Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) Order 2018 Draft Proceeds of crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2018 Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Listed Assets: Code of Practice) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2018 Draft Criminal Finances Act 2017 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2018

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 General Committees

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Ms Buck, for chairing the Committee. The Opposition generally support such measures, but with some reservations. We of course welcome any new provision to prosecute, prevent and seize the assets of criminals. However, amid continued cuts to public services, I am interested to hear exactly how the measures will be fully and robustly enforced. There have been staff cuts in literally every agency carrying out this work, from the police to Border Force, to revenue officers.

I remind the Minister of Labour’s argument that agencies involved in exercising civil recovery powers should have enough resources to do their job properly. He may recall that we requested a distinct and clear annual report, detailing the resources that are allocated to agencies strictly for carrying out the recovery powers. The Conservatives objected to that during the early stages of the Proceeds of Crime Act, on the grounds that the asset recovery incentivisation scheme would allow frontline agencies to keep 100% of the illicit value that they recover. In theory, the agencies could retain the total value recovered, but as was made clear by the Public Accounts Committee at the time in its progress review of confiscation orders and by the Home Affairs Committee in its review of POCA, the agencies’ recovery rates have been poor. Although the measures appear to convey greater powers to the agencies, there is no guarantee that they will improve their recovery rates. Given the failure to achieve that in recent Bills, we had hoped that these orders might go further.

We also note with concern that the said powers will be conferred on immigration officers. Although that makes sense in theory, will the Minister explain whether that includes agents of the state such as G4S and Serco? I remind the Government of the complete lack of trust in those agencies, following recent revelations in immigration detention centres, such as Brook House and Yarl’s Wood. If we cannot trust those individuals to deal with human beings professionally, that clearly indicates that we may not be able to trust them with other matters. Those matters aside, which we would appreciate the Minister’s assurances on, we will support the orders.

Modern Slavery Act 2015

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

I wish to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on not only securing today’s debate, but the excellent way he takes a lead on this important issue. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) on their excellent contributions today. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) for bringing the real-life consequences of the evil practice of slavery into the Chamber today.

When this House passed the Modern Slavery Act 2015 it was a landmark piece of legislation that provided leadership on a global scale. However, the lack of subsequent legislation has meant that it now risks becoming less effective on key issues of the fight against modern slavery. I will start by setting the scene: 45.8 million people are enslaved worldwide—this can mean anything from forced labour to forced marriage and forced sexual exploitation. In the UK, one of the most well developed countries in the world, an estimated 13,000 people are in modern-day slavery—that is far too many.

As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), companies that have made statements under section 54 of the Act are in the minority; the majority have not done so. Where they have made a statement, the quality ranges from the very good—I would specifically name Marks & Spencer and the Co-operative here—to the almost worthless. Yet, Ministers have done nothing to address this, leaving businesses free to carry on and take no action, despite what this House legislated for. We must put into place a regime where this House can be confident that its wishes, as expressed, and the commitments in the Modern Slavery Act, will be fulfilled. So I ask the Minister: when will the Government publish a list of all companies that should be producing statements on their modern slavery policies?

We all acknowledge that the police do a fantastic job when they protect and rescue individuals from slavery, but the HMIC report published earlier this week was a stark reality check for us all. The report tells us that all too often the trafficker’s threats to the victims—that they have no means of escape, as they will not be believed—have sadly become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The report’s biggest critique was that policing against modern slavery and human trafficking is reactive rather than proactive, so more must be done to support vulnerable people to ensure that they will not be placed in the hands of traffickers. It is vital that we learn how traffickers prey on their victims, so that we are able to be more effective with preventions and protections. Does the Minister agree that there is a real need to improve training for the police, to help them better understand how to identify victims and how best to respond to issues?

I want to move on to the problematic national referral mechanism. Adults are required to consent to their referral, but without appropriate funding, support and accommodation, and a suitable environment where they can get proper advice to allow them to make informed decisions, far too many turn to homelessness or, even worse, return to their traffickers. All too often, NRM forms are rushed, just to make sure that the person concerned has access to accommodation. That means that some forms are incomplete or contain inaccurate information, undermining the individual’s credibility. Legal advice and representation must be offered early to all potential victims, to support them in understanding their rights, and in giving them access to justice and a real opportunity to move on with their lives. Government support is withdrawn quickly after a conclusive groundwork decision is made, and non-governmental organisations are all too often having to pick up the pieces because of a lack of resources and awareness among local authorities. Safe house accommodation should be more flexible, with support diminishing gradually according to an individual’s needs; they should not just have the rug pulled from under them.

Not only is this lack of support detrimental to the individuals, but it makes it difficult for police and prosecutors to do their job. Police have spoken about losing survivors due to the lack of support, and NGOs have spoken about anxiety caused by an insecure immigration status and how that prevents survivors in dealing with their traumatic experiences. Victims are entitled to only 45 days of NRM support following rescue, and that is simply not enough. Regardless of how well organised that 45 days’ support is, it is still not enough. Many of those rescued want to regain control of their lives through schemes such as the Co-op’s “Bright Future” project, which gives them a pathway back to paid employment, but they cannot do so because either they have not had the support to get them ready for work or they do not have the legal right to work.

Victims continue to be denied access to the vital services that they need to recover and rebuild their lives. Authorities often prioritise immigration control over the safety of victims. That can leave adults and children vulnerable to going missing. Traffickers see these individuals as vulnerable, and they exploit the existing system using evil and despicable practices. I welcome the fact that the NRM is being reformed, but I hope that during the reform process organisations such as the Human Trafficking Foundation, ECPAT UK and UNICEF are listened to and their advice heeded.

Slavery touches our lives every day, whether we know it or not. No country is free from this horrific crime and no one is safe: women, men, youngsters and, worse still, children are vulnerable. Exploitation on any level is unjustifiable, but when it involves a child it is chillingly deplorable. I have a huge concern that no specialist support or accommodation for trafficked children is available under the NRM. I urge the Minister to address that as a matter of urgency.

We passed the legislation two years ago, but it has been left to go stale, through a lack of enforcement, additional legislation or desire. Victims of modern slavery and trafficking are still being criminalised for crimes they were forced to commit. There is no clear pathway or continuity of support for victims, and the inconsistent training and co-ordination of services that are in place to protect them can be a hindrance because of a lack of knowledge, appropriate training and funding.

We are dealing with the most vulnerable individuals. This is a modern scourge with historical roots. Too many people rely on us to protect them from danger and to offer them support, so we must make sure that the service we offer is robust, reliable and effective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

T6. Ann Jones, the Welsh Assembly Member for Vale of Clwyd, successfully steered through Welsh Government legislation to make it compulsory to have sprinklers in new-builds and to retrofit them in refurbished residential buildings. Will the Home Secretary follow the Welsh Government’s example and work with her Cabinet colleagues towards making that a UK-wide policy?

[Mr Hurd]

I refer the hon. Lady to what I said before. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is making a statement this afternoon, and the Prime Minister has made several statements about the way forward in reviewing regulations, guidance and the whole inspection and risk-monitoring regime, which will include guidance on sprinklers. As the hon. Lady will know, sprinklers have different applications in different locations; there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Draft Immigration Act 2016 (Consequential Amendments) (Biometrics and Legal Aid) Regulations 2017

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 General Committees

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Davies. Illustrious—you’ll have people talking about us.

The Minister will be aware that the amendment we are discussing could well have been included in the body of the 2016 Act, and the fact that we are discussing it today indicates that the Act was prepared in haste. We need to be cautious that that haste is not replicated. We are concerned that legal representatives for bail applications were unaware that the proposed commencement date of the immigration bail provision was 30 April 2017 until they received revised bail forms on 4 April. Charitable organisations working with those on temporary admission, and indeed Members of this House, were left to find out about these changes at third hand.

The term “immigration bail” stigmatises an individual as a criminal, when in reality many on immigration bail are asylum seekers. The terminology risks fuelling hatred and xenophobia, which was arguably the cause of the recent, very vicious attack on a young man in Croydon.

The light in this dark tunnel is that with the new immigration bail provisions will come an automatic judicial review for detainees, in the form of a bail hearing every four months. We need to ensure that those brought before an immigration judge for the lawfulness of their detention receive the appropriate consideration, because getting it wrong is a high price to pay.

The adults at risk guidance brought in as a result of the 2016 Act was intended to increase protection from wrongful detention for those at particular risk, such as survivors of torture and trafficking, and those with mental and physical health problems. Instead, it has been more difficult for those people to secure release. In order to ameliorate the situation, the courts were forced to issue an injunction to require the Home Office to revert to the more inclusive definition of torture used in the old guidance. That is a direct challenge to the restrictive definition used in the new guidance, which means that most survivors of torture are at risk of detention.

We have already seen two fatalities in immigration detention this year: a 27-year-old Polish man was found dead in January—the day after his wife gave birth to their child—and at the beginning of April a 44-year-old man died at the Verne immigration detention centre. I urge the Minister to review the adults at risk policy and lay more proactive guidance before Parliament.

With regard to legal aid, I ask the Minister to place on the parliamentary record the statement in the explanatory memorandum that there is

“no change in policy… The policy intention is that legal aid availability will be maintained as before, ensuring that there is no effective change to the availability of legal aid when the Schedule 10 provisions are commenced and the existing powers repealed.”

It is imperative that the Government’s review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, scheduled to commence this year, examines legal aid for those deprived of their liberty. There is legal aid for challenges to immigration detention, but without dealing with the merits of the immigration case it may be difficult to secure release, and there is no legal aid for immigration cases. For those detained in the prison estate, even a challenge to detention may be out of reach in practice.

As of September 2016, 558 prisoners were held under Immigration Act powers in prisons. In February 2017, the charity Bail for Immigration Detainees published “Mind the Gap: Immigration Advice for Detainees in Prison”, which found that less than a quarter of immigration detainees surveyed in prison have access to an immigration solicitor. That situation must be addressed.

Although Opposition Members will cautiously support the Government today, we ask that the issues I have raised receive the appropriate attention and scrutiny they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

My hon. Friend gives a really good example of a very forward thinking police force in Essex. Credit must go to the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable for the work that they are doing to use modern techniques and good technology to drive forward and to be efficient and effective. That is a good example of why we are increasing the police transformation fund to some £175 million this year.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary really believe that the 45 days of support for suspected victims of trafficking is adequate, given that the organisations working at the coalface of the problem, such as the Human Trafficking Foundation, the Salvation Army, the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, the Snowdrop Project, City Hearts and ECPAT, all say that it is completely unrealistic to expect to deal with the immigration, psychological, economic and housing issues that these vulnerable individuals are experiencing in 45 days? All those organisations also agree that this lethal combination is exposing victims to the real possibility of being re-trafficked.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

I think that it is important to remember that the Prime Minister has led a global challenge to crack down on slavery. We now have some of the best anti-trafficking legislation in the world, and really excellent protection for victims. What the hon. Lady said is not actually correct, because the average time that people receive through the national referral mechanism is 90 days. We are working on reforms to the system to ensure that it is absolutely the best in the world.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2017

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 General Committees

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

In contrast to the Minister, who seems to be satisfied with dull and boring, I aim to spice up your life. In that vein, just to be controversial, I will say that there seems to be an irony in the fact that we can so easily discuss this order affecting the Channel Islands but we were unable to extend the same attention to tax evasion involving those very same islands in the Criminal Finances Bill that is passing through Parliament. However, the Opposition are by no means opposed to the measures.

The amendment to the 2016 order and the extension of measures to the Channel Islands are both sensible and proportionate. We particularly welcome the setting of a maximum fee. The cost to individuals and families has become extortionate. Although we recognise the need for fees, we must also acknowledge that anecdotal evidence has shown that we are losing students and tourists, particularly to other European countries. Those groups would contribute massively to our economy and it must be argued that their loss is owing to the level of fees and the complexity of the visa system. Nevertheless, we will not oppose the order today.

Question put and agreed to.

Police Grant

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Labour Members deplore the approach that this Government have taken to police funding. They have broken their promise to Parliament that they would protect frontline policing. They have left police forces across the country without the money they need to keep our citizens safe from crime. With funding cut every single year, there are now 21,000 fewer police officers than there were in 2010. That is what this Government have done for policing.

Moreover, the Government have persistently failed to introduce a funding formula that is linked in any meaningful way to the needs of different areas. When they did try to do so, it literally did not add up and had to be withdrawn. Now we see in today’s motion that for another year they are simply salami-slicing the police budget again, with real-terms cuts of 2.7% across the force, regardless of need. They decided they could not run their own funding model because, they said, it was broken, but they have not been able to build a new one despite trying for four years.

This is incompetence. It is the action of a panicked and out-of-touch Government forced to make bad decisions that bear little relation to community needs because of the lack of capacity that is a problem of their own creation.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the 4.9% real-terms cut in Gwent police and 5.3% real-terms cut in South Wales police will put frontline policing at risk in those areas? I have spent some time with frontline police as part of the police service parliamentary scheme, and the frontline officers I have met certainly do not recognise the rosy picture painted by the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris]

I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. I appreciate the work that he has done with the police service parliamentary scheme and know that he understands what real policing is really all about.

No wonder that only last week the outgoing head of the Metropolitan police said:

“It’s getting difficult…The bottom line is that there will be less cops. I can’t see any other way…There’s only so much you can cut and make efficiencies and then you’ve got to have less police…I’m not sure that's wise”.

We do not believe it is wise either.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the pain has not been distributed equally across the country? In Durham we have lost 25% of our police officers since 2010. Nationally, the average is 12%, although Surrey, I understand, has lost only 1% of its officers.

[Carolyn Harris]

I certainly agree. I think the method is shambolic.

I turn to broken promises. Let me give a bit of history. In 2011, David Cameron said:

“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]

Yet the number of police officers fell by almost 21,000 after he became Prime Minister. The total size of the police workforce has fallen by over 46,000 since 2010. Following a successful campaign from the Labour Benches led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), told Parliament at the autumn statement in 2015 that

“now is not the time for further police cuts…There will be real-terms protection for police funding.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]

Today’s figures show that he has broken that promise to Parliament. In fact, between 2015-16 and, going forward, 2017-18, the total amount of real-terms Government grants for police forces has fallen by 4.4%. The real-terms cuts we have seen in the past two years come on top of real-terms cuts of £2.3 billion—25%—in the preceding five years, as shown by the National Audit Office.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am interested in the hon. Lady’s argument. Is she asserting that local taxation is not a form of revenue?

[Carolyn Harris]

It is.

The motion means that next year, after inflation, funding for London services will be cut by more than £48 million. The Northumbria police service will find itself in a position of having to increase the local tax burden by £6 million just to stand still, and funding for the South Wales police service will fall by over 5% in a single year.

[Andy Burnham]

This House has not been given an accurate picture. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the 2015 spending review promised real-terms protection. Local tax rises have not made up for Government cuts, so there are real-terms cuts to police services all over the country. Does she agree that, of all Government Ministers, the Policing Minister should tell the truth at the Dispatch Box?

[Carolyn Harris]

That would be welcome.

Meanwhile, crime levels, which the Government keep telling us have fallen, are actually about twice what they were previously presumed to be, as we have learned since January, following the inclusion of cybercrime. In London, the proposed settlement does not include the full cost of policing ceremonial and other national events that take place there simply because it is our nation’s capital.

[Andy Slaughter]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on painting the correct picture, particularly in relation to London, which gets only half the money it should get nationally? Every Londoner pays a £61 subsidy through their council tax each year. One of the biggest costs relates to neighbourhood policing, which was destroyed under the previous Mayor of London and is being resurrected by the current Mayor, but that is happening under huge financial pressure and the Government’s failure to fund London properly.

[Carolyn Harris]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. A London citizen will end up paying more for national events through their council tax than anyone else. I am sure that my London colleagues will be pleased to know that the funding for trips such as that by President Trump will come out of their pockets.

The underfunding of our police services must stop. Our citizens deserve a police force that is fit for purpose, and our hard-working policemen and women deserve a Government who support them to do a job. The Minister is being disingenuous if he tries to imply that the cuts will not have a negative effect on our ability to police. In fact, we are starting to see real evidence that neighbourhood policing is suffering as a direct result of the Conservative party’s actions.

In its latest annual report, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary states:

“Neighbourhood policing is one area where the danger of across-the-board reductions in resources is apparent…As chief officers reduce their workforces, they will need to…include assurances that a smaller police workforce will not compromise public safety and explain any effect there might be on neighbourhood policing.”

I share those concerns. Neighbourhood policing matters. It is not just reassuring to local communities, but crucial for crime prevention. Unfortunately, however, I fear that the damage is already being done. Last year’s HMIC annual report went on to say that

“we found that there were too many forces where there were signs of an ever-larger proportion of the workforce being drawn into responding to incidents, leading to a reduction in crime prevention activity.”

I do not believe that the cuts that we are being asked to approve today will not lead to further reductions in neighbourhood policing. I can only assume that that is a price that the Minister is prepared to pay.

The problem is compounded by cuts to other frontline services. As local authority and mental health services are also pared back, it falls to the police to pick up the pieces when preventable problems become emergency incidents. That is a problem for police resourcing, but more than that it is a tragedy for the individuals, families and communities concerned.

The HMIC assessment continued:

“Society should no longer tolerate conditions in which these illnesses and disorders are neglected until they land at the feet of the police, in circumstances of violence, disorder and desperation.”

Under this Government, those desperate situations are tolerated because they have got their priorities wrong. As a result, police resources are used to respond to individual crises that do not count in the crime figures. Forces themselves estimate that crime accounts for only 22% of the number of emergency and priority incidents. When the Minister says that crime is falling, he is wrong. It is wrong to use that as the justification for funding cuts.

The Minister argues that it is okay to cut, because forces can raise local precepts to fill the gap, but that misses the point. Raising the precept, which most forces, for understandable reasons, are attempting to do, is simply a way of asking the public to pay more because of the Government’s political decision to give less from general taxation.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

rose—

[Carolyn Harris]

I am going to make progress. The Government are passing the buck on a monumental scale. More than that, it is unfair because some forces will be unable to raise as much as others.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

rose—

[Carolyn Harris]

I am going to make progress. The ability of forces to raise funding will depend on local circumstances and the prevailing level of council tax, neither of which necessarily bears any relation to policing needs. In fact, initial results from a current research project at the London School of Economics, which is examining the factors that drive demand for policing, suggest that, in general, crime levels are significantly higher where house prices are lower. If that is correct, it means that shifting towards greater funding through a council tax precept is precisely the opposite of what is required. The communities with the greatest need will have the least ability to meet that need through higher tax rises.

All that suggests that the Government’s policy on policing is wrong. My real concern, however, is deeper: I do not think that the Government have any idea whether or not the cuts are jeopardising public safety. There is no analysis behind the proposals that we are being asked to approve today.

In its 2015 report on the financial sustainability of police forces, the National Audit Office concluded that police forces have “insufficient understanding” of the demand for their services and what affects their costs. It said that that made it

“difficult for them to…show how much resource they need, and demonstrate that they are delivering value for money.”

If the National Audit Office finds it hard to work out whether the service is offering value for money, how can the Conservative party reassure us that the cuts are safe? Frankly, this is a mess.

We need to understand how the police force of the future will protect the public in a way that offers value for money for the taxpayer, but the Minister appears to have no idea how to do that. That is no wonder, for when the Government cannot even come up with a formula that funds forces fairly on current need, I can understand how considering how to respond to future needs must be way beyond their capability.

Even worse than that, the Government are ignoring the work that has already been done. In 2014 a group of senior police officers explored how policing should work in an environment of austerity. Their report, “Reshaping policing for the public”, discussed a wide restructuring of the police force to get greater bang for the taxpayers’ buck. However, I fear, as predicted by the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria, that the report just made its way on to a shelf in Whitehall and is collecting dust.

In summary, the Government present themselves as the party of law and order, but their policing policy is a shambles. They do not know what forces need or whether taxpayers’ money is being spent properly. They cannot say at what point efficiency gains become a threat to public safety. They blithely promise Parliament that they will protect the frontline, just as they take away the cash that is needed to do so. They pass the buck to local taxation, even though the areas that need more resources are those with the least ability to raise funds. In the absence of any credible policy, the Government just keep cutting year after year in the hope it will all be okay. But it is not okay. The Government’s incompetence lets down the taxpayer. Their broken promises about further cuts to frontline services let down the public and are insulting to the hard-working and brave police officers right across this country.

Criminal Finances Bill

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will certainly put that suggestion to officials. My view would be that pre-suspension of the Assembly is the place we are at, and although there has been a change of a leader, I am not sure that we have had any signal that it has gone backwards. The date of 2 March gives me some good hope. I have never known the other place move at the speed of light, so I hope we shall have time to make sure that this gets through.

Finally, this group includes two proposals concerning unexplained wealth orders: new clause 5, in the name of a number of the officers of the all-party parliamentary groups on anti-corruption and responsible tax, and Opposition amendment 1. I will allow hon. Members the opportunity to speak to those amendments and will respond to them in my closing remarks.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

The Opposition support the spirit of the Bill and broadly support this group of amendments. We welcome new provisions to prosecute those professionals who fail to prevent tax evasion, as well as welcoming unexplained wealth orders, under which assets can be seized if owners are unable to explain how they were funded. We, of course, support the Government’s effort to tighten up state powers against white-collar crime, but we have concerns that they are squandering the opportunity that the Bill provides to stamp out the everyday corruption of the super-rich who are getting a free ride at the expense of the wider society, thereby fuelling inequality.

Another problem is that, amid the Government’s cuts to public services, the Bill could be very difficult to enforce. Although I understand the giving of new powers to HMRC, are the Government not concerned about how HMRC will carry out its new duties? Given that the coalition Government decimated HMRC’s budgets by £100 million and that HMRC is set to lose 137 of its offices by 2027, there seems little point in creating laws that cannot be enforced—unless, of course, it is to give the impression that the Government are doing something. This, I fear, is a theme that has sadly run through our proceedings on the Bill so far.

We Opposition Members argue that it is crucial for the agencies involved in civil recovery powers to have sufficient resources to do their jobs properly. We therefore request a distinct and clear annual report that details the resources allocated to the agencies that are concerned solely with the task of carrying out these recovery powers.

In previous stages, the Government objected on the grounds that the asset recovery incentivisation scheme would allow frontline agencies to keep 100% of what they recover, but this argument is seriously flawed. In theory, yes, the agencies could retain the total value recovered, but as the Public Accounts Committee made clear in its progress review of confiscation orders and as the Home Affairs Select Committee made clear in its review of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, these agencies’ recovery rates have been typically poor. Consequently, it remains to be seen how these agencies will improve their rate of recovery to benefit from the new incentivisation scheme.

Another reason that the Government gave is that anyone who wanted to find out this information could in theory obtain it by going to a number of different sources. Yet again, this is flawed. We previously argued for a detailed reporting of resources, specifically for these agencies, in the exercise of the powers laid down in the Bill and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The Government have already blocked a number of measures that Labour has proposed to make this a meaningful and effective Bill. We proposed a corporate probation order. If a company was found to have committed a failure to prevent offence, it would have been subject to an independent review of its compliance procedures and it would have had to pay the full costs of such a review. This was coupled with allowing for the removal of directors from companies who failed to ensure that proper procedures were in place to prevent UK and foreign tax evasion offences from taking place. The Government believed that this was unnecessary because UK law could already deal with such cases of negligence. Although there may be a case for some UK law to be used to a similar effect, it would not be an identical effect.

While there is an implied threat to the EU that the Government could change the UK’s economic model into one of a tax haven, there is a strong case for legislation to protect both UK citizens and citizens from around the world. With the potential for a race to the bottom and the destruction of workers’ rights and the slashing of corporation tax, it could be argued that a Brexiteer Government would foster an environment where tax evasion was implicitly encouraged.

As my colleagues have said, and will no doubt say again, the Bill must do more to tackle the deeply entrenched and extraordinarily costly phenomenon of tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is, in effect, living to the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the law. Repeated investigations of companies that sail close to the wind but know that they have bought the lawyers and accountants to make their tax abuse legal is both very frustrating and extremely costly. As the UK general anti-abuse rules show, there are ways to minimise the risk of corporate abuse of the tax system, and these should be absorbed into the Bill.

Spain, Canada and Australia each have a single agency responsible for supervising and enforcing anti-money laundering regulations—Britain has 22. Worse still, according to Transparency International UK, 15 of these 22 supervisors also lobby on behalf of the interests of their sector, creating clear conflicts of interest and a system inefficient to its core. The Government raised this problem in their action plan that preceded the Bill, but they were not concerned enough to convert this into proposed legislation. The system needs reform and the Bill needs to reflect this. Unless the Government accept all these concerns and indeed all the changes suggested in the Opposition amendments, the Bill is likely to fail on the intention to clean up money laundering and tax evasion.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 5, which, as the Minister said, stands in my name and those of colleagues in the all-party parliamentary anti-corruption group. The reason for tabling new clause 5 was to probe the Government on the issue and make sure that we make full use of the unexplained wealth orders and the interim freezing orders that we envisage in passing this Bill. I fear that if we are not careful, the various authorities that can use the orders may be a little concerned about the possibility that the people against whom they want to use them—who, in some cases, will no doubt be very rich and powerful and will not take the freezing or restriction of their wealth lightly—will seek to frustrate the process and oppose the orders with every means available to them. They might, for instance, incur huge costs—perhaps well above what could be considered reasonable in the circumstances—and try to force them on to the taxpayer at a later date if they succeeded in resisting the orders.

Although it is absolutely right for people to be able to recover reasonable costs if the state tries to impose orders and fails, it would be unreasonable for them to engage numerous very highly paid barristers and incur costs that were wholly disproportionate, which the taxpayer would end up having to pay. The real risk is that bodies trying to use these powers would be deterred from doing so, because they would fear that very rich people might take large chunks of their budgets for a long period while resisting the orders.

The aim of new clause 5 is to establish whether the existing powers for the courts to restrict the amount of costs recovered can be described as applying to efforts to obtain the orders that are specified in the Bill, so that it is plain to everyone that the various state authorities, acting competently and reasonably clearly in trying to use the orders, cannot be unreasonably opposed and end up with excessive costs. It would be helpful if the Minister explained how he thinks the orders would work and what he thinks about the interaction with the existing capping rules for the courts.

This is not an entirely theoretical issue. In the past, very significant costs have been awarded against the Serious Fraud Office. I am not pretending that the circumstances were similar to those that we are discussing in this instance—I think that that may not have been the finest hour of the Serious Fraud Office—but there is clearly evidence that the sort of people with whom we are dealing might try to obtain costs that would have a deterrent effect on the use of the orders. It would be useful to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that the courts can and should use various cost-capping measures to ensure that we are not unreasonably exposed to very high costs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said in response to the previous question, the response to house fires and building fires has improved in the last year. It is important that we all bear in mind that any death as a result of fire is unacceptable. We all want there to be no deaths whatsoever, which is why the work done by fire authorities, and the health and safety work in our homes and on products over the years, which has improved safety, is important. We must always stay vigilant, which is why people should have, and test, smoke alarms. I say to all fire authorities that they must be sure to find those efficiency savings, so that they can make sure that the money is in the frontline to deliver for people every day.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

According to the Home Office’s own figures published last Thursday, deaths from house fires are up by 18% on previous years and response times are slower. Fire crews are being deprived of resources and fire service jobs are being lost. Will the Minister now accept that the current round of cuts is putting the public at risk and demoralising hard-working, dedicated fire officers?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said earlier, we need to be very clear about the actual figures. The reality is that there has been a 52% reduction in the total number of reported fires over the last few years. Fire-related fatalities are down 22%, while response times to house fires and building fires are also slightly down and improved. We need to be vigilant on this, but we also need to be clear about the facts.

Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, D and H) Order 2016

Carolyn Harris Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 General Committees

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

It is pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Mr Nuttall.

The order brings into force proposed revisions to the codes of practice that govern how the police should treat potential suspects, the public and their property prior to any conviction. The relevant legislation is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which states that the code must cover how the police exercise their powers not just of arrest, but of search prior to arrest, and how suspects are treated throughout their contact with the police, including during detention, treatment, questioning and identification.

Obviously, the important issues under discussion relate to an individual’s liberty. On the one hand, we must ensure that potential suspects are treated fairly under the law, and at all times respect the principle that a member of the public is innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, however, we have to ensure that police officers have confidence that they can go about their duties without being accused of acting improperly, including in a discriminatory way.

Many organisations made representations to the Government’s consultation—representations that have been taken into account and incorporated into a revised programme. The Opposition thank all those organisations that gave their time and expertise to get those proposals right. We support the Government’s approach, but we still have concerns about how the changes to the codes will affect the rights and freedoms of suspects. I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.

Our concerns fall into four broad areas: the use of remote live-link communications to provide translation services; the provision for appropriate adults to be removed during questioning; the replacement of pocket books with electronic recording devices; and the deletion of parts of the code relating to the process of conducting witness identifications. Before turning to those concerns, I want to place on record our support for the changes to the codes that arise from the change to primary legislation to raise the definition of “juvenile” by one year, from 17 to 18. We wholeheartedly support that move, which provides additional protections for those on the verge of adulthood who find themselves in the criminal justice system.

On remote translation services, the proposed change would enable police to use live-link electronic communication systems to provide interpretation services for suspects. That means that the interpreter would not need to travel to the police station. The aim of the proposal is to enable more efficient questioning—there are similar measures in the Policing and Crime Bill, which is in its final stages—but we have questions about how it will be implemented in practice.

Will the Minister write to me, if necessary, to set out how she intends to review whether the expected efficiency gains have indeed occurred, and what mechanisms are being put in place to ensure that non-English-speaking suspects are satisfied with the new arrangements? What evidence will the Department use to assess whether the new arrangements deprive suspects of their rights? Will the suspect or their solicitor be allowed to say that they would prefer a translator to be present? Are there any circumstances in which the suspect’s vulnerability, in the opinion of the police, would make the physical presence of an interpreter more appropriate? Those safeguards need to be a matter of public record.

A change to code C permits an appropriate adult to be removed from an interview if they prevent proper questioning from taking place. In this context, “appropriate adult” means one who is there to support a vulnerable individual in police custody, be they a juvenile or an adult who is considered vulnerable due to impaired ability to comprehend what is happening, for whatever reason. I accept that there needs to be a mechanism whereby an adult who would otherwise be permitted to attend questioning can be removed if they obstruct the process. There is also a precedent for that approach elsewhere in the code. I would be grateful, however, if the Minister could explain in more detail the safeguards that are in place to ensure that the person being questioned is fully supported in such circumstances. The Government’s response to the consultation cites a new safeguard that requires

“having an inspector to inquire into the circumstances before a particular adult can be excluded”,

and states that the appropriate adult should have an opportunity to modify their behaviour. That is welcome, but it seems weak without detail on the face of the code of the criteria that should be used to determine whether the appropriate adult should be excluded; otherwise, in the words of Liberty in its response to the initial consultation:

“At the very least, there is a real risk of over-hasty exclusions of appropriate adults leading to interviews in the absence of the required support for the suspect.”

Liberty proposed, in response to the original consultation, that before the appropriate adult could be excluded, the suspect’s solicitor should be present and have an opportunity to explain the matter to the suspect and, if needed, the adult in question, before a final decision was made about the exclusion. What is the code to determine the grounds that an officer may use to exclude an adult? What are the best practice guidelines in that regard, and will the Minister publish them? Particularly given that there are widespread concerns over a shortage of appropriate adults available to support vulnerable suspects, what measures are being put in place to ensure that they will always be replaced by another appropriate adult?

A proposed change to code C allows electronic recording devices to replace the age-old police pocket books in providing a time-specific record of events. Although I understand the need for police to adopt more modern technology, I am interested in the Minister’s view on what provisions would be in place to ensure that these electronic records cannot be tampered with, either from inside or outside the force.

There are changes to code D that alter the way in which witness identification procedures are undertaken. The Minister’s Department states that the purpose of doing so is to take account of significant changes and developments in case law and police practice, and to address operational concerns raised by the police. In practice, these changes include the deletion of old annexes A and E, which detail the principles applicable to video identification, and the showing of photographs to eye witnesses. Little evidence was offered to show that those deletions were necessary, and I ask the Minister to clarify the reasons for the change, and how she expects the procedures to change as a result of the proposals before us.

We will support the Government today, but I would appreciate receiving answers to my questions.