Extract
from Delegated Legislation Committee consideration of
the Draft Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information)
(Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(Oxford East)
(Lab/Co-op):...Fourthly, I am unclear about one element
of drafting. Regulation 8(b)(i) changes an emphatic “must” to a
weak “may”, to coin a phrase—I am sorry, I could not help myself.
Specifically, the amended regulations will state that the
commissioners—HMRC—may, rather than must,
“make arrangements to ensure that the NCA are able to use
information on the register to respond promptly to a request for
information about the persons referred to in”
...Interestingly, the draft regulations make no mention of
the National Crime Agency, despite concerns
expressed in the FATF report about the lack of resources for the
NCA, particularly its financial intelligence unit. The Committee
may be aware that there has been considerable debate in the
specialist press about whether the UK’s glowing assessment by
FATF was warranted, particularly given the lack of action to
better resource the NCA—an issue highlighted in FATF’s last
evaluation in 2007, which stated that
“the UK financial intelligence unit needs a substantial increase
in its resources and the suspicious activity reporting regime
needs to be modernised and reformed.”
...Back in 2007, the UK pledged that it would significantly
increase the staffing level of the FIU to 200, but press reports
from last October suggested that it has only 80 full-time
employees and that the unit has actually lost one in five of its
staff over the past 11 years. Apparently, the Government have
committed to increasing staffing in this area, so it would be
enormously helpful if the Minister provided some assurances on
that score. It is not just the FCA that works on money-laundering
issues, but the FIU in the NCA, so we need to know that it will
be adequately resourced...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
Extract from Oral
answer (Lords) on Migrant Crossings
(Lab):
My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers and she
seemed to imply that the Dublin regulation appeared to be the
responsibility of those claiming asylum and refugees. Does she
not understand that it is in fact burden-sharing between
countries, which have an obligation—we have an obligation—to
protect those who seek asylum? The House would find it helpful if
she could give a more adequate answer than she has so far.
In the Minister’s Statement yesterday, when my noble friend
raised this point
with her, she spoke about the various agencies that were working
together and co-ordinating, such as Border Force, Immigration
Enforcement, the coastguard and the National Crime Agency. How
many people smugglers, who bring people into the country and put
them in danger, have been prevented from doing so? How many of
those criminals have been detained, and how many have been
prosecuted?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of
Trafford) (Con): On the last question first, I will try
to give the noble Baroness details. I am not sure that I will be
able to obtain the figures, but I will certainly try. She made a
point about the Dublin regulation being an obligation or burden
on the person claiming asylum. In fact, as she knows, it is an
EU-wide agreement that asylum seekers will claim in the first
safe country they reach. To suggest that they should do it any
other way is dangerous to the lives of those people.
To read all the exchanges, CLICK
HERE
