Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 General Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I am largely on the same page as the Minister and the shadow Minister, but I will make a couple of points.

As we heard from the Minister, Government policy is generally to follow the regularly updated lists published by the Financial Action Task Force, so the SI saves us from having further DL Committees every few months when those lists are updated. It is a faster, streamlined process and there is some sense in that, but it possibly creates a slight gap in accountability. There is less opportunity for Members of this House to question Ministers on why they are following the task force lists without any additions or amendments. Our first suggestion for the Minister is that he undertake to write to Opposition spokespersons each time the list is updated or amended, to explain the Government’s reasoning as to why they are, or are not, sticking with the task force lists unamended or otherwise.

Following on from that, I welcome the Minister’s clarification that the Government will not hesitate to add additional countries or depart from the task force lists if absolutely necessary, but there is a question mark as to why they are not already doing that. As has been pointed out in regular Delegated Legislation Committees related to due diligence checks, there are some surprising omissions from the lists as it stands. For example, I do not understand why Sudan is not on the list requiring extra due diligence, whereas Gibraltar is. Sudan has two highly corrupt factions basically engaged in a civil war to take control of the country, and the Wagner Group is very much in play there as well. Will the Minister explain why Sudan is not on the list? That question gets to the heart of the point about accountability and our ability to ask questions about why the lists are in the form they are in.

We will not divide on the statutory instrument—we think there is merit on the general direction of travel that the Government propose—but we do raise those simple questions as to whether this is the best way of doing things.