My Lords, the best estimate of cost is £47.8 million. The high estimate is £62.4 million. In addition:
“FIRS could discourage business activities if the costs of compliance are considered too high. There is a risk of negative reputational impacts from inclusion on a public register. Other countries may introduce reciprocal measures to regulate the overseas activities of government and businesses. Persons could be prosecuted if engaged in unregistered activity, even if the activity itself is legitimate.”
“Benefits were not monetised … While there are many entities which would fall within the definition of a ‘foreign principal’ or ‘foreign power’, it is difficult to determine how many people are being directed to undertake registerable activities on their behalf, or how many people would qualify for an exemption under the scheme … There is also a lack of understanding around how likely the positive and negative impacts are … it is not known how likely it is that the benefits or impacts will occur, or how significant they are likely to be. It is also important to note that much of this feedback was provided before the scope and exemptions within the scheme were finalised.”
“It is acknowledged that the number of people who would be affected by the scheme in terms of registration and familiarisation is unknown … Due to the offences and penalties associated with non-compliance with the scheme, organisations that are ultimately out of scope will still need to be aware of the FIRS regulations to ensure they are out of scope, both currently and for future activities … members of the public will need support in fulfilling their registration requirements.”
“There is a risk that the scheme may have a disproportionate impact on small or micro-businesses (SMBs). There is a risk that SMBs, without established regulatory compliance procedures, won’t register with the scheme and could then be prosecuted. It is not known how many SMBs will be in scope of FIRS … With more time, a more extensive commission could have been sent to departments.”
The high estimate is that more than 371,000 individuals will need to be familiarised with the scheme, but:
“Home Office anticipate that there will be a relatively small number of cases per year for FIRS (less than five).”
Those are all direct quotes from the Government’s impact assessment on this scheme from October 2022. That impact assessment is the least ringing endorsement of any piece of legislation that I have seen in this House for 10 years. More than 371,000 people will need to be familiarised with a scheme that will have five potential cases per year and, of course, the scheme was not consulted on. To be fair to the Home Office, I read the consultation document from 2021. The principle of a FIRS was in it, but this scheme was not. It is in many parts a direct lift from FARA in the United States, or the FIT scheme.
However, the Government have been very coy about the areas where they have not chosen to follow. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated the commercial enterprises. The Government have not said why they chose not to follow the United States’ example of the exemption of bona fide commercial activity and other activity not serving predominantly a foreign interest. Therefore, the whole gamut of the points that she and others have made in this House will be covered by this scheme and not that scheme, but why is not indicated. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment goes beyond that, saying that they do not know how many small businesses will be affected by it, yet the impact assessment of the overall Bill and of this scheme says that there will be 25 people in London operating the scheme at a cost of nearly £50 million. This spider’s web is a very expensive one, and not many hornets will be covered, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said.
The other exemption that the Government have not indicated having referenced before concerns the US exemption on religious, scholastic, academic, fine arts or scientific pursuits. There has been no indication as to why the Government have chosen not to follow that route. There is not a bishop on the Bench, but any Anglican community in or established church from another country interacting with one of our bishops will have to register on this scheme, because there is no religious exemption for it. Any community in this country carrying out what they believe the Pope has asked them to do for campaigning, on what they believe are humanitarian grounds, will have to register under the scheme. Any of us, or any MP, who is encouraging others to support a Ukrainian NGO charity, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicated, asking us to support Ukrainians for the resettlement scheme will have to register on the scheme.
This is likely to be a scheme that helps oppressors around the world far more than it helps our Government to secure national security. It is no surprise to me that both Hungary and El Salvador cited with great enthusiasm the US scheme as a mechanism to find out what those in other countries are doing to encourage human rights and civil liberties at home.
5.30 pm
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, mentioned all-party parliamentary groups. It is not a question of whether or not they are covered; the Government’s Explanatory Notes state that they are. However, if an NGO takes the opportunity to attend an all-party parliamentary group meeting
“to advocate for changes to be made to new laws that have been announced by the UK Government … The NGO would be required to register attendance at the meeting before it takes place.”
If any MP or Peer who attends that meeting wishes to then communicate with other MPs or Peers to the benefit of that NGO, they would have to register. This is outrageous.
I have concern about the enhanced tier and think it likely that there is more debate to take place on that. These countries are likely to be those that most oppress human rights and civil liberties, and with whose people we most wish to engage. We want to engage with charities and NGOs that are struggling in these countries, but the Government are saying that, before they engage with us, they will have to register on a public register, which that country’s security and intelligence services will mine for information. There is no question about that.
I have not looked at the register of interests but I think that Members of this House who are trustees or involved in a charity, NGO or INGO are likely to be in the minority. If they are linked to an INGO or a charity that has received support, whether from the Danish or Swedish development agency, the Gates Foundation, academic research or other parts of the sector, and they engage with another parliamentarian, they will now have to register.
We will come to those who engage with us on another group but, under the proposed new schedule after Schedule 13, if they engage with the Mayor of London or any metro mayor, they will now have to register. The impact assessment was modest, since the Government have said that this now includes local government. Why a metro mayor in England is included but not the leader of city councils in Glasgow or Edinburgh is beyond me. This is the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. It might just be the drafting but you cannot put the amendments that the Minister is shortly going to move down to drafting errors. The impact assessment will have to be reviewed considerably, since local government is now included. Why is the Mayor of London included but not the Lord Mayor of London? Why is the London Assembly body included but not the Corporation of the City of London? It makes no sense whatever to me.
The Australian scheme includes former Prime Ministers—we heard the concerns about Kevin Rudd. Why did this Government choose to cut and paste from Australia but exclude former Prime Ministers?