face of the Bill. Government amendment 13 provides a similar function through reference to a definition already existing in other legislation, as I have just explained, which is preferable for maintaining a tidy statute book. I therefore hope that our amendments meet the goals of the hon. Lady’s amendments. I sense that they do.

Setting aside a technical assessment of the Bill, I think that, on Magnitsky, we have got there. This is a very important moment for the House, and for the defence of human rights that the United Kingdom is always proud to show. All parties have come together to find consensus on ensuring that the proper legislative powers are in place to address gross violations of human rights. That is a matter of deep concern to Members on both sides of the House, to many people outside and internationally. If the amendments are agreed to today, as I am sure they will be, we can truly say that we have spoken together, united in favour of human rights, and that the voice of the United Kingdom sits alongside other countries that have adopted such legislation, and we can score it as a great achievement of which we can all be proud. Once again, I pay tribute to those who have so relentlessly and persistently campaigned for it. It is not just a triumph for the House; it is a personal triumph for them. In saying that, I look once again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury in particular.

Turning to Scottish limited partnerships, we recognise the concerns that have been raised, and I assure the House that the Government are committed to making further progress. SLPs and other forms of limited partnership play a vital role in the asset management sector for the funding of asset-based contribution pension schemes and for oil and gas exploration, which matters enormously to Scotland. That makes it all the more important not just that their legitimate use is supported, but that legitimate action is taken to prevent their misuse. As hon. Members will be aware, the past decade has seen a vast increase in the number of SLPs, with the growth rate far outstripping that of the number of limited partnerships established in the rest of the UK, and we recognise the concern that SLPs are being used inappropriately. Following clear evidence of certain SLPs being misused, the Government brought them within the scope of our register of beneficial ownership. Since then, the rate of new SLP registration has declined by approximately 80%, but we recognise that more needs to be done.

Yesterday, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published a consultation document on limited partnership reform following its call for evidence last year. The document sets out clear options for reform. The Government propose that all those registering a limited partnership would need to be registered with an anti-money laundering supervisor. They would need to carry out due diligence before establishment, with the possibility of supervisory action. That due diligence will necessarily include identifying the beneficial owners of the SLP, including its general and limited partners when they exercise control over the SLP. That addresses the substantial purpose behind new clause 19, which would require at least one of both the general and limited partners in an SLP to have an active UK bank account, and so require that they will have been subject to due diligence for anti-money laundering purposes.

Such measures would address the substantial purpose behind the new clauses on the subject. We are further consulting on how best to require limited partnerships to retain a physical presence in the UK to ensure that there is a UK link against which any necessary enforcement proceedings can be taken. Additionally, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is seeking views on whether all limited partnerships should be required to file an annual confirmation statement with Companies House. Taken together, the proposals would tighten the checks on SLPs, ensure that they retain a UK presence and expose more details about their workings to public scrutiny. They would not disproportionately burden limited partnerships that operate entirely lawfully, but they would go further in reducing their potential for illicit misuse.

New clause 1 would require that, where a Scottish limited partnership has general and limited partners, at least one of each must be a British citizen. That would have the unintended side effect of disrupting the legitimate uses of corporate partners within sectors, including the venture capital sector. The Government consider that the measures on which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is consulting will do more to bring transparency to limited partnerships and to prevent them from being misused, without damaging their legitimate usage. The Department’s consultation will be open until 23 July, and I encourage all interested Members to continue engaging with the process of reforming limited partnership structures. Given the work that the Department is leading, and the Government’s clear plan to continue reforming limited partnerships, I respectfully ask that hon. Members do not move their respective amendments in this area and that they work hard with us to ensure that we can produce an outcome with which they are fully satisfied.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister mentioned increasing the regulation of SLPs, but a regulation from last year meant that SLPs had to register their beneficial ownership within 28 days or face a £500 daily fine. Only 43% of them have provided that information, meaning that £2.2 billion in backdated fines has accrued. When does the Minister intend to collect that money and enforce the regulations that already exist for SLPs?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is going to make a robust submission to the consultation, and I urge him to do so, because I fully take the point that if something can be required but it does not work operationally, then obviously it will not be delivered. I urge him to record what he believes are the facts and submit them to the consultation.

I express my gratitude to Members who have tirelessly continued to raise their concerns on the issue of SLPs—I can spot one from where I am standing—and I hope that what I have said today, and the content of the consultation published yesterday, provides reassurance that the Government are genuinely committed to reform in this area.

Turning to beneficial ownership in the overseas territories, as the House will now appreciate, the Government’s plan for tackling the issue had been to table a new clause, which we did, that sought unity in the House, which I believe we had a good chance of securing. The new clause sought to enhance the measures on beneficial ownership in the overseas territories but stopped short of legislating for them, thus avoiding constitutional conflict. As Members will be aware, however, some amendments were not selected today, and we of course fully respect the procedural basis on which Mr Speaker chose not to select them.

New clause 6, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), would put a duty on the Government to work with the overseas territories to set up public registers of company beneficial ownership by 31 December 2020. If they do not do so, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a draft Order in Council, aiming to legislate directly. Opposition new clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to provide all reasonable assistance to the Governments of the Crown dependencies to enable them to establish a public register of company beneficial ownership, and if, by the implementation of the European Union’s fifth anti-money laundering directive, they have not, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Privy Council legislates to require each Crown dependency to do so.

The UK has strongly supported co-ordinated international action to promote beneficial ownership transparency. The UK was the first G20 country to establish a public register of company beneficial ownership and has committed to creating a new beneficial ownership register for overseas companies. At EU level, the UK went beyond the requirements of the fourth anti-money laundering directive in establishing a public register and supported the inclusion in the fifth anti-money laundering directive of a provision that will require all EU member states to have legislation in place to support publicly accessible registers by the end of 2019.

We are also committed to seeing the overseas territories and Crown dependencies take further action, and they have already made significant progress through consensual joint action. We are grateful, and we respect all the work they have done in this area. All Crown dependencies have central registers in place. Of the seven overseas territories with significant financial centres, four already have central registers or similarly effective arrangements. They are able to provide UK law enforcement authorities, on request, with access to such information, even at very short notice—it can be within 24 hours, or even within one hour in urgent cases.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I will give way only briefly.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. Does he agree that, although this is progress, it will be effective only if we have the light of transparency and these registers are available publicly, and not just to law enforcement authorities?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I can answer with an unequivocal yes. That is a shared objective on both sides of the House. The only thing on which we have different opinions is the manner in which we get there. The objective is clear. The arguments are very finely balanced, and the hon. Lady may want to listen carefully to what I am about to say. We recognise the need to tackle illicit finances across the globe, including in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. We are concerned, however, that the economic impact of imposing public registers on the overseas territories will be significant.

Furthermore, the overseas territories are separate jurisdictions, with their own democratically elected Governments. They are responsible for their own fiscal matters, and they are not represented in this Parliament. Legislating for them without their consent effectively disenfranchises their elected representatives. We would have preferred to work consensually with the overseas territories to make those registers publicly available, as we have done in agreeing the exchange of notes process.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, not for the moment.

We do not want to legislate directly for the overseas territories, nor do we want to risk damaging our long-standing constitutional arrangements, which respect their autonomy. However, we have listened to the strength of feeling in the House on this issue and accept that it is, without a doubt, the majority view of this House that the overseas territories should have public registers ahead of their becoming the international standard, as set by the Financial Action Task Force.

We will accordingly respect the will of the House and not vote against new clause 6. Unless my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield chooses not to press the new clause, we accept that it will become part of the Bill. In the same spirit, I would appreciate it if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland chose not to press new clause 14, which would add the Crown dependencies to that stipulation.

Her Majesty’s Government are acutely conscious of the sensitivities in the overseas territories and of the response that new clause 6 may provoke. I therefore give the overseas territories the fullest possible assurance that we will work very closely with them in shaping and implementing the Order in Council that the Bill may require. To that end, we will offer the fullest possible legal and logistical support that they might ask of us. Alongside that, we retain our fullest respect for the overseas territories and their constitutional rights, and we will work with them to protect their interests.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debates on Report of this important Bill. I will follow the same order as the Minister in discussing the amendments.

I took the rather unusual step of signing the Government’s Magnitsky amendments, new clause 3 and amendments 10 to 13, so this House can present a united voice to the whole world in expressing our abhorrence for gross human rights abuses and our determination to tackle them together.

I thank the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Dudley North (Ian Austin)—the latter is not in the Chamber at the moment—all of whom have campaigned on this issue for a long time. Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that human rights should be at the centre of foreign policy. The only way gross human rights abuses will stop is if those who perpetrate them, order them and facilitate them are brought personally to account. They must pay the price.

Sanctions against individuals for gross human rights abuses were originally conceived as a response to the terrible treatment of Sergei Magnitsky, but we believe there is a wider problem. We note, for example, that the United States has sanctioned Maung Maung Soe, one of the generals responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya in Myanmar.

Last year, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 enabled the Government to freeze the assets of people responsible for such crimes, and this Bill will enable us to ban visas and prevent such people traveling here. The only question is why it took so long for the Government to come round to seeing the importance of this measure.

We introduced so-called Magnitsky amendments in Committee that would have given us the same ability as Canada and the United States to implement targeted sanctions. Unfortunately, the Government initially did all they could to reject our amendments. They rejected them in principle on Second Reading; they reordered the consideration of the Bill; they suspended the Committee; and then they downright voted against the amendments. After the Salisbury incident on 4 March, the Prime Minister announced a complete U-turn. We are pleased the Government have seen the light, but it is unfortunate that it took such a tragic event for them to change their mind.

I am pleased to offer the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition to new clause 6, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). I congratulate her on her long campaign, which began when she was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. She has stuck with it over many years, and we see in the Minister’s announcement today that the campaign was well worth while. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on putting together a fantastic coalition of support for this change.

We believe the time to act has come. In 2014, David Cameron wrote to the British overseas territories recommending that they introduce public registers—the UK introduced a public register in 2016—and new clause 6 sets out a timetable for them to do so by 2020. Money laundering through London is estimated by the National Crime Agency to total £90 billion, and it is facilitated by the secret ownership of companies allowed in tax havens. Unfortunately, the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies are major actors. They enable the corrupt to live in comfort on their ill-gotten gains and facilitate tax avoidance and evasion on a spectacular scale. The UK is estimated to lose £18.5 billion each year. I am only surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not also sign new clause 6.

The poorest countries in the world are estimated by the United Nations to lose £100 billion a year through these tax havens, which dwarfs any aid flows we supply. That is another reason why new clause 6 is very much to be welcomed.

The scope for hiding large funds facilitates serious international crimes: drug dealing, people trafficking, sanctions busting, illegal arms sales and terrorism. Over and again, the names of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies come up when these crimes are finally uncovered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is a great pleasure to support the concluding stage of this Bill, which has been a long time in the making. Many might say it goes back many, many decades, because in this House we can all be proud that the United Kingdom is a country that fulfils its international obligations.

Ever since countries went to war with each other, we have been part of the institutions that try to create peace and try to introduce international order under a proper rules-based system. Inevitably, as the decades pass, the world changes and new measures are needed to tackle the problems the world faces.

We are founder members of the United Nations, and we sit on the Security Council, on which we fulfil our obligations dutifully. We have been a member of the European Union for 40 years, and our membership is now drawing peacefully to a close. That means we need to restructure the manner in which we fulfil our international duties, and to that end we need to pass legislation in this House that empowers us to do the many things we want to do.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Some people who want to diminish the vote of the British people to leave the European Union tend to say that standards will drop simply by our leaving the European Union. Does not the passage of this Bill prove how wrong people can be?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that serious underlying benefit of the Bill.

At the moment, we implement various sanctions. Some we implement because, as members of the United Nations, we have to do so, and others we implement because, as members of the European Union, we do so collectively with the other 27 members. The power that currently allows us to implement sanctions derives from our membership of the European Union; it is not an autonomous legal power that we have sovereign to ourselves. This Bill is therefore needed to give to us, when we leave the European Union, the autonomous powers to have a proper, effective sanctions regime.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

This will allow us to work on sanctions, in accordance with our allies and with the wishes of the United Nations. The Minister will recall that one argument put in the debate on the referendum was that if we left the European Union, we would be without allies, friends and influence. Does the response to the appalling crime that took place in Salisbury, when 26 countries expelled more than 130 Russian diplomats between them, not show that when it came to it, Britain had friends, allies and influence, and that those allies stood with us when it really mattered?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because he is absolutely right to say that in this dangerous and unstable world it is very important that there are moments when we act collectively. We do so through many forums: we are a member of the P5—a permanent member of the UN Security Council; we are a member of the G7, G20 and NATO; and, crucially, we are the only major western power to spend 0.7% of our national income on international development. We are therefore in a good position to retain our influence in the world, and we will do so partly by the powers we are taking under this Bill. It will allow us to continue to implement UN sanctions and to implement our own sanctions, no doubt often in concert with the remaining 27 members of the EU.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Does the Minister acknowledge, as I do, how important this Bill is in the context of dealing with terrorist money? Only last week, in the Council of Europe, we had a debate about trying to prevent the flow of funds that kept terrorist organisations, and Daesh in particular, afloat. This Bill will play a major role in helping towards that.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

As I have said, this Bill will not only ensure that we have the power to comply with our obligations under the UN charter but allow us to support our wider foreign policy and national security goals after we leave the EU. The powers and purposes in the Bill give us wide scope for applying sanctions wherever we think those powers need to be used in order to assist our foreign policy goals, and indeed for the wider decency and morality of the world of which we are a part. The Bill will enable us to keep up to date with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures. It is an important piece of legislation, ensuring maximum continuity and certainty for individuals, businesses and international partners.

This Bill was one of the first pieces of legislation relating to the UK leaving the EU to come before Parliament. There were many uncertainties over how it would be received, but I feel it left the other place in good shape, mostly due to the brilliant stewardship of my ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. I am sure that, like me, this House would like to thank him for the way he steered this through the House of Lords, the Chamber in which it started.

I am grateful that Members of this House have similarly recognised the importance of this piece of legislation, and of the requirement to have the legal powers in place to impose, update and lift sanctions regulations, and change our anti-money laundering framework, once we leave the EU.

[Luke Graham]

Earlier this afternoon, this House accepted new clause 6, which puts new obligations on our overseas territories. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and the overseas territories that we are not going to legislate and forget? Will he confirm that Members and the Government need to support our overseas territories to help them comply with the legislation we have passed this afternoon?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am very happy to say that very fulsomely, because during our debate on the decision to adopt new clause 6 I was at pains to say that we are not going to desert the overseas territories, or indeed the Crown dependencies. We are fully supportive of them. We are going to work very much with them and, I hope, with the grain of their own efforts. We are not, in any way, going to sell them down the river. May I say very publicly here, and to those in the overseas territories who may be able to see and take note of this, that we are and we remain full supporters of the overseas territories, that we will fulfil our obligations to them without reservation and that we are not going to dilute our efforts in doing so?

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

The Minister is famed for his considerable charm and experience in overseas negotiations. Will he give the House some detail about how he is going to help the overseas territories to work with the new obligations?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I will indeed.

We have had spirited discussions on many aspects of the Bill, both on the Floor of the House and in the Public Bill Committee. I thank in particular the Bill team, who have given up pretty much a year of their lives to work on every dot, comma and detail of the legislation. They have been dutiful, punctilious and hard-working. They have been burning the midnight oil and have put up with my occasional tetchiness—

[John Glen]

Really?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes, really.

[Helen Goodman]

Surely not!

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I salute them for all their efforts.

On what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) said about the overseas territories, I am grateful that, in response to the point of order made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), Mr Speaker made it absolutely clear that procedurally the Government’s proposed amendments were in order. The compromise amendment was tabled rather late in the day, but it was not out of order for being late. We fully recognise that the Speaker has the discretion to select or not to select an amendment for debate. We were obviously disappointed that the compromise amendment was not selected, but we respect Mr Speaker’s decision.

[Jo Swinson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am very short of time. Does the shadow Minister wish to speak?

[Helen Goodman]

indicated assent.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

She does; I shall therefore not take an intervention so that I can leave a couple of minutes for her.

I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches who would have supported the compromise amendment. I apologise if I marched them up to the top of the hill only for them to find that the hill had disappeared. I put on record my thanks to all who have helped with the Bill and, indeed, my thanks to the Opposition Front-Bench team for their co-operation on Magnitsky. Out of courtesy and shortness of time, with apologies for leaving her so little of it, I leave the last couple of minutes to the shadow Minister.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill: EVEL

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Friday 27th April 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I am pleased to announce the publication of our analysis of English votes for English laws in relation to Government amendments tabled to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill for consideration at Report stage.

The English votes for English laws process applies to public Bills in the House of Commons. To support the process, the Government have agreed that they will provide information to assist the Speaker in considering whether to certify that Bill or any of its provisions for the purposes of English votes for English laws. Bill provisions that relate exclusively to England or to England and Wales, and which have a subject matter within the legislative competence of one or more of the devolved legislatures, can be certified.

The memorandum provides an assessment of Government amendments tabled to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, for the purposes of English votes for English laws, ahead of its Report stage in the House of Commons. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s assessment is that the amendments do not change the territorial application of the Bill, for the purpose of Standing Order No. 83L of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.



This analysis reflects the position should all the Government amendments be accepted.

The memorandum will be published on the Bill documents page of the Parliament website and I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

[HCWS651]

Council of Europe

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this very important debate. I, too, want to start by paying tribute to the fact that we all work together so very well. It is a real privilege to be part of a UK delegation that has agreed jointly to sponsor an exhibition at next week’s Assembly to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for his amazing work and how he has worked with me and all of us to make sure that the exhibition goes ahead. I am very proud of that piece of work.

There was a practical example of how we all work together at the Assembly in January, when a monitoring report on Bosnia and Herzegovina was very critical of Serbian activity in Bosnia. There was an attempt by Serbian representatives from Bosnia at the Assembly to weaken the report. It was the strength of the UK delegation voting as one that helped to defeat those amendments. That avoided the sending of a very negative message back to Bosnia that it is acceptable to indulge in intimidation and aggression towards other ethnic groups. That totally underlines the importance of the Council of Europe—the fact that we can work together and send out those very powerful messages to member states. The Council of Europe is not just a talking shop—if it is a talking shop, it is a very important one that is capable of sending out the most profound and fundamental of messages across the continent.

I want to echo all the thanks that have been given so far, but I also want to draw attention to the staff who work in the Council of Europe office here in Parliament. They do a fantastic job. Jonathan Finlay in particular has dedicated a great deal of time to putting together the exhibition that we will all enjoy, I hope, next week in Strasbourg. I echo entirely the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—or is it right honourable?

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

He’s getting there!

[Angela Smith]

He is getting there. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which we are all very pleased to participate in. I will not repeat his comments about the history that led to the foundation of the Council of Europe in 1949, but I do want to say that the Council has certainly played a vital role in defending democracy, human rights and the rule of law since that time. I absolutely echo his comments that it is important at this stage, when we are at a crossroads and face potentially fundamental changes in Europe, that we do not take for granted the values that underpin the Council of Europe. I am concerned about that. It is all too easy to take those values as given, but we must continue to defend them.

We have heard a lot today about the rights of minorities and the need to tackle the problem of political prisoners, LGBT rights, women’s rights, refugees and children. We also need to remember the rights of lawyers—I mention that because I am sitting next to one—to defend their clients effectively, because they are really important, especially when it comes to freedom of expression and dealing with the problems relating to the states that imprison people for speaking out.

I want to talk briefly about some of the problems with member states. Hungary and Poland have elected Governments that are troubling in their attitudes towards minorities. We need to make sure that we keep a very careful eye on what is happening in Hungary and Poland. I also want to mention Armenia, which, under pressure from the Council, signed up to around 70 Council of Europe conventions and reformed its electoral code to ensure that seats in elections were allocated to national minorities. But I read today in The Times about the unrest emerging in Armenia. The President has retired from office and has taken on a prime ministerial role. It looks as though, in effect, he we will transfer the powers that he had as President to his new role as Prime Minister.

Clearly, Armenia is one of those states that the Council of Europe will have to continue to monitor very carefully. What is happening in the country gives me reason to believe absolutely that the Council of Europe has a crucial role in ensuring that it does not waver from the path that leads it to democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

I echo entirely the comments of the hon. Member for North Thanet—I nearly called him “my hon. Friend”, as I think in this context he is—about Russia. We have to be firm in the Russian situation. We cannot be blackmailed by a state that has, in effect, decided that it does not want to abide by the rules relating to international law. It is threatening to undermine financially the work of the Council of Europe. We must stick firmly to our values and send Russia a clear message, but I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling’s comment that the door must always be open to dialogue with states such as Russia and Turkey.

Let me mention the Council’s electoral observation work. I was in Azerbaijan last week for the presidential election, which was an eye-opening experience, to say the least. Ilgar Mammadov, the leader of the main Opposition party in Azerbaijan, is a political prisoner, and many of the main Opposition parties boycotted the election on that ground. Eight candidates were allowed on the final list, and a number of them actually endorsed Aliyev. This was not a free or fair election. There was widespread intimidation, there were widespread crackdowns on free expression, and on election day I observed the stuffing of ballot papers. Some 20% of observations at polling stations reported irregularities, and irregularities were reported at 50% of the counts observed. On those grounds, the Council of Europe, at its meeting the following morning, determined that the election was not free or fair.

That is only the second election observation mission I have participated in—I went to Armenia last year—but election observation is one of the most important aspects of the work of the Council of Europe. As the hon. Member for North Thanet said, it is one of the key means by which we underpin our values and our belief in democracy and free and fair elections. Although, when we observe elections, we cannot stop corruption or the failure of member states that are monitored to observe free and fair play, it is nevertheless important to continue that observation work and to continue to report abuses of electoral processes. For me, that is one of the key means by which we make progress.

I will finish by endorsing the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) that we should have an annual debate on the work of the Council of Europe. I also like the idea of an annual statement on the work of the Committee of Ministers. That is a really good idea and would be a key means for Members of this Parliament to be made more aware of the important work of the Council of Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

I absolutely agree, and our being able to return to our constituencies and report on the work done by us and the Council of Europe is important. We must look for as many opportunities as we can to do that within this place, and in the media, and there is an opportunity to engage more positively.

I remember returning home on the tube one evening and reading a declaration in the London Evening Standard that it had a new Brussels correspondent. I thought, “Well, isn’t that ironic? Where have they been for the last 10 years?” There was a recent report about the reportage not just of the EU and its institutions, but of Europe in general, and the UK came very near the bottom for quality of reportage and coverage. I do not wish to diverge or digress too much, but the sad truth about Brexit is that people are learning about the EU, what it brings to them and its benefits, only as we leave. We will continue to be a member of the Council of Europe and, for the many reasons that people have highlighted, its work will be extremely important.

Let me reflect briefly on some of my observations from the Hemicycle during the initial days that I spent there. It is completely different from the Chamber of the House of Commons. There is electronic voting. Voting takes merely a few moments; I could not help reflecting on that and thinking, as I put my fingers into the black box and pressed the buttons, how much quicker and more efficient this place would be if we had a similar voting system—[Hon. Members: “No! No!] I know there will be many dissenting voices, but I will press on.

It was also incredible to see the Danish national girls’ choir sweep into the Hemicycle and sing for the Members. It would be difficult to imagine something like that happening in the Chamber of the House of Commons —although perhaps we should consider putting it to Mr Speaker—with people taking pictures of each other and engaging in a lively, democratic way.

The hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned the breadth of coverage of the Council of Europe, and the number of people: 820 million people is incredible. He leads us ably and I have enjoyed working with him very much. He has spoken of the breadth of issues dealt with and challenged there, including torture, racism and trafficking. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke about child trafficking and her work on that. As to the fact that the UK Government have not ratified the Lanzarote convention on child sexual exploitation, it is important that we continue to press the matter.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Perhaps I can put the hon. Lady’s mind, and that of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), at rest by confirming that our assessment is that we are now compliant to ratify the convention. We laid the means of doing so before Parliament last week, on 12 April, so the hon. Member for Rotherham can dance a little jig of joy.

[Hannah Bardell]

That is excellent news and testament to the work of the hon. Lady, as well as the work done and pressure put on by the Council of Europe.

For my part, the work of the SNP in the Council will be very much about putting forward Scotland’s voice about its place in Europe, as well as working with colleagues on issues of common interest. I look forward to working with the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham in her role as rapporteur on referendums. She will know that, whatever side of the argument—if any—people took in the 2014 referendum in Scotland, it has been held up as the gold standard in terms of process. I hope that we can work together.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), as I think we all are, for securing the debate and launching it with such an excellent speech. I hope that I will not embarrass him too much if I say that I think it is the best speech I have ever heard in Westminster Hall. His enthusiasm is infectious.

I welcome this opportunity to put on the record my appreciation not just of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, but of the contributions and work of all the other members of the UK delegation, and of all the things they have chieved and will achieve. For instance, the hon. Gentleman has made a significant impact on the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, and I was particularly grateful for his work in inspiring the Parliamentary Assembly’s motion in October condemning trafficking in human beings. As hon. Members are well aware, there is a great coincidence of passion and effort here, as tackling modern slavery is a major priority for the Prime Minister personally and for the Government more widely.

I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members in the debate. I will set out the UK’s commitment and contribution to the Council of Europe, and share our vision of how, together, member states can overcome the challenges it faces. I will try to respond to some of the points raised, but I am pleased to have already been able to respond to my genuine friend, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), on the Lanzarote convention. I am sure that the House will endorse that without question and very rapidly.

The Government are committed to enabling people to realise their potential. Protecting and promoting human rights is central to that objective. More broadly, it is an essential aim of our foreign policy. That is why the Council of Europe is so important to the UK. We recognise and appreciate the valuable role it plays in advancing work on human rights, democracy and the rule of law across Europe.

As the UK prepares to leave the EU, the Council of Europe will be just as important to us. Indeed—perhaps this is the main point of the debate—it will become more important to us. Our continuing commitment to the Council of Europe is one of a number of examples to which I could point that give meaning to our message that, as we have heard this morning, although we are leaving the EU, we are not leaving Europe. We will have the same friends and the same objectives, but a different structure. Our membership provides a platform to pursue common values and aspirations, alongside our many and continuing European friends.

We were, of course, a founding member of the Council of Europe; we were there from the very start. We helped to shape and draft the statute, which originally was the treaty of London, and we were at the centre of efforts to draft the European convention on human rights. Since those early days, as we have heard, Council of Europe membership has increased from 10 to 47, encompassing almost all of Europe. Its core activities of setting standards, monitoring compliance and providing assistance help to advance human rights and democracy across all those member states. It will and it must continue to do so.

A multitude of Government experts support the work of the Council of Europe, and its numerous bodies, including the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and the Parliamentary Assembly, play a vital role in holding member states to account. I am grateful for all the work of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, which is a wonderful example of cross-party co-operation and shows the strength of our commitment. I hope that all those who are involved feel that there is a good working relationship between the Council and those of us who are Ministers taking an interest in the work being done.

The bedrock of the Council of Europe is of course the European convention on human rights. There have been questions, here and in Strasbourg, about our commitment to the convention. As my ministerial colleagues have made clear in recent debates in the House, the Government have absolutely no plans to withdraw from the ECHR. As I assured Secretary-General Jagland in November, we remain committed to the Council of Europe.

The European Court of Human Rights has raised human rights standards across Europe. In the UK, few of us would question its rulings in cases such as Dudgeon or Tyrer, which turned the tide on the criminalisation of homosexual acts and on corporal punishment respectively. However, to protect the long-term credibility of the Court, we must enable it to concentrate on the most serious human rights violations. The Danish Government, who currently chair the Committee of Ministers, share that vision. We worked closely with them on the recent Copenhagen declaration, which advances reform of the convention system, building on our own Brighton declaration of 2012.

There are also conventions covering areas beyond human rights and the rule of law. As part of our anti-corruption strategy, we intend soon to sign two new sports conventions on match fixing and safety at football matches and other sporting events. UK experts played a major role in shaping those conventions.

The Council of Europe, as we have heard, deploys a range of monitoring mechanisms to assess implementation of the standards that members have signed up to. It also assists member states to meet their commitments, including through the work of the Venice Commission, the Commissioner for Human Rights, expert groups and co-operation programmes. Working through multilateral organisations such as the Council of Europe addresses the sensitivities of some member states about receiving foreign assistance.

Through our Magna Carta fund for human rights and democracy, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has supported a number of Council of Europe projects. Those include projects supporting judicial reforms in Ukraine, countering violent extremism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and strengthening the ombudsman service in Russia—perhaps a slightly more challenging task. Through our conflict, stability and security fund, we have contributed almost €600,000 to a Council of Europe project to strengthen human rights standards in the armed forces in Armenia, allowing it to meet its obligations under the ECHR and to help its army attain modern standards and values. We have also provided £150,000 to support Council of Europe work on strengthening the cyber-crime convention. The UK-supported convention moves us further away from calls for new treaties that would regulate cyber-space in a way that was unacceptable to the UK.

As we have heard, however, there are a number of challenges facing the Council of Europe. For instance, for many years the organisation has had difficulty in allocating its budget to core priorities. It has also struggled to keep up with the bulging caseload of its Strasbourg Court. Some will want to put pressure on Turkey to strengthen its judicial system, and we have heard some compelling arguments why. One of the advantages of doing so is that it will avoid a wave of new applications that might put further strain on the Strasbourg Court.

I share the secretary-general’s goal of keeping Turkey engaged. As we have heard, I have personally been working on that pretty well since the first day I became a Foreign Minister, which coincided with the attempted coup in Turkey. Indeed, I will be there next week representing the former entente powers at the 103rd annual commemoration of the Gallipoli campaign—a significant moment illustrating that, whereas a century ago we were enemies, today we can look across at each other as friends. I look forward to continuing to work with Turkey through the Council of Europe to support its judicial system, not just because that is the best way to minimise further strain on the European Court of Human Rights, but because it matters in itself.

It is not just the Court that is under pressure; so too is the Council’s budget. While it is disappointing that Turkey has rescinded its grand payeur status, it continues none the less to pay its basic contribution, as it is obliged to do. However, Russia’s withholding of its budget since July last year, in retaliation for sanctions imposed by the Parliamentary Assembly following the annexation of Crimea, looks much more intractable. That failure will be a long-standing issue that we must resolve in the context of our opposing Russia’s overall belligerence and aggression. I understand the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the importance of engaging in that context. The significant budgetary pressures faced by the Council of Europe increase the urgency on the secretariat to implement the necessary reforms and efficiencies to deliver a more efficient organisation, focused on core activities. The UK Government stand ready to support those reforms.

I can assure the House that the Government will remain fully committed to the Council of Europe. I urge all my hon. Friends on both sides of the House to continue in the very good work that they do.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the work of the Council of Europe.

Foreign Affairs Council: 16 April 2018

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Written Statements

[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 16 April. 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 Luxembourg.

The FAC will discuss current affairs, Russia, Iran, Syria, western Balkans and the European neighbourhood instrument.

Foreign Affairs Council

Russia

Ministers will have a substantive discussion of the EU’s five principles on Russia to follow up on the robust conversation at the March European Council on the challenges Russia poses, particularly in light of the Salisbury incident. The five principles are full implementation of Minsk agreements; closer ties with Russia’s former Soviet neighbours; strengthening EU resilience to Russian threats; selective engagement with Russia on certain issues; and support for people-to-people contacts.

Western Balkans

Ministers will discuss the political situation in the western Balkans ahead of the EU28-Western Balkans summit in Sofia. We can expect the discussions to focus on the EU-facilitated dialogue on Kosovo/Serbia as well as the risks of instability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if there is no agreement on electoral reform ahead of October’s elections.

Iran

Ministers will discuss shared concerns around Iran’s destabilising regional activity and the EU’s role in responding to this.

Syria

Ministers will discuss recent developments in Syria.

European Neighbourhood Instrument

Ministers will discuss the European neighbourhood instrument (ENI) and the next Multi-annual financial framework (MFF). The UK will have leave the EU before the MFF comes into effect and does not therefore expect to have a strong say in decisions but will note the importance of dedicated funding for the European neighbourhood in the next MFF.

Council Conclusions

The FAC is expected to adopt conclusions on Syria, South Sudan, malicious cyber-activities and chemical disarmament and non-proliferation.

[HCWS618]

Foreign Affairs Council

Alan Duncan Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Written Statements

[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 Foreign Affairs Council on 19 March. 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

The Council discussed the Salisbury attack and adopted a statement expressing the European Union’s (EU) unqualified solidarity with, and support for, the UK, including for our efforts to bring to justice those responsible for this crime. The EU takes extremely seriously the UK Government’s assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible.

Ukraine

The Council discussed recent developments, in particular, in Ukraine’s reform process. Ahead of the Ukraine Reform conference that will take place in Copenhagen on 27 June, Ministers welcomed the progress on economic reform but underlined the need for increased efforts in other areas, including the judiciary and anti-corruption.

The Council reiterated its commitment to its policy of non-recognition and support for the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. Ministers expressed their concern over humanitarian issues in eastern Ukraine and reiterated their full support for the work of the OSCE in the region.

Syria

The Council discussed the latest developments in Syria with the Secretary General of the United Nations’ Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura. Ministers commended his tireless efforts to push for a political solution to the conflict and recalled that the EU has clearly stated there can be no military solution to the conflict. Ministers expressed their concern over the continued deterioration in the humanitarian situation, in particular in Afrin and eastern Ghouta. They urged all those involved to fully and immediately implement UN Security Council resolution 2401. They also discussed possible repercussions of the situation in Syria for the wider region.

Finally the Council discussed the forthcoming second Brussels conference on “Supporting the future of Syria and the region” on 24-25 April 2018, which will be co-chaired by the EU and the UN.

Informal lunch on the Korean peninsula

Ministers and the HRVP discussed the situation on the Korean peninsula over an informal lunch with the South Korean Foreign Minister, Kang Kyung-wha. Ministers looked ahead to the summit between Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in that is scheduled for April and the meeting announced between Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump.

Iran

The Council discussed Iran. Ministers underlined the importance of the Iran nuclear deal - the JCPOA - for the security of the region and beyond. They highlighted the need to ensure continuous commitment of all parties involved to the Agreement.

Ministers also discussed other issues outside the scope of the JCPOA, in particular Iran’s ballistic missiles programme, as well as Iran's role in the increasing tensions in the region, including in Syria and Yemen.

Ministers agreed a number of measures without discussion:

The Council lifted the restrictive measures against three persons who had perpetrated violent acts during the incidents in Mostar (Bosnia and Herzegovina) on 10 February 1997.

The Council prolonged, for 12 months, the validity of the Council decision of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures, making it possible to impose an asset freeze and a travel ban on persons whose activities undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity and constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina or seriously threaten its security situation.

The Council added four persons to the list of those targeted by EU restrictive measures against the Syrian regime.

The Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations, on behalf of the Union, on an international legally-binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

[HCWS595]