Technical and Further Education Bill (First sitting)

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Mr Adrian Bailey, Nadine Dorries

† Argar, Edward (Charnwood) (Con)

† Brabin, Tracy (Batley and Spen) (Lab)

Donelan, Michelle (Chippenham) (Con)

† Evennett, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Halfon, Robert (Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills)

† Hopkins, Kelvin (Luton North) (Lab)

† Jayawardena, Mr Ranil (North East Hampshire) (Con)

† Kane, Mike (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)

† Mak, Mr Alan (Havant) (Con)

† Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool South) (Lab)

† Rutley, David (Macclesfield) (Con)

† Shah, Naz (Bradford West) (Lab)

† Smith, Henry (Crawley) (Con)

† Tomlinson, Justin (North Swindon) (Con)

† Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

Vara, Mr Shailesh (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)

Kenneth Fox, Marek Kubala, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Lord Sainsbury of Turville, Chair of recent Independent Panel on Technical Education

Peter Lauener, Shadow Chief Executive, Institute for Apprenticeships

David Hughes, Chief Executive, Association of Colleges

Professor Alison Fuller, UCL

Richard Atkins CBE, FE Commissioner

Bill Watkin, Chief Executive, Sixth Form Colleges Association

Ian Pretty, Chief Executive, Collab Group

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 22 November 2016

(Morning)

[Mr Adrian Bailey in the Chair]

Technical and Further Education Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points, which some of you may be familiar with. Please switch electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but you may drink water. Today we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral sessions, and then a further motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. There is an amendment to the programme motion, because one of our witnesses, Poppy Wolfarth from the National Society of Apprentices, has had to pull out because of a family illness.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On that point, we all try very hard to get the apprentice voice heard, so it is unfortunate that the witness cannot come today. On the original list of witnesses was the name of Baroness Wolf, which has since disappeared, so she is obviously not giving evidence to us today. Do we know the background to that?

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (David Evennett)]

I believe she is unavailable to come along today because of other commitments. We are disappointed, but obviously people have full diaries.

[Gordon Marsden]

Indeed, and she is a very busy lady.

[The Chair]

In the Minister’s absence, I call the Whip to move the programme motion and the amendment to it.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 22 November) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 November;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 November;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 November;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 1 December;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 6 December;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday 22 November in accordance with the following Table:

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. We will now go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.

09:27

The Committee deliberated in private.

Examination of Witnesses

Lord Sainsbury and Peter Lauener gave evidence.

09:24

[The Chair]

Good morning and welcome. Would you say a few words to introduce yourselves and the positions you hold, for voice transcription purposes if nothing else? We all know you, but that would be helpful.

Lord Sainsbury: My name is David Sainsbury. I was chairman of the Independent Panel on Technical Education.

Peter Lauener: My name is Peter Lauener. I am shadow chief executive of the Institute for Apprenticeships, and therefore leading its set-up—it will be up and running next April.

[The Chair]

Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings set out in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session we have until 10.10 am, so if we are approaching 10.10 am please do not ask a long question that the witness would be unable to answer before the knife falls. I call Gordon Marsden.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Thank you, Mr Bailey. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to welcome our witnesses, both of whom have a distinguished and long-standing interest in this area, which we will pursue.

Lord Sainsbury, these issues about technical education, which you have campaigned and lobbied for hard over many years, have finally reached some form of catharsis—if that is the right word—in terms of the statute book, which for you must be somewhere on the spectrum between huge delight and moderate satisfaction. However, the Bill has avoided committing to the 15 routes that you suggested in your review. Are there any specific additional provisions that you would like to see in the Bill?

Lord Sainsbury: No. It seemed to me to be a very sensible approach to this issue. Always, in these things, you have to combine the basic requirements, but you also need to leave room for flexibility. I do not think that there has been a great argument about the 15 routes, but in the end one needs to have some flexibility built into a piece of legislation, if it is going to last as we hope it will.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Yes. I am sure that in later discussions the Minister will want to elaborate on this issue, but there have been statements by Department for Education and Skills Funding Agency officials on the extent to which the routes themselves might be rather flexible, in terms of what they could include, even within the 15. It makes me think of the line:

“In my Father’s house are many mansions”.

We hope that some of those mansions will be explored further on.

I want to press you further, because you said that you are perfectly content with the position as it is, but you have been—forgive the English, or the French—“banging on” about this for years and years. I remember at least two excellent addresses in the past decade that you have given to various organisations on this issue. Yet we know, according to Baroness Wolf and the pamphlet, “Remaking Tertiary Education”, which she has just been involved with, that:

“Technical education, at Level 4 and Level 5, is on the verge of total collapse due to a steep decline in numbers.”

I also note that you have called for more funding for the technical route and for implementation. Would you like to comment further on those two points?

Lord Sainsbury: I think that funding is absolutely key to this whole area. I think that we have organised our system of technical education extremely badly over the years, but it is also true that we have underfunded it on quite a substantial scale. What has been proposed in my report, and what is in the Bill, will greatly improve and clarify the system, but there is still an issue of funding. If you look at the number of hours we fund further education colleges to do this kind of training, you will see that it is extremely low by international standards. So there is a funding issue here, as well as the bits of funding that we have suggested, for example for work placement, which is clearly fundamental and which I hope we can get movement on. There is a more long-term basic funding issue.

[Gordon Marsden]

We may or may not get some clarity on that in the autumn statement, but I am grateful to you. Mr Bailey, I would like to ask Mr Lauener some questions in due course.

[The Chair]

Are there any other takers? While other Members dwell upon that, I will invite you, Mr Marsden, to ask your question of Mr Lauener.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Mr Lauener, it is a great pleasure to have you with us today. You have an enviable record of longevity in this area of activity. When I was going over your CV and looking at the various things you have done over the years, I was reminded of the famous French statesman Talleyrand. When asked what he had done during the French revolution, he famously replied, “I survived.” You seem to have survived several revolutions in this area, and several Governments. Could you start by saying what the key issue is for you in your new position, as opposed to the variety of positions you have held in the past?

Peter Lauener: Thank you very much; that was a very interesting introduction. The Institute for Apprenticeships does have a key role, and of course as a result of this Bill it will morph into the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—subject to Parliament. The key thing for me is, first, that it demonstrates employer leadership of apprenticeships and technical education. That is not just about the body at the head of the institute, where we have been very pleased with the high calibre of applicants for positions, but it also refers to all the route panels and other bodies that will bring expertise to the institute.

We have estimated that overall that should amount to between 250 and 300 employers involved in all parts of the institute. The number itself, if it is managed badly, could just become a bureaucratic process, but I think it is vital that those employers bring expertise and credibility, and that when the institute says we need a new standard in this, it is because employers are saying that.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I could not agree with you more on that; it is extremely important, going back to the original review in 2012, which talked about the whole area being employer-led, that that is the case. Unfortunately, following a series of untoward events, that has not exactly been demonstrated in the institute’s leadership so far, has it? Because you are the second shadow chief executive who has been there. The first was a lady who had a significantly long civil service career in various Departments, but she did not stay terribly long—I think she stayed about a couple of months. Now you have taken over. I pay tribute to your versatility, because you hold a number of other positions.

The message that has been sent to the outside world, which may be unfair, is that although the Government have talked about the institute being employer-led, they have not put that into practice thus far when it comes to its shadow chief executives. What confidence can we have that the new board, chair and chief executive will have a very strong employer focus?

Peter Lauener: To make an obvious point, the institute does not yet exist—legally it will start on 1 April next year—so the preparations and appointments are being made. When people see the calibre of the board, and the employers on route committees supporting that and bringing particular sector expertise, everyone will see that the institute has employer knowledge, skills and behaviours—to take that phrase—built into every aspect of its operation.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Can I just stop you there? You talked about the recruitment process, but can you give us any clarity on when it will be completed and when we might expect to see, as it were, white smoke coming out of the chimney? We are on a terribly tight timescale for this process, with the introduction of the apprenticeship levy and the formal setting up of the new institute.

Peter Lauener: The process for appointing members of the institute is substantially complete. I expect an announcement will be made about that shortly.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Is that a civil service “shortly” or a general one?

Peter Lauener: There is not yet a planned date for it. There are one or two items—

[Gordon Marsden]

Before Christmas?

Peter Lauener: I would be surprised if there was not an announcement before Christmas. Incidentally, we are also planning to publish for consultation the Government’s remit letter in draft to the institute, and I would also expect, again before Christmas, a draft of the institute’s first strategic plan. The intention is that that would then be open for discussion with a wide group of employers and stakeholders, so that the institute, when it is formed, with the employer members and the shadow chair—I will say something about that in a moment—will be able to start its operation with an agreed plan for the 2017-18 year, which has already been subject to wide consultation and which is owned by the institute.

The other thing to add, of course, is that Antony Jenkins has been shadow chair. In my experience, having had several discussions with him, he has brought very visible employer leadership to this set-up phase, and I have been very happy to support him during that. The advertisement for the post of permanent chair is now closed. I expect interviews to take place shortly and an announcement to be made in due course. That might well take a bit longer.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q It is helpful to hear that you want to keep the employers in a prominent position. It is also important for the wider FE sector, which you are trying to encourage to take up apprenticeships. The Minister’s predecessor, perfectly rightly, exhorted the sector—not with significant success—to increase apprenticeship numbers. On the subject of increasing numbers, I want to ask about capacity—not your personal capacity, which obviously encompasses quite a few areas already, but the capacity of the institute to do some of the things said on the tin.

One of the Bill’s important provisions is the extension to the area of technical education. We welcome that and think it is very important. I am sure Lord Sainsbury does as well. However, that area has capacity issues, too. The Minister and, for that matter, you, have been rather coy about putting out any figures for the staffing of the institute, so we have had to rely on rumours and leaked papers. We were told originally that there were going to be 40 employees, and there is now some suggestion that there will be around 100. Are you able to give any more clarity on that?

Peter Lauener: I expect that when the institute starts at the beginning of April next year, it will have about 60 employees. The planned running costs next year are about £8 million, but the number of staff will need to build up as the additional responsibilities, subject to Parliament, are added. That will probably be another 30 or so staff. I should emphasise that those figures are provisional at this stage. We need to keep them under review. One thing I am looking at is the roles and responsibilities of the Skills Funding Agency and the institute. There may be some marginal adjustments.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q So you are interrogating yourself on a daily basis.

Peter Lauener: I constantly challenge myself by saying, “Am I using the resources available in the best way possible?”

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Well, at least you will have a convenient and convivial conversation, because you are one and the same thing, are you not?

Peter Lauener: I am indeed. As I am sure you are aware, I am also chief executive of the Education Funding Agency. It would not be at all appropriate for these three things to be combined on an ongoing basis. As I said at the start, I am very pleased, because of a lifelong interest in and commitment to apprenticeships, to have the responsibility of helping to set up the institute for next April and to ensure that the governance is—

[Gordon Marsden]

Indeed, and we will not commit you to the two further roles that FE Week cartooned you as having: taking part in the “Great British Bake Off” and “Strictly Come Dancing”.

Peter Lauener: No one has contacted me about those.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q As we know from Vince Cable, people from this area have a good track record, so you might want to put that on your list.

You talked about the numbers. I think there will be considerable concern in the sector as to what skills these people bring to the table. With that in mind, and given the staff reductions in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—of course, this is a machinery of government change—do you expect to be moving across or recruiting people from either the SFA or BIS who have previous experience in this area?

Peter Lauener: We have advertised externally for the key role of deputy directors, where we are looking to fill six posts. We have been very pleased, again, with the quality of applicants, which I think is an indication of the widespread interest across employers and the training and skills sector in the institute being set up. We have had a very good set of applications. From memory, we had 90 applications for those six posts, and we are very confident that we will be able to appoint a broad range of experienced individuals.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Can I take you up on that point about a broad range of experienced individuals? That can cover a multitude of abilities or a multitude of sins. Many stakeholders have expressed concern throughout this process—indeed, the Opposition expressed it during the passage of the Enterprise Act 2016, which gave birth to the concept—that the new institute’s board might be too narrow in its experience and focus, as we believe the apprenticeship delivery board has been. Do you have any views on the importance of having, for example, an apprentice or someone from the apprenticeship coalface, as it were, on the board?

Peter Lauener: I think that the institute should certainly be clear how it is going to secure the voice of apprentices in its understanding and deliberations. I do not think that I should comment about the particular membership of the institute, but the principle of having knowledge, understanding and the live voice of apprentices is really important for the institute’s work. Inevitably, there is a lot of focus on employer leadership, but I think we need to look at apprenticeships from the perspective of employers and individuals.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q My final question is not so much about the membership of the board as about the reception that you want the new institute to get from providers and employers. As you know, a big question that is still being discussed vigorously in the FE sector is the extent to which small and medium-sized employers will be able to benefit from the apprenticeship levy. It is widely believed that gaining acceptance in the SME sector will be critical for the Government to reach their 3 million target. What confidence do you have that the new board will be able to reflect and respond to the SME sector’s continuing concerns that it is not exactly at the front of the queue in terms of the apprenticeship levy?

Peter Lauener: I would extend that beyond the board itself and to the route committees that I have talked about. There needs to be a wide range of employer experience, both from large employers and small and medium-sized employers, in these critical bodies—the route committees—which will be looking at the right standards. Of course, the standard that we are talking about is the standard wherever it is applied; it is about the standard for an occupation and about the knowledge, skills and behaviours that an individual needs to be able to do a job properly for the benefit of the employer. You need the context both of large employers and of small and medium-sized employers to make that work properly.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q But you understand the point that I am making, I hope. Without becoming too technical, one issue historically for SMEs in taking on apprenticeships has been the lack of back-office support. In my experience—I have employed three apprentices over a three-year period, and being an MP is like running a small business; you juggle all sorts of things—SMEs constantly say that they would love to take on apprentices, and when they do and the apprentices are successful, no one is a stronger advocate for them than SMEs. However, they struggle with back-office support, red tape and all the rest of it. I am not trying to commit you to a specific SME place on the board, but do you understand why those concerns persist? Do you intend to try to provide reassurance about them and, if possible, given your years of unrivalled experience in this area, cut some of the red tape?

Peter Lauener: First, the new technical system—the digital apprenticeship service—that will be introduced from the beginning of next year will be much easier for employers of all sizes to navigate and for individuals to see apprenticeships on the system. That will be open to only large employers at the start, but we would expect to extend it over time.

Secondly, we should not underestimate the role of training providers. Again, under the digital apprenticeship system, most employers will still be using a training provider. They will be able to choose from the training providers on the system. In my experience—I speak partly as an employer in my own organisations of apprentices—organisations are heavily reliant on the training provider to make sure that the training is relevant, well managed and that the trainee is supported through the apprenticeship. I would expect that to be a continuing pattern in the future.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Q I want to build on some of the comments Mr Marsden has made. I used to run a small business, and by accident I employed someone on an apprenticeship because I stumbled across an apprentice, and I benefited greatly. One of the biggest challenges in us reaching the commendable target of 3 million apprenticeships is that lack of awareness from small businesses. I have repeatedly pushed that we should use the business rate mailer to include a rather nice, glossy A5 flier.

It is encouraging that you are talking about this digital portal where there will be a one-stop shop for all the information, but you said at the beginning that that is just for the larger employers. How quickly do you see that being cascaded down to the smaller employers? The reality is that, whatever the political persuasion of the Government of the day, the large employers will re-badge their ongoing training packages to match what is going. If we really are to create some great opportunities, we must include those small and medium-sized businesses that can offer those unique, more bespoke jobs that can fit apprentices’ individual skills and give them a real opportunity to progress. However, those businesses are waiting to be told of this fantastic resource. How quickly can we cascade that information down?

Peter Lauener: I should make it clear that the ability of small and medium-sized employers still to be involved in apprenticeships does not depend on day one of the digital apprenticeship system. We would expect to continue the allocations of funding to training providers—to be clear, that is through the Skills Funding Agency rather than through the Institute for Apprenticeships—which we have operated for many years, for small and medium-sized employers. That will ensure significant continuity in the system. I would expect no risk to the target for growth in numbers.

That will apply for the 2017-18 year. We will need to review that in the context of how quickly the levy-paying employers take up the opportunities to secure apprenticeships under the levy system, so we will monitor that closely. The 2017-18 year is secure, and after that we will review how small and medium-sized employers should be brought on to the core digital apprenticeship service. But even from day one it will be a public-access system and people will be able to see what is on it, so I think it will be a good way of conveying the richness of apprenticeships available.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Q But people will see it only if they know to go and look at it. Therefore, in theory we are relying on the training providers making contact with them, and when they do I am sure that businesses snap their hands off. However, the training providers do not have huge marketing budgets, so they do not go door-to-door to those small employers.

The Department for Work and Pensions is trialling the small employer offer. It is worth considering sitting down with the DWP and talking about whether there could be joint funding for that offer. In the economy at the moment a lot of businesses have skills gaps, and the idea is that someone in each region or employment area doorsteps an employer and asks, “Do you have a skills gap in your organisation? What is it?”, and then goes back. They could find that, “An apprentice is suitable for you. There are the providers. We will ask them to visit you next week and discuss it over a cup of tea”, and match them together. Therefore, rather than trying to duplicate things, with some co-funding I think you will be able to plug those gaps. That, in my opinion, is the fastest way for us to get to that 3 million target.

Peter Lauener: Thank you very much for the suggestion. I am happy to take that away and look at it. One other thing we operate at the moment, which I think is quite successful, is a dedicated employer helpline, which I think operates 8 am to 7 pm, seven days a week. We get quite good feedback on the information available on that for employers.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Find a way to sneak it into the business rate mailer—then every business will know about it.

[The Chair]

I remind Members that we have only 12 or 13 minutes for three further questioners, so could questions be brief and answers pithy? Thank you.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

Q I applaud your desire to reach out to learners and have a conversation with them during the teething process. However, there does not seem to be a specific requirement in the Bill to have learners on the board, talking to you. They are going to be the guinea pigs. This will be up and running very soon; April seems five minutes away. Can you specify how learners are going to be connected to the board?

Peter Lauener: I cannot specify that in detail at the moment, because that is, properly, something that the board should discuss. With my deputy chief executive, Mike Keoghan, I am making a plan of board activities during January, February and March, to allow the board to focus on all the aspects of its remit and to think about the governance as well. I mentioned earlier that we expect to consult on a draft strategic plan for the institute for 2017-18, and I am sure that that will be an occasion to raise the question and get lots of views back. The board can then discuss it in the January to March period before coming out with its final plan, I hope right at the beginning of April, so that it is clear from the start of the institute’s operation exactly how it will operate across a broad range of activities, certainly including the one that you have mentioned.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Q The Bill supports the occupational categories of quality apprenticeships set out in that excellent document, the “Post-16 Skills Plan”; they include construction, and engineering and manufacturing. That is fantastic and a real step forward. Do you both believe that the Bill provides an effective ability to redefine those categories as economic sectors evolve? Secondly, do you believe that the mechanisms are in place to enable businesses and employers to have a meaningful role in redefining those categories as things progress?

Lord Sainsbury: It comes back to the original question. You have to have a certain amount of flexibility. As far as I can make out, that flexibility is there, and it is important. Of course, it is also important that we do not let the system degenerate, whereby everyone goes back to saying, “I want something specifically for my business or a very small group of businesses.” It is very important that one keeps down the number of routes, but exactly what categories they include will have to be for the people running those routes to say. I think we have made quite a good stab at doing that, but there are one or two cases where you can certainly argue about whether we got the right job in the right route.

Peter Lauener: It is absolutely vital that the institute actively manages the system of apprenticeship standards. For the past couple of years, while new standards have been developed by trailblazer groups, we have not had that picture of what the overall system would look like. Lord Sainsbury’s report helps enormously with that. An early priority for the institute is to develop that map, communicate it, review it actively and spot areas that need updating. I imagine that one or two of the early standards will, with hindsight, look a little bit narrow, so they ought to be reviewed. Every standard has a review date anyway, but the institute, through its route committees, will need to actively manage that.

One of the great virtues of the German system is its absolute clarity about the number of apprenticeships, routes into apprenticeships and things like that. If you talk to people in Germany, they often say, “We’d like the system to be more flexible.” I think the institute has the opportunity from the start to build in that flexibility and responsiveness to the changing labour market.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Q I have a quick question about the idea that this is going to turn into another 11-plus. What reassurance can you give us about what you have put in place to ensure that the technical route will be as prestigious as the academic route?

Lord Sainsbury: There has been a very long-running argument about this. It is useful to look at the experience of other countries. If you do that, you see that pretty well every developed country has a system of two routes: an academic route and a technical education route. There is quite a variation in the point at which people choose between the two routes, but most of them have it. In most of the successful countries you find the two routes are equally well valued, so there is not a problem of the technical education route being considered inferior. You can have these two routes and both of them be highly valued.

The question we have to ask ourselves is why in our system the technical route is undervalued. I think the answer is because it is a very bad system that does not deliver what people want on the system. What they want above all is to be able to take a qualification and for that qualification to work in the marketplace. What that means is that you can go along to an employer and say, “I have got this qualification,” and the employer will give priority to you over somebody who has not got the qualification. That is not true of our system. The first thing you have to do to make the technical education route valued is to make it deliver for young people something of value to them, which is the ability to get a better job with security. That is the issue. It is not about age of selection or the fact that you have two routes.

Peter Lauener: I agree 100%.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of the questions. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. We will move on to the next panel, who are all here. Thank you very much.

Examination of Witnesses

David Hughes, Professor Alison Fuller, Richard Atkins CBE, Bill Watkin and Ian Pretty gave evidence.

10:07

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from the Association of Colleges, the Further Education Commissioner, the Sixth Form Colleges Association, the Collab Group and Professor Alison Fuller from University College London. We have until 11.25 am. Welcome. Please introduce yourselves for voice transcription purposes.

David Hughes: Good morning. I am David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges.

Professor Alison Fuller: I am Alison Fuller, professor of vocational education and work at UCL Institute of Education.

Richard Atkins: I am Richard Atkins, the FE Commissioner.

Bill Watkin: My name is Bill Watkin and I am chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association.

Ian Pretty: I am Ian Pretty, chief executive of the Collab Group.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I warmly welcome all of our panel, each distinguished in different areas. Who to pick on first is an invidious choice, but given the context of the previous conversations, perhaps I could start with David.

We have just heard from Peter Lauener an expansive view of where the institute is going. He talked about its digital abilities and I think the words he used were that standards would continually need redefining. As that was going on, hammering in my brain was “capacity, capacity, capacity”. You have expressed some concerns about the capacity. Would you like to elaborate on that?

David Hughes: Thank you for picking on me first. The capacity issue is partly about timing as well. I am concerned—we are very concerned—that the changes are being rushed because of the timing issues. Sixty people sounds like a small organisation to deal with 15 routes and 250-odd employers. There is a big job to be done and it does feel as though a lot is changing at the same time.

What we have been doing with Peter and his team and with officials in the Department is trying to think through the risks and to work with them to make sure that we can address any problems that occur very early on. When you are fundamentally changing the funding system, there are lots of unknowns. The big unknown is how employers will behave in the new system—nobody can predict that. It is in all our interests to make sure that we do not lose capacity in the whole system, let alone in the IFA itself. We have offered to work closely with Peter and his team to try to address any problems at a really early stage, and I am really pleased with the response so far.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q That is good, and highly valuable. One of the things I did not mention is the fact that the Government used to be able to use the UK Commission for Employment and Skills as a backstop—sometimes a very short-term backstop—in terms of delivery mechanisms out of the Department, but of course they rather unfortunately abolished that earlier this year. On that point, because as you well know there has been a lively debate between Ministers and your membership in the past as to whether they are doing enough for apprenticeships, are you confident now that your members have got the message about the new institute, or are there particular issues that you would still like to highlight?

David Hughes: I think there are three key issues. One is funding, and it was good to hear Lord Sainsbury talking about the funding issues. If we want a really high-quality system, we need to invest in it. I still find it completely illogical that we fund 11 to 16 at something like £5,500 per head, 16 to 18 at about £4,000, apprenticeships at about £1,500 per head and higher education at £9,000. In HE, we have index linking coming in with the new teaching excellence framework which we do not have in FE. If we want a high-quality offer at 16 to 18, which we do, we need to get the investment right.

Two other issues that go with that investment, and are really critical to allow colleges and other providers to invest in quality themselves, are stability and certainty. The thing that we want more than anything else, both on the technical education side and on the apprenticeship side, is some stability rather than constant change and churn, and certainty about those changes, so that my members and others can invest over the long term in the equipment, the people, the relationships and the outreach to students and potential apprentices. We have had a blizzard of changes over the past 10 or perhaps 15 years, and that causes my members and others to be cautious about the investment they make. The biggest risk to all this is the lack of certainty for the future. It is difficult, because how do you provide certainty? Some big statements from Government would be really helpful.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q You are absolutely right to make that point. The old joke used to be that when the Minister for HE sent a letter to universities it was more like the opening gambit of a conversation, or, “Would you like to do this?” whereas the letter that went to FE just said, “Do it.” I think and hope that we have moved on from there, Minister, and I hope that will not be the case in quite the same dirigiste way in the future. One of the issues that employers and other sectors are raising with me is just how rapidly some of the things, such as the digital system, are going to come on board. If that does not work to start with, that is going to be a further downer and concern for your members, is it not?

David Hughes: There are lots of concerns. The comparison with HE is quite interesting. Last week, the Higher Education Funding Council came out with a report on the financial picture for the sector; it is very concerned that there is only a 4.3% surplus predicted for next year. The FE sector has no surplus. That is my investment point. Quality needs investment, and FE colleges do not have that investment capacity at the moment. Issues around the digital service would and could be overcome by providers and colleges working closely with the employers they already work with, and that is one of those issues of timing and capacity. So there is a partnership approach that we are trying to push very strongly.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Ian Pretty, you have been in post for about a year now. You have come to what we used to know as the 157 Group, now Collab, from a distinguished background as a career civil servant and also having spent time in the private sector. Having been in post for a year, what have you learned and what are your members telling you about capacity issues that is relevant to the Bill and particularly to the specific questions we have raised about the institute’s capacity to do all the wonderful things Peter Lauener told us about?

Ian Pretty: I agree with a lot of what David said. In terms of the capacity issue for the institute, you have to get the right resources in there. As you said, I am a former senior civil servant and a tax inspector, so I have a lot of experience in those things. I would focus on capability as well. You can have 60 people or 100 people in the institute, but have you got the right capability? I would be nervous if the institute was completely staffed by civil servants. If this organisation is about co-creation with the private sector and the education sector, you need people with the capability to understand how business thinks and how business operates. You also need people who understand how the education providers operate. On the capacity issue, in terms of raw numbers you will cite something, but capability is more important.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q You have to drill down, basically; that is what you are saying.

Ian Pretty: Yes, and you have to have the right people sitting in that institution. If the institute is focused on the skills plan, as the Government propose, that is sensible to me. Given my background, one thing I am mindful of is that we spent a huge amount of time—displacement time—on the area-based reviews. If we had had the skills plan and the insolvency regime in place, the ABR process might have been a smoother and easier process, because there would have been a logic to it.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Your members include a significant number that have HE capacity. We were talking yesterday in another place about HE issues. One concern that has been expressed to us is the institute’s ability to grapple with the HE dimension of higher skills, which I am sure Lord Sainsbury would think is important, and treatment in terms of HE in FE colleges. Sometimes, dare I say it—I certainly felt it in the White Paper—it is an afterthought, rather than an integral part of the solution. What do you think the institute and Ministers need to do to ensure that the role of HE in FE is more fundamentally understood by Departments?

Ian Pretty: In terms of the institute’s capabilities and the people who are in there, it is important; you are right. Most of our members have HE as part of their remit. This goes back to the whole issue around the skills plan and the Sainsbury review. If you create the right technical pathways, you need to understand through that, from level 1 up to 6-plus, where that will be delivered and the role of HE within that. It could be HE in terms of the universities sector, but in our case it is HE sitting within the FE sector. That is a growing business for us, particularly around things like degree apprenticeships. It is important that the institute understands HE and plays an active role in understanding how HE operates within the FE sector.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Finally, I will come to you, Professor Fuller. I am not going to credit you with quite the longevity—perhaps I should, but never mind—that I gave to Peter Lauener, but you have been around for quite a long time in this area. You have seen promises and Select Committees come and go. In the things you have seen and heard so far about the new architecture that the Government are proposing, which do you think are good and positive steps forward, and which are you feeling a bit more queasy about?

Professor Alison Fuller: I certainly welcome the renewed focus on what we used to call vocational education but now call technical education, and the seeming rise of it up the public policy agenda. However, today and in this Bill what we are trying to scrutinise is what stands behind that. We have been concerned about that for years, and it is about the seriousness with which this is taken. My colleagues have talked very clearly about capacity and capability issues. When we look at comparative countries, we see much more stability and longevity about arrangements for drawing in all the key constituencies to the decision-making processes. That kind of stability is there.

In addition to the stakeholders that have been mentioned, I would also say that the professional bodies and associations are key to this as well, because we are talking here about how these new routes will articulate during a career with the ladders of progression that exist. The professional bodies and associations are essentially the guardians of that kind of area.

In terms of concerns, it is really the substance and significance of the routes that are being proposed that concern me, if we are going to try to create something that is really high quality and which begins to address the parity of esteem question, which one of the panel was talking about earlier. The reality is that we are talking about a proposal for two-year programmes, which are called full time, but if you dig into what full time means, the definitions can be as little as 12 to 14 hours a week. If you phone up a college and say, for example, “I am looking to do a level 3 course in business administration. How many hours would that be?” you will typically be told 12 to 14 hours. If you look at the benefit rules, full time is defined as around that time. Potentially, we are looking at trying to help young people to reach a much higher level—level 3, hopefully, after two years—but with very little input. That is a real concern for me. That raises questions about how the routes are articulating downwards with the GCSE and upwards to higher education.

There is a big issue about intensity. Again, when we compare with other countries, we see that the full-time vocational routes tend to be longer. They may start a bit earlier. We have at the moment 16-plus, 16 to 18; they may start at 15, but they will typically have three or even four years, ending up at a good level 3 standard. That is an issue and has huge implications for resourcing and funding, which David and others have raised.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q You are talking about length. There have been a lot of conversations, some of them a bit semantic, about the pre-apprenticeship route, particularly if we want young people to get good-quality apprenticeships. There is obviously the traineeship issue, or call it pre-apprenticeship, or whatever. Are you saying, Professor Fuller, that the actual process needs to be longer or that there need to be more preparatory steps to get young people—not only them, though they are the key component—who would not otherwise be able to compete for some of the high-quality apprenticeships that will be on offer?

Professor Alison Fuller: Probably both. If you look at attainment at 16, we have just had recent figures that show that still it is only just over 50% of young people who are achieving five GCSEs A to C grades, including English and maths. We know that those who are achieving that benchmark tend to stay on in the school route and take A-levels or a combination of A-levels and BTECs, which are sometimes called applied A-levels. That particular route has been quite successful in supporting social mobility and particularly progression to higher education.

Unless we start to eat into that population, we are talking about young people who have not attained that level at 16. We are proposing what we would all want to be a very high-quality technical education route within two years to get to what point? That is where we need to take a check and be realistic about what we might be able to achieve in two years on those kinds of numbers of contact hours and that kind of period.

We know that a good-quality level 3 standard is a really strong platform for career progression and engagement with employment. So for a good majority of our young people at 18 or 19, that is the kind of real aspiration we should be aiming for. It seems to me that without a much stronger commitment to what the resources are going to be, and what the container is going to be, if you unpack what a route is, we could end up with young people who have not made sufficient progress to reach the platform where they are going to have a secure stepping stone into the labour market and good-quality apprenticeships.

We know that at the moment 60%-plus of apprenticeships are at level 2 and that not many 16 to 18-year-olds are doing them—I think it is about 130,000. So there is quite a lot to do to ensure that all apprenticeships are as good quality as the fantastic ones that we know do exist.

[Tracy Brabin]

Q David, I have been told that in some circumstances members of staff such as receptionists without relevant qualifications or training are carrying out careers guidance in colleges as a tick-box exercise. Are you concerned that there is no careers guidance provision in the Bill?

David Hughes: I am very concerned if that story about reception staff is true, because it is an incredibly important area of education and, of course, it does not start at 16; it starts a lot earlier. I would echo a lot of what Alison was saying. We need to think about key stage 4 rather than just look at age 16-plus, because the decisions that get made by young people and their parents and carers are critical to their future. We need to think about introducing them to the world of work rather than just providing them with some information about courses, so the work experience and work placements that the Sainsbury report and the skills plan rightly concentrate and focus on are really important to consider for key stage 4, rather than just waiting until 16. We want some of the best young people with good achievements at GCSE at 16 going into the technical route and apprenticeships rather than what we have now, which is mostly that if you do well at GCSE at 16, you take an academic route.

We know that probably about £1 billion is wasted when young people go on an academic route for a year and then move off it because they find it is not suitable for them. We need to stop that happening because that wastes money and, more importantly, young people are using up a year of their life on something that does not stimulate them or motivate them. We have got to go back into key stage 4 rather than just wait. It is critical that we get college information, advice and guidance right, but let us think about careers education through school, not just right at the end, and let us think about persuading the best young people to do technical if that is the right thing for them, because it should be high-quality to attract them.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Q What David Hughes and Professor Fuller have been saying is striking. I recall comparisons made some 25 years ago by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and Professor Sig Prais between technical education in Britain and in Germany, Italy and Spain in particular, where they had up to 30 hours a week of contact-intensive pedagogic teaching over a period. In Britain it was nothing like that.

The underfunding of technical education and 16-to-19 education is noticeable. By contrast, at universities—I went there many years ago—you have a few lectures and a couple of seminars and tutorials, so the contact hours are much lower but the funding is much higher. Do you not think we have got this the wrong way around?

David Hughes: For lots of the technical routes, we are getting 12 to 14 hours of contact time, and that pales into insignificance compared to most of our competitors in the OECD. It is a really important issue. It is not just for technical, though; we have now got young people being offered only three A-levels rather than four AS-levels, and that is really shameful. It means that their opportunities to explore at 16 have been limited.

We really must address the investment issue to get the level of support that is required for young people. We are talking about young people who might have careers lasting 50 years-plus. They need a broad education to allow them to become learners, to think about continuous professional development, to change career probably two or three times and to be able to move when technology moves. I do not think that 12 to 14 hours of contact time for the 16-to-19 phase is enough. I do not think that the quality will be high enough or that the choice, even on A-level routes, is good enough, given the funding that is available.

Professor Alison Fuller: I am sure others will want to speak, but I would hate to say, just because we maybe think there is a big contrast in the numbers, that higher education is overfunded. I certainly would not want that message to come through.

There are a couple of other points. One is that a lot of vocational education—I still say that—happens in universities. The expansion of higher education has largely been in relation to vocational higher education courses in applied areas. A big cost of that is in equipment—lab space, technology, machinery and so on—and that same argument is behind suggesting that further education should really be better resourced. Good-quality technical education does not come cheap; the reality is that it is extremely expensive. We need very highly qualified vocational teachers—I include those who are moving in and out of employment, and I am sure Richard will speak about that, because he was part of the very influential report a couple of years ago from the commission chaired by Frank McLoughlin. It is a case of being serious about what it costs to provide a good-quality technical education, in terms of the people, resources, equipment and facilities.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q I wonder whether Mr Watkin would like to say something about sixth-form colleges and the squeeze on funding there.

Bill Watkin: We published a report recently about the impact of the current funding levels, which, although the Government have set them at a certain level, are set at that level following three significant cuts which have cost the sector about 17% since 2011. As David just said, we find that the number of A-levels being offered is increasingly only three rather than four; that minority subjects are being lost—it is not just the high-profile archaeology and history of art, but modern languages and sciences—and that the enrichment support, pastoral support, the activities after college and the careers guidance are all at risk because of low funding levels.

We are also finding, exactly as has been said, that international comparisons show we are not funding enough hours of tuition per week. In Singapore and Shanghai, for example, they are funded for approximately 30 hours a week, whereas in New South Wales it is 26 hours a week. In England it is about 15 hours a week. Of course, the impact of that is that students from more disadvantaged backgrounds will find it harder to use the untaught time. It is not just that there is not enough teaching time to cover the qualifications, but that the non-taught time has to be used effectively. It is much more difficult for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to use non-taught time well.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q It is a major factor. When Michael Gove was Secretary of State, I asked him why we were having to recruit so many engineers from abroad. He said that we were not training enough ourselves because our mathematics was not good enough and we could not get them up to the standards required. Resource is surely what the problem is.

Bill Watkin: It is certainly one of the problems. There is also the shift in what qualifications are available. To move away from apprenticeships and technical professional education for a moment and talk about the academic curriculum, we have just seen, for example, the loss of use of maths and the loss of statistics from the range of qualifications available. That means that young people coming into a sixth-form curriculum looking to study maths only have one route available for them at the moment. That is almost a commercial decision made by awarding organisations, but it is enormously unhelpful to young people who want to support their studies in engineering and physics by following a course of maths because the only course available is an A-level in maths. We would like to see, for example, a core maths qualification and a part 2 core maths that has A-level branding and equivalence, so that there is an alternative to an A-level maths qualification.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Q This is an interesting panel because it represents sixth forms and FE colleges. In Greater Manchester, where my constituency is, further education is a devolved function but sixth forms are not. We have just gone through an area review process, which I supported. Fortunately, we have strong civil servant and political leadership in Greater Manchester, but I can only describe the process as tortuous and complicated. It has come out of a number of reviews around mergers and synergies of FE colleges—it does not affect sixth forms. You get to that position and then have to enter negotiations between the FE colleges about co-operation. That really is a process of herding cats, in my opinion. There are things I would like to say, but this is an ongoing process so I will not say them in public for now, but the Government’s area review programme is going to be rolled out in places that are less well organised than Greater Manchester. It could be a recipe for chaos. Do the panel want to comment on that?

Richard Atkins: It would be best if I started. As you probably know, I have been the FE commissioner for about four weeks. I was not involved in chairing or attending the Greater Manchester review, although I know Theresa Grant, who chaired it. I am going to Manchester in the next three or four weeks to see how things are going and to talk to the individual colleges. I sat and observed the Education Committee scrutinising area reviews about two weeks ago. Generally, I think the process has worked reasonably well. Clearly they begin from a premise that each college is an independent corporation and therefore is able to make its own views. I accept that that can lead to what you describe as tortuous negotiations, because each college needs to be convinced and persuaded of the right solution.

We have now done waves 1, 2 and 3 of the five waves. Nearly 200 colleges have been through area reviews; some 88 of them are working towards merger, 50 of the sixth-form colleges are considering becoming academies, and 62 colleges have confirmed that they want to go for stand-alone status. We have done that in a remarkably short period. Colleges that are changing the nature of what they do can apply for a restructuring facility to support that. We have done that with a remarkable amount of co-operation and good will. I do not think the process is in any way perfect or a silver bullet that will resolve all the structural problems.

It became obvious in the Education Committee that it is different in each area. There are 37 area reviews, based on the local enterprise partnership areas, and experiences genuinely differ from one area to another. If you had told me at the beginning that at this stage, two thirds of the way through, we would have 88 colleges considering merger and that 62 stand-alones have had to carry out a rigorous analysis of their own data to be sure that they can stand alone financially—. I hope that what emerges from the process is a network in which more colleges are financially sustainable. I do not disagree that having those independent corporations gives governors the opportunity to make decisions for themselves, and therefore a high level of persuasion and influence is required to try to get the best results for learners.

In my new job, with my team of advisers, I am currently seeking to ensure that as often as possible, we get the right solution. I do not think it is a silver bullet. I do not think at the end of it we will have the perfect set of colleges across England, but I do think we will be in a significantly better place than we were when the process started only just over a year ago.

David Hughes: The Government have a choice. In Wales and Scotland, the Government decided to impose structural change, and in England they did not. There are pros and cons with both. We have to remember that we have had for the past 25 years in post-16 a managed market and a managed competition. It is probably fair to say that in the past four or five years, the management bit of that has been getting smaller and smaller, so we do have competition post-16. We recently challenged a decision by a regional schools commissioner to open a new sixth form in east London, because we think that sometimes competition really goes against the interests of young people in terms of quality and breadth of curriculum.

As Richard says, the area review process has been variable across the country. In some areas, it has helped enormously to move things forward quickly; in other areas, it has been more difficult and more awkward. We have got to think about the 2,100 school sixth forms, over half of which recruit fewer than 100 learners into year 12. The Government’s guidance suggests that you need at least 200 to make it both financially and educationally viable. In our autumn statement submission, we have asked, and we keep saying again and again, that if it is right for area reviews to happen for colleges with the rigour that Richard talked about and with really detailed five-year financial plans, why not do that with school sixth forms?

We have hundreds of thousands of young people learning in very small school sixth forms; you can make that work, but it is really difficult to get the breadth and quality right. We would really like to see that same rigour applied to school sixth forms. We know that some local authorities are starting to do that themselves, and it would be great to see Government supporting that and getting a framework for it across the country. You do not have to do it all at the same time but it would be nice to see that rolled through, in the interests of young people in terms of the quality and offer that they get.

Bill Watkin: I should just reiterate the difference between sixth-form colleges and school sixth forms, because they are not the same thing at all. I entirely agree with what David was just saying. To give an example, a sixth-form college straddles—usually successfully but sometimes slightly awkwardly and uncomfortably—two sectors: the FE sector and the schools sector. A sixth-form college offers a school-type curriculum, but it does so with economies of scale. For example, I recently visited a college that has 1,000 students studying maths A-level, and another where there are 400 students studying psychology A-level. These are not the small school sixth forms that David was just talking about; they are large colleges that are incorporated and therefore usually included in considerations about the FE sector. They were also included in the area review process, and there are those who say that it was not entirely helpful not to include school sixth forms while including sixth-form colleges—that did not necessarily make a great deal of sense.

The other consequence of straddling those two sectors is the relevance of the Bill to sixth-form colleges. Much of what is in the Bill will have only a very limited impact on a small number of colleges, and most of them will not be hugely touched by it. There are two areas of particular interest to sixth-form colleges: one is the insolvency regime and the impact on their finances, and the second is the applied general qualifications, which are enormously important to sixth-form colleges. Applied A-levels, BTECs and applied general qualifications are an enormously important part of a blended curriculum offered to students in sixth-form colleges as a pathway to high-end destinations such as universities; two students recently got into biomedical degrees at Russell Group universities with entirely BTEC provision. That is the sort of curriculum that sixth-form colleges offer.

[Mike Kane]

Q Richard, may I just challenge you a bit further? Say you have two successful FE institutions and the recommendation from the area review is to merge—this scenario is not a million miles away from what is going on—but they say, “No, we are independent institutions. Forget it.” We know that they can stand alone, but the review said that they should come together. What is the stick? What is the incentive? How do you get from the world as it is, to the world as you want it to be?

Richard Atkins: I have two points. If they were both very successful and could produce the sorts of data that David referred to, they would probably be stand-alone anyway. If they could produce five-year data that showed that they would be financially sustainable and would continue to be very successful, they would probably opt for stand-alone and we would probably support that. We have got one or two cases like that.

If they cannot produce those data and we and the steering group think that merger is the best solution—this is possible, and we are doing it in at least one or two cases at the moment—we will put that recommendation in the report. The college can still opt independently not to do it. That means it will never be able to access the restructuring fund; if something went wrong in future, it would not get access to the large restructuring fund that is currently available. Of course, it would be subject to the new insolvency regime if this legislation goes through, so the world looks quite a lot tougher for it post-2018 if it chooses to ignore the evidence-based work that my team will have done and will have shared with the local steering group.

It is possible to bury your head and say, “We don’t accept the evidence that you are putting in front of us. We can’t produce robust plans for the next five years, but we are going to go it alone anyway. We won’t co-operate with anyone.” By doing that, those governors would be taking a big risk—a risk for their learners as well as for themselves. Let us say that the insolvency legislation goes through. I am generally supportive of that legislation in this role, and as a principal—as you probably know, I stepped down from being a principal earlier this year, after 21 years—I would have been supportive of it. You are taking quite a risk if you are prepared to confound the recommendation that we would make, along with the other members of the steering group. But you are right to say that ultimately these colleges are independent, and as a long-serving principal, I got the highest level of job satisfaction when my college enjoyed a degree of independence.

David Hughes: We need to be a bit careful on this. I remember twice being asked by Ministers when I was in the civil service to try to show the evidence that large colleges were more effective—well, once with Bill Rammell and then with John Hayes to show that small colleges were more effective. There is no evidence of size making that much difference. Leadership makes the difference, and context is king. The competition that I talked about can undermine the best led college, but leadership is the key thing.

When the area review comes through with a recommendation for merger, the right thing for the colleges to do is to go through a due diligence process to examine the proposal further. In some circumstances, it is very correct that they make the decision not to go through with it, because they have to have at their heart the interests of their institution, their learners and their community. The area review will not always get that recommendation right. We have to have a degree of realism: the colleges are independent institutions, making their own decisions, and sometimes not to go forward with that recommendation might be the right thing.

Ian Pretty: The area-based reviews, as a general process, struck me as reasonable. Where it has become more challenging is that the key objectives were that you wanted fewer, larger, financially sustainable colleges; that was the premise on which the ABR process was set up. As I said earlier, the key thing for me is the extent to which you have looked at things such as the skills plan and the pathways first, putting in place things such as the insolvency regime, and then perhaps the ABR process would have been an easier process for many.

I think that it is absolutely right that further education colleges are allowed to be independent and remain independent. I recognise that that creates frictions in terms of their not necessarily agreeing to things, but that was how they were set up back in 1992. The risk with all this, in terms of the ABR and the current lack of an insolvency regime, is that I do not think you have the flexibility to be able actually to create the merged institutions that you might or might not want. I have a personal view that a solvent college merged with an insolvent college is not a solvent college; that causes problems afterwards.

Speaking as an organisation, I know that the association has representatives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—we have five colleges altogether there—and I think there is a lot that the Department for Education and Government can learn from the experience, particularly in Scotland, which did bang them together to create regional colleges. They could look at the successes and the failures. There are strong successes there, and there are colleges where the merger has not been so successful.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I would like to continue on the theme of the implications of the area reviews and to come back to you, Richard, if I may. As you have already said, you have had a distinguished career as a college principal and have held leadership positions in the Association of Colleges, so at least for the moment, until you are covered in the bureaucracies, you can see from both angles. I want to ask you about the implications of 88 colleges moving towards merger. Sir Francis Drake famously said that

“it is not the beginning, but the continuing of the same, until it be thoroughly finished, which yields the true glory”.

Although, the question here is whether there will be glory or lots of pain along the way. I want to press you on two particular points.

The context of this, as Ian Pretty has alluded to, is two things: first, the critical National Audit Office report, which really bashed the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills right around the head over some areas and set off alarm bells about financial stability—I am sure that played a major part in the insolvency regime set out in the Bill—and secondly, on a year-on-year basis, when we exclude apprenticeship funding, the trajectory of funding for FE colleges from Government has been going down.

The situation is febrile and, in some cases, is producing that number of mergers. Once they are merged, there are then of course the consequences for the staff and students. For example, when two colleges merge in a suburban or rural setting, the implications for them being able to maintain their courses, which are after all the viability of those colleges, will be significant if issues such as travel do not come into it. I see nothing in the Bill at the moment—and little has been said by Ministers—about where the funding to support that process will come from.

My second point picks up on what my colleague Mike Kane said earlier about his experiences with Greater Manchester—I am a native Mancunian by birth, so I understand the area’s issues well, and the cohesion that already exists, and lots of other areas will not have that cohesion. We are going through a period of significant devolution from Government of responsibilities and funding—for what it is worth, I am wholeheartedly in favour of that—and skills and FE will be affected. We have a situation in which things are beginning to be set in stone in combined authorities or mayoralties that are likely to have significant powers in the next couple of years, but they might well come along and say, “Actually, this didn’t include us. We want to unpick it.” What do you have to say to that?

Richard Atkins: May I take the first question first? Thanks for setting it in context. If I may do the same, you are right that I had a long career as a principal, and when I started there were 469 FE and sixth-form colleges; there are 321 today. Some of those mergers have been very successful, but not all. But just as in business and other walks of life, some mergers do succeed. For example, takeovers are often more successful than mergers, but some have been very successful. I remember when towns such as Derby had two or three colleges, but now they have one strong college. So I think that in a number of cases the mergers we are proposing through area reviews may well strengthen college provision in that part of the country, but I do not for one minute think that every one of them will work out as if a magic wand has made it all brilliant and successful immediately.

There is continuing work for me and my team as the agency calls us in to support the implementation of the area reviews, to work out where things are going in the right direction or how to get them back on track, or to come up with alternatives, if necessary, to keep the process going. I do not think that it will be a cliff edge as such. I am talking to colleges a lot about the fact that it is not a cliff edge. I do not see 31 March and the end of the area review steering groups as an absolute cliff edge.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q That is a fair point, but may I press you a bit further? I am not necessarily saying that all these mergers will be a disaster; what I am saying is that they will be challenging—I gave you two particular examples—and what I wonder is whether you think the Government have given this enough attention, in terms of contingency funding or, for example, support for travel for students who might be affected. Or do you think it is part of your job and that of your fellow commissioners, when you are deliberating on these things, to send a stronger message to Government on these matters?

Richard Atkins: There are two points. Mergers do not necessarily mean the closure of sites, so they do not mean the end of provision for students locally. Clearly, in rural areas, for example, the history of the sector has been that provision has not gone even when there have been mergers. When Truro and Penwith came together, that did not end provision in Penzance. In fact, it regenerated the provision in Penzance to a higher standard. You can see that across the country.

Certainly, in any recommendations for area review that I am involved in—I have said this a lot—the interests of the learners would be paramount in my mind. I know that finance is one of the factors driving this. I do not disagree with you about the fact that there are pressures on colleges. Non-apprenticeship funding has been challenging. The cuts that colleges have faced in terms of the adult skills budget have been as big as any across education, and of course we have had a demographic downturn in 16-year-olds that goes on for another five years, and more competition. So colleges are under real pressure.

However, when I go out and intervene—the second part of my role, as you know, is intervening in colleges that have had either an inadequate Ofsted assessment or serious financial concerns—I actually find that what is missing are some of the basics of governance, leadership and financial management. I do not always find that it is a lack of funds.

I would like to see more investment in the sector. As a long-standing principal, I spent a long time arguing for that. I hope that in the future we will see greater investment in technical education, but when I go out to look at some of the most acute cases, what I find is—you will see this from my predecessor’s reports as well and the lessons I share with the sector—lack of a costed curriculum plan, staffing costs well above average compared with turnover and so on.

Part of my job is to share that practice, both good and bad, with all the colleges so that people can keep on track. I do think that is part of my job. It is also part of my job to represent the interests of learners. I hope the insolvency legislation proposed in the Bill does not have to be used, but if it did, I hope that the administrator would call in our team. I hope that we would act in the interests of those learners to ensure that the right solution was found with the institution and, most importantly, the right solution was found for the learners.

I do not think that merger necessarily means rationalising the number of sites; it may do in an urban area. My first college, I seem to remember, reduced from 11 sites to two. In a reasonably small town there was plenty of room for rationalisation. The idea that you close provision down in a particular district, borough or town is not something I would be in favour of at all. I would be looking for merger solutions that bring together back-room services, avoid duplication and so on.

Equally, particularly at levels 1 and 2, I would ensure that provision continues to be delivered locally where those learners can best access it. I do not see merger as necessarily meaning a rationalisation of locality and sites, particularly at levels 1 and 2. When you get to level 3, just look at the distances that students travel to Bill Watkin’s sixth-form colleges around the country. If you go to levels 4 and 5, which I hope we are going to see more of, I find that learners are very happy to travel considerable distances for the right provision. I do not see mergers as necessarily wiping out, but I do see my role as representing the best interests of the learners, and I hope that is what I have brought with me from being a principal all those years.

I would love to see more investment in the sector, but that is not what I find when I go out and do interventions at the moment—I have done several already. I am not walking into the problems being caused simply by underfunding; I am walking into areas where there is room for considerable improvement in governance, leadership, management and financial management.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q But you will be aware, with the eagerness of people to travel distances, as you say, that they might be eager but, if they do not have the money to travel, they will not be able to.

Richard Atkins: Sure. Coming from a county such as Devon, I am acutely aware of that: there are the lowest take-home wages in the country in place such as Torridge and west Devon. I am very aware of the travel. That is why I say that provision at levels 1 and 2, in particular, needs to be as local as you can get it to the learners, whether in an urban or rural area. I agree.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Indeed. We will keep a close eye on that.

Finally, I will come to Ian. We have been talking about insolvency provisions. You have experience in other areas that may be useful for taking an overview here. Let me say straightaway that I very much welcome the new provisions, but there seems to be a tension, which no doubt we will explore in our line-by-line scrutiny, between the role of the administrator and the natural commercial demands and pressures that will come from the traditional insolvency process. Have you had any thoughts about that? I am mindful that we do not want to paint a picture of the whole area being ripe for insolvency—David, you made that point to me not that long ago. Nevertheless, we must plan for the worst. Are you confident at the moment, notwithstanding welcoming the new provisions, that the balance is right regarding securing the interests of the staff and the pupils at the college that might be in trouble alongside those of the people who are the traditional creditors?

Ian Pretty: Broadly, yes. That is the slightly negative answer. It is right that we very much welcome the insolvency regime. I think that part of it has been adjusted. One of the concerns we had initially was with things such as winding-up orders. It looked like anyone from anywhere could issue a winding-up order on a college, which would have created some real dangers, particularly to the learners, in that they would suddenly have had nowhere to study, and to the employees, who would have had no jobs. I see that the proposed legislation has made adjustments to that, which is welcome.

On the role of the education administrator, it looks like a fairly standard role that you would see in any winding-up or any receivership or administration in the private sector. The biggest concern I have at the moment is about governance and liability in terms of disqualification under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. I still have real concerns, as do our members, particularly as we are colleges that are very commercially minded, that, depending on how that is interpreted and perhaps put into secondary legislation, you might be at risk of ending up in a situation in which you deter private sector people from being on boards of governors.

You might also deter politicians and people from the third sector—from charitable trusts—from being on boards of governors. It is absolutely essential that the sector has that insight and know-how brought in to help it through the processes. If there is a risk of someone being told that they will be disqualified as a director, you can imagine that that is quite material in the private sector. That is the area we are most concerned about at the moment. On executive functions, on people like principals being disqualified, we have no problem with that.

On creditors and bankers—I know that you will be speaking to the banks this afternoon and I am sure that they will be able to tell you whether they are supportive of the provisions—

[Gordon Marsden]

I will not ask you about your experience with the banks.

Ian Pretty: Don’t ask! There are sections of the proposed legislation that talk about indemnities and guarantees given by the national authority, be it the UK Government or the Welsh Government. Again, that is fine. I am sure it must be giving some comfort to the creditors, but the risk, of course, is that the Government become the guarantor of last resort. It is noticeable that other sections of the legislation refer to the college that is in administration having to re-fund. It depends on the sums of money that are involved, but if you do that you run the risk of never getting out of the insolvency cycle.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q Two issues have been raised in the past few minutes. One is mergers, and I think that David Hughes suggested that there could be a case for not enormous colleges staying as independent colleges; some might merge, but each could be judged on its own merits. But that should not be elided with the issue of sixth-form colleges doing A-levels and the contrast with small school sixth forms. I should say that I am a 25-year governor of a sixth-form college, a former teacher in further education and the chair of the all-party group on sixth-form colleges. The statistics produced by the Sixth-Form Colleges Association overwhelmingly show that sixth-form colleges do better in educational achievements and in value for money, and the Government would do well to persuade schools, local authorities or whoever to pool their sixth forms and create many more sixth-form colleges. That would be enormously advantageous to the country, to education and to young people.

The other issue is governance, which Ian Pretty talked about. I agree strongly that we ought to have breadth in our governing bodies. I have to say that the governing body of which I am a member has invariably had at least two members qualified in accountancy and at least two with legal qualifications, as well as members from the education sector, including primary and secondary schools, and from local businesses. It is small, tightly knit, monocultural governing bodies—perhaps drawn only from small local businesses—that tend to get out of control and that do not do too well. There was one glaring example of that in my constituency—I will not mention its name, but many of you will know about it. It got into a disastrous state, although it has now been picked up by a superb new principal. That breadth of governance, with all sorts of skills as well as commitments, is crucial. I wonder whether you accept that that is a sensible way of doing things.

Richard Atkins: Shall I begin? First, on interventions and area reviews, the quality of governance is critical to the success of the college—more critical than many governors realise. I see that when I go into colleges that are not doing well. Getting the sort of governing body that you describe, with a broad base of skills and knowledge, is essential. I pay tribute to the chairs and to the role they play in the area review. They are giving up a huge amount of time and showing enormous commitment to their colleges by coming to all the steering group meetings and taking part in this. Governance is critical to the quality of colleges. I agree with David that the size of a college is not the key determinant; we have some successful big colleges, but we also have some very successful small, niche colleges. Logically, you would think “How do they survive?” but actually they are doing very well.

Another point that I did not make earlier is that, although area reviews are leading to these 88 mergers—I am thinking about the area review that we are about to start in your constituency; I was talking to the two principals last week—in some areas we are simply generating collaboration short of a merger at a level that we have not seen for a long time. I happen to know that those colleges in your area have already been to see me to talk about a new form of collaboration. If that is the best solution for that area, and the data underpin that, we will support it. Merger is not the single blind answer in every case; collaboration short of a merger may well be the best solution in certain cases.

David Hughes: I want to assert that governance in the FE sector is very strong. I know that the Minister is very interested in helping to improve it, but we have a sector with very strong governance. These are independent organisations taking big business decisions over the long term, and in the vast majority of cases they deliver a very high-quality service and achieve a surplus. For many years, in the Learning and Skills Council and the Skills Funding Agency, I did a job that was not dissimilar to the FE commissioner’s: overseeing all the colleges that were getting into difficulties. It is quite striking that, despite all the funding cuts and all the competition, there are still only 20 colleges in financial difficulties. That is a very familiar number; it was not dissimilar through the noughties and into this decade. Despite all those challenges, FE and sixth-form colleges have proved incredibly adaptable and have responded really well to the funding environment.

Let me just go back to the fact that higher education is generating a surplus of more than 4% every year. The Higher Education Funding Council for England thinks that that is a problem, because it is only 4%, but FE has had a deficit in the last two years. That is not a commentary on the lack of good leadership and governance, but on the competition and the funding levels. We need to address that; otherwise, we still will not have the technical and academic education we need for young people and adults in this country. These are really important issues. It is not easy, because the economy is not doing as well as anyone wants. We are looking to the autumn statement this week and perhaps the Budget in the spring. As Lord Sainsbury said this morning, how do you properly fund technical education in this country, possibly for the first time ever?

Bill Watkin: I will respond to your comments about the growth of sixth-form colleges in the context of the economies of scale they offer, the quality of qualifications, their outcomes and their support for young people. I would also add that, with the population shift, the number of 11 to 16-year-olds is growing.

There is an interesting example of a proposed merger between a sixth-form college and an academy chain. The school, which has a large sixth-form provision, is looking to shift all of its sixth form across to the sixth-form college, and then to build capacity for 11 to 16-year-olds to serve the community. That is an example of a successful outcome of an area review recommendation. There is also the opportunity for sixth-form colleges to roll out their successful brand and open up a free school 16-to-19 provision, as happened in Pontefract.

I am pleased that the Government are reviewing the approval process for small school sixth forms. We have been invited to contribute to that review. I sincerely hope that there will be a different way of considering applications to open up schools’ sixth forms.

Professor Alison Fuller: I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of governance and efficiency—we are talking about public money, after all—but I do not want us to lose sight of the issue of efficacy and quality, which we started the session off with. The initiatives in the Bill will potentially achieve a step change in quality if we get this right. We know how much this matters, because the population performs very poorly in the OECD’s programme for the international assessment of adult competencies survey—the adult skills survey, which is administered to 27-year-olds. The added value from 15 to 27 is very weak, in terms of the age range, when you compare us to countries that have strong upper secondary and strong vocational and technical systems. The legacy effects that we are suffering as a consequence of the current system and what happened historically are playing through into the economy, life chances and wellbeing more generally. The prize is huge, but so is the challenge. I am a little concerned that an over-emphasis on governance may deflect from the really difficult thing—the quality issue.

Ian Pretty: Can I build on the discussion on mergers, which I think is a healthy one? To me, the merger is the merger. It is very easy to say, “We are all going to merge together. It’s all going to be wonderful, and the world is going to be fantastic,” but if you look at the statistics across all sectors—commercial and public—only 25% of mergers ever achieve their objectives. Post-merger integration is the most difficult thing. Part of that is that you have to understand the logic of the merger—is it a logical merger or a “shotgun” merger?—because that can have an impact. The studies show that, when they are successful, it is because of culture and cultural fit. Within the FE sector, some colleges are more likely to be able to culturally fit with another than others.

Having been on the receiving end, when I was in government, of ministerial decisions to merge, I can attest to the fact that it is difficult. The merger between Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise was an interesting experience, to say the least—I promptly walked out the door and went to the private sector.

You have to look at the logic of the merger, and then there is the whole point about post-merger integration. We have talked about whether there is enough funding, and all that sort of stuff, but do you have the right leadership? Do you have the right cultural fit that will make the merger work? Does the merger have the right objectives?

The other thing that is worth looking at is that we see regional college groups merging, and we see alternative versions of collaboration. Devon recently announced the launch of the Devon Colleges Group. The colleges have not merged together; they are collaborating. That is quite significant. You will then see that some college groups are working very well as merged entities or as groups. Hull, for example, is a successful college that has HE sections and FE sections. Warwickshire has merged a large number of colleges together, but it has not got rid of the place. It can therefore maintain community.

Going back to one of my earlier points, it is worth looking at the experience of places like Scotland. North East Scotland College has been a highly successful regional college group around Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and it has campuses that are 40 miles apart and still work—it still succeeds. It is worth looking at those models, but it is about the objectives of the merger. There must be a clear post-merger integration plan, because that is where you are going to get more success, rather than just saying, “We need to knock this together to get a smaller number of colleges.”

[Justin Tomlinson]

Q Building on Ian’s comments about the mergers, we had a similar discussion this week in the centre of the universe that is Swindon, where New College and Swindon College are considering whether to merge formally, whether to collaborate further or whether to continue with the status quo. Ian highlights that the success rate is only some 25%, and it comes down to leadership. What more can be done to engage with local employers? They could provide expertise and leadership in the next wave of governors—colleges are all chronically short of that—thereby improving the culture. Crucially, that could lead to opportunities for the students later on, because too often employers are not being engaged. What more can be done?

[The Chair]

May I ask for short answers?

Ian Pretty: The quick answer is that college principals ought to be working with local businesses to understand whether their post-merger integration plan is really viable and will work. My other point goes back to the concern I raised about one of the clauses in the Bill—that governors run the risk of being disqualified if the college is made insolvent. You have to look at those sorts of things. You have to look much more closely at how businesses want to interact with FE colleges and how colleges can learn from business.

David Hughes: Richard mentioned Derby College, and I was involved in the three-way merger 15 years ago. What we did, and the lessons are pertinent today, is that we created clarity for employers about where to go. In places like Swindon there is a lot of good sense in having one college so that employers can say, “There is one place for us to go.” I would not underestimate the big difference that simplicity can make.

It is obviously a lot more than that. It is also about having staff in the college who will go out and be credible with employers. It is perhaps about picking out the level 4 and 5 specialisms on which the college needs to focus, bringing employers together around those specialisms and allowing them proper agency to influence what gets delivered—making sure that they are contributing to the curriculum, offering work experience and work placements, and so on. It is about properly engaging for the long term, rather than just the short term. It can be done. Again, it requires really good leadership and governance within the college, and it requires employers to step up to the plate and meet halfway. Co-creation is what you want. You want for both sides to feel that they are contributing to something.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Q What is done to share that best practice?

David Hughes: The AOC works quite hard to share that practice. We have a governors’ council, and we share that practice with governors, principals and senior leaders. We work across the piece. We also support the Education and Training Foundation.

Richard Atkins: I am just going to come back with two or three things. First, the Swindon issue, as you will know, is a live issue. I am chairing the Gloucestershire, Swindon and Wiltshire area review at the moment—

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will be writing to you soon.

Richard Atkins: That is a live issue. Secondly, the relationship between a principal and their governing body is interesting. I always felt that one of the key elements was to work with my chair and clerk to recruit governors. That was a non-stop piece of work. When you are out and about in your town or community with employers, you are all the time thinking about people who might in the future make a governor. If you get it right, you will end up with a waiting list, and there are colleges with waiting lists. If you do not do that engagement and do not keep on top of it all the time, you will end up going around saying, “No one wants to be a governor.” For me, it is a key element of the principal’s job to work very closely with the chair and clerk to identify potential recruits who can then obviously go before a search committee and all the rest. I hope that the area review for your area, and particularly for the town of Swindon, is able to come to the right collective answer.

[The Chair]

Bill Watkin, if you can be short, I would be grateful, because Tracy Brabin wants to come in with a question.

Bill Watkin: Yes. I would like to draw together the strands of merger due diligence and the insolvency regime. The insolvency regime has an impact before insolvency is even a reality. Since the publication of the insolvency regime, banks and pension fund managers have been responding differently to colleges. A group of colleges in the south-east, for example, immediately after the publication of the insolvency regime—which I should say colleges welcome—were upgraded to a maximum risk rating in terms of their pension contributions, which of course means that they are able to divert less money to teaching and learning and have to negotiate less favourable repayment terms. It is the same thing with bank loans. Banks and pension fund managers are all being more cautious because of the insolvency regime, and that is having an immediate impact.

[Tracy Brabin]

Q Thank you for squeezing me in very quickly at the end, Mr Bailey. I would like to pick up on something that was said earlier. You said there is no cliff edge when it comes to insolvency. If students are already on the course, how swiftly will they be moved to better provision so the lights are not turned off and there is not asset stripping around them? How much transparency will there be for prospective students if a college is under review and about to be declared insolvent?

Richard Atkins: I will start, because I would be likely to be involved—or my team would. I really hope that this legislation is not used, but it is very important to have it in the cupboard. I agree with Bill. Most principals welcome this. There is a lack of clarity in the 1992 legislation, which has led to some colleges getting exceptional funding on a long-term basis, which is not awfully good for neighbouring colleges or the sector and stops people getting their house in order. Generally speaking, people welcome this but hope it will never be used, and that is my position.

If it were ever used, there is a special administration regime, and the Secretary of State can declare that within 14 days and step in. The administrator, who would be commercially appointed, would almost certainly turn to me and my team to do just what you have said. My primary interest would be the welfare of the students. First, we would want teaching and learning to continue in that place, and we would certainly want students to complete their courses. Secondly, we would want to find the best institutional solution for that organisation, which would not necessarily be shutting it down and moving all the students. There is a range of options—a merger is one, but there are others.

I would like to think that this would be the absolute last resort and might never be used, but it might focus governors and principals very firmly on their financial responsibilities as well as their educational ones, and it might enable me and my team to intervene earlier. Earlier intervention is a key part of this to prevent things from getting to the position where, by the time we arrive, there have already been successive exceptional funding payments, which leads to an unhelpful culture of money just being paid out. David will remember from when he was involved in these sorts of rescues that if you get into a cycle of exceptional funding payments, that is not helpful. This draws a line. I hope it is a line that never needs to be crossed, and I and my team would always be there, working with the funding agency to look after the very best interests of the learners and not disrupt their programmes.

Ian Pretty: Clause 14 of the draft legislation sums it up well—in particular clause 14(2). What is quite critical to me—I am very supportive of it—is that it puts the loan at the heart of what is going to happen. That gives protections.

[The Chair]

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt, but it is necessary for me to do so to conform to the programme motion. If you would like to submit in writing any further comments you might have made, I am sure that the Committee would be happy to consider them. I thank all the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. It has been a very comprehensive discussion.

11:25

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Technical and Further Education Bill (Second sitting)

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Mr Adrian Bailey, † Nadine Dorries

† Argar, Edward (Charnwood) (Con)

† Brabin, Tracy (Batley and Spen) (Lab)

Donelan, Michelle (Chippenham) (Con)

† Evennett, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Halfon, Robert (Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills)

† Hopkins, Kelvin (Luton North) (Lab)

† Jayawardena, Mr Ranil (North East Hampshire) (Con)

Kane, Mike (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)

† Mak, Mr Alan (Havant) (Con)

† Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool South) (Lab)

† Rutley, David (Macclesfield) (Con)

Shah, Naz (Bradford West) (Lab)

† Smith, Henry (Crawley) (Con)

† Tomlinson, Justin (North Swindon) (Con)

† Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

Vara, Mr Shailesh (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)

Kenneth Fox, Marek Kubala, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Stephen Harris, Executive Director, Ernst & Young

Richard Meddelton, Head of Education, Charities and Local Government Sector, Lloyds Banking Group

Gareth Jones, National Head of Education, Santander

Richard Robinson, Regional Director for Public Sector Team and Head of Education, Barclays

Shakira Martin, Vice President, Further Education, National Union of Students

Shane Chowen, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Learning and Work Institute

Bev Robinson, Principal, Blackpool and The Fylde College

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 22 November 2016

(Afternoon)

[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]

Technical and Further Education Bill

Examination of Witnesses

Stephen Harris, Richard Meddelton, Gareth Jones and Richard Robinson gave evidence.

14:00

[The Chair]

Welcome, gentlemen. We will now hear oral evidence from Ernst & Young, Lloyds Banking Group, Santander and Barclays. For this session we have until 3 o’clock. Gentlemen, could you please introduce yourselves with your name and which company you are representing?

Richard Robinson: My name is Richard Robinson and I work for Barclays bank; I am the head of education at Barclays.

Gareth Jones: I am Gareth Jones; I am the national head of education for Santander.

Richard Meddelton: I am Richard Meddelton; I am the regional director responsible for education, charities and government for Lloyds bank.

Stephen Harris: I am Stephen Harris; I am an insolvency practitioner with Ernst & Young.

[The Chair]

Mr Marsden, were you going to lead first?

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Q 41 Yes. Good afternoon, gentlemen; I see that it is all gentlemen, which might raise some interesting questions for the future. Obviously, you have been invited here this afternoon. We hope you have a generous overview of the further education sector, but you are principally here this afternoon as the lenders and, possibly, subsequently the enforcers—if I may put it that way. We are particularly interested in the parts of the Bill that have the details of the insolvency process.

Perhaps I could start by asking this genuinely open question to each of you in turn. We had some discussion on this insolvency regime this morning and its genesis may be disputed, or it may come from a number of areas, but undoubtedly one of those—I quoted this earlier—was the concerns expressed in the National Audit Office report in 2015 about the financial situation of a number of FE colleges. You will probably be familiar, in some shape or form, with that report, because I imagine it would have sat somewhere on your risk profiles. As I said this morning, I do not want to over-exaggerate that threat, because doing so would be very unfair to the FE sector. May I ask each of you to say briefly, from your own experience, whether the events of the past couple of years, including that NAO report and the inclusion in this Bill of a fairly detailed insolvency process with some novel features, have already sharpened—or are likely to—your willingness or otherwise to loan to colleges? Who would like to start on that?

Richard Robinson: I think it is fair to say that the deterioration in the financial performance of the sector over the past couple of years has led to a tightening of the terms of finance available to further education colleges.

Our experience to date has been that when colleges have got into financial difficulty, they have been helped out by one of the agencies—be that the Skills Funding Agency or the Education Funding Agency—that have provided exceptional funding support to help turn those colleges around and keep them going. I think we are going to allow colleges to become insolvent. From a creditor’s perspective, that is a worse position than the one we are in now, simply because, from our experience, we know what is going to happen. However, the proposed insolvency regime has been well thought through, and the points that we made through the consultation process have been well listened to. Our preference as a creditor is still that it is not introduced, but if it is, there are a number of things that will help creditors and most of those have been well reflected in the Bill.

Gareth Jones: I agree that, over the last couple of years, lending into the sector has become a little more difficult and challenging. Overall, from our perspective, we are still very supportive of the sector—still looking to grow our exposure to the sector and grow our lending book. On the Bill and the proposed insolvency regime, we are actually supportive of the clarity that they provide.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Mr Meddleton from Lloyds—with whom I have been for 43 years, so I have an active interest in Lloyds—I am not going to ask you to divulge any commercially sensitive information but I think it is an open secret that you are rather a large lender to a rather large number of colleges. Is that correct?

Richard Meddelton: Yes, that is correct. We are a significant lender in the FE sector, as are a number of other banks around the table. We have supported the sector for many years.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q May I ask you something, then, on the basis of that long experience—almost as long as my time banking with you? Obviously, over that period, there have been high points and low points for the economy, and there have been changes in regime and Government responsibility. How would you characterise the current situation from your perspective —obviously being supportive, but at the end of the day having to be commercial lenders? How would you characterise the current situation in terms of risk for your bank, and what do you think the proposed insolvency regime does for that?

Richard Meddelton: In answer to your first question, the sector is going through a number of difficulties at the moment. My colleagues have highlighted the reasons, which I would agree with, on that. From our perspective, yes, it is a sector that certainly has a number of stresses within it at the present time. Notwithstanding that, as a major lender in the sector we remain extremely committed to it.

[The Chair]

Mr Meddleton, could you speak a bit louder please, so that we can hear you down here?

Richard Meddelton: I will try to. I don’t have the loudest of voices.

[The Chair]

Or get closer to the microphone. Thank you.

Richard Meddelton: We are, as a bank, extremely committed to the sector and we remain so. The SAR as it is proposed—if that is your second question—does give us some cause for concern, certainly in terms of continuing to lend on a long-term basis. If you look at the current area review and start going through, they are very welcome. I am not sure, going forward, that it is particularly easy for us to make a longer term lending decision based on the performance of the college as it stands now and in the short term.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q If I could just add to that, and for the benefit of the other witnesses, who I assume were not here this morning, we had a fairly full discussion as to what the economic impact of the area reviews would be. I think it is fair to say that the FE commissioner took a slightly rosier view than I did of where some of those mergers might end up. Of course, mergers in principle run along the lines of attempting to provide greater stability, but we heard from another member of the panel this morning that that was not always his experience. Obviously, you will have to take a measured view on that. The commissioner disclosed today—of course, the area review process is not complete—that some 88 colleges are likely to be involved in merger issues. Is that something that would be a material fact when you were going to your colleagues and talking to them about the spread of risk in the FE sector and your continued loans over the next one to two years?

Richard Meddelton: Could you clarify the question for me please?

[Gordon Marsden]

I am sorry. We heard this morning from the FE commissioner that there are up to 88 colleges that are potentially involved in the process of merger, from the area reviews. The implications of merger may be positive, as the FE commissioner was keen to emphasise, or negative, if they go wrong, and if the number of students declines and if there are all sorts of problems, which would include the potential for financial instability. I was asking you whether the area reviews, and the number that I have just given to you, would be a significantly material factor for you when you are presumably discussing with your colleagues the likely factors of risk for lending over the next two years.

Richard Meddelton: Certainly we understand the area review process and the reasons for it. I would say that we look at each one in detail. We certainly welcome the area review process. We think it is a positive step forward. As you rightly say, not all mergers necessarily work and work well, if you draw parallels with corporate life. Nevertheless, we see a lot more good than not in what is being proposed.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Finally, I wonder if I could come to you, Mr Harris. You are set apart from your colleagues, but only set apart in the sense that you have been there, done that and bought several T-shirts, probably. That is why we are very pleased to have you here today, because you have been through situations where there has been a special administration regime.

You will have seen in the Bill that there are clauses that spell out the nature of what the special administration regime would be. I note your comments; I have read your comments on the Bill. You perfectly reasonably hedge your bets about the outcome. You have asked the most pertinent question that we probably all need to ask—a focus for the responsible authority creditors and the insolvency practitioner: who will foot the bill for the greater good? Perhaps the Minister will be forthcoming on that at some point in the future—I do not know. I want to ask you what you think, because we have this very technical clause about the way in which colleges can have more than one corporate identity and legal identity. Could you comment on the implications of the distribution of that, in the insolvency part of the Bill, on the way in which colleges are defined, whether as corporate entities or some other body?

Stephen Harris: May I just clarify the clause that you refer to?

[Gordon Marsden]

I am referring to clause 22 on the general functions of the education administrator, which draws a distinction

“where the further education body is a company”.

I am interested in the extent to which that would affect all FE colleges that found themselves in this situation, as opposed to a particular number.

Stephen Harris: Paragraph 22—

[Gordon Marsden]

It is clause 22, paragraph 43—

Stephen Harris: I am sorry to appear stupid, but I do not seem to be able to read off the same clause to which you refer. I am anxious that I do.

[Gordon Marsden]

My apologies—it is clause 22. I am looking at “General functions” of the administrator—subsection (3).

[The Chair]

Mr Harris, we will give you a copy of the Bill, which might be helpful.

[Gordon Marsden]

It might also be helpful to refer you to the explanatory notes, which prompted my question. They state:

“The education administrator must also, so far as it is consistent with the special objective, carry out the functions in a way that achieves the best result for the body’s creditors as a whole…Where the further education body is a company, subsection (4) requires the education administrator to carry out their functions in a way that achieves the best result for the company’s creditors as a whole and, subject to that, the company’s members as a whole.”

I found that rather opaque and not clear in its implications.

[The Chair]

We are sending you down a copy of the explanatory notes as well.

Stephen Harris: Thank you. I do empathise with your observation that it may be opaque. I also had to put a question mark there when I read it for the first time. This is my take on the legislation as proposed, as is writ in the draft Bill: it is very clear—this is the way I have read it, but others may differ—that the overarching or transcendental purpose is to minimise the disruption and to carry on, within certain bounds. Then there are what seem to me to be some slightly subservient points. That is not to diminish them, but an office holder would have to step back and consider those people who fall into the category of subsection (3)—people with special needs—and how that dovetails into the way he is discharging his duties. Then you get to the issue of having to carry on in the interests of the creditors. I think there is a question when you read that: is that something that clicks into place when an office holder has optionality as to the route that he might take through the maze, or is that something he has to balance with the overarching purpose itself? If you say to me that it is not exactly clear on the face of the drafting, I have to concur with you; I stalled on the very same point myself.

[Gordon Marsden]

Thank you.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Q I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I used to work for Lloyds Banking Group and spent time in corporate banking, dealing for a time with education, community and government customers. I will come to Lloyds in a moment, but first, Mr Jones, you said in your written evidence to the Committee that you think that this is a positive step and that lenders will have certainty. Can you explain the uncertainty that exists to you as a lender today?

Gareth Jones: From Santander’s perspective, the uncertainty has always been around the funding agencies and, when a college is struggling to make its payments, effectively where that interim funding will come from. There is also uncertainty about whether the current insolvency applies to college corporations at present. From a risk perspective, when we assess the underlying risk of a transaction, there has always been that uncertainty and we have had to make assumptions in the background. If the Bill is passed, the certainty it will provide is positive for us.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Q Despite what Mr Robinson said a moment ago about the challenges in the sector, if I understand what you said, Mr Jones, after you, as Santander, have done that analysis of the credit risk, you would like to lend more into the further education sector.

Gareth Jones: Yes.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Q Mr Meddelton, given what Mr Jones said, why do you say that this proposal presents banks with such significant challenges? Surely the certainty that Mr Jones just outlined is a good thing.

Richard Meddelton: Certainly to have a framework, as proposed, is a positive step. The issue for us is to do with the powers that the administration would have under a special administration regime. For example, if we were a secured creditor and the college went into an SAR, what could happen—I appreciate it is a “could”, and that it is untested—is that the administrator could run the college for what I think is an undefined period, unless I have misunderstood the drafting, and it could be at a loss, notwithstanding the fact that some very laudable principles are driving this.

As a lender, the ranking—again, it is unclear at the moment—may well sit behind a creditor. In addition, as we interpret it, even as a secured creditor the security could be transferred into a separate entity. Again, I understand the practical considerations for that, but at the same time the debt could be left in the old college, or it could be transferred. Again, there are “know you customer”—colloquially, we tend to call them KYC—considerations.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Q But you also said in your written submission that Lloyds traditionally viewed this as quasi-Government risk. That is your own internal credit rating of this sector, and that is based on your own judgment. Surely when it comes to determining whether, to use your words, there should be further long-term decisions and long-term lending in this sector, that would again be a matter of using your own credit rating and credit risk process. More certainty is provided under this proposal than you currently have. You said that you assume that that option would be for the failing college to be financed by Government funding, but there is no guarantee of that today, so surely you are better off.

Richard Meddelton: There is no guarantee of that today, but under the current system if we have security, we have priority. The reality is that we have viewed it as quasi-Government because in the past—obviously the past is no prediction of the future—that money has been forthcoming, as you know, having worked in Lloyds corporate yourself. If there were greater clarity about what would actually be done in a special administration regime, that would obviously give us some comfort.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Q One final point, if I may: Lloyds has set out that it wants to “help Britain prosper”. You have challenged the SAR regime, which could lead a college to be administered in a separate regime for a period of time. You would, I am sure, agree that it is right for students to be able to finish their studies and not face disruption, because that would not be to the values that you hold dear.

Richard Meddelton: Yes. I appreciate that it is a dichotomy, but yes.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Q Can I ask Mr Jones and Mr Robinson a yes/no question? Under the current system, you would not want to close down a college and sell off their assets even if you did have security today, because you would want to allow those students to continue their education. That is the right thing to do, is it not?

Richard Robinson: The interest of the learners has to come first.

Gareth Jones: I completely agree.

Richard Meddelton: We said in our response that we would see the interest of the lender as coming first.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Q So Lloyds Banking Group, today, would sell off a college site even if people were in the middle of their A-levels and needed to complete their courses.

Richard Meddelton: I think that is highly unlikely. The reality is that we would always work with the college, with the administrator. Our history has been that of a responsible lender, helping Britain to prosper, and that will continue, regardless of the site.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Q So ultimately all three of you are in agreement that a college today would continue in existence until you had unwound the whole of the financials behind it and had found a solution in the interest of the learners and that, in the future, the same would be true.

Richard Robinson: The difference is that at the moment we have experience of what happens when colleges get into difficulty. Our experience today is that we, as lenders, work with the agencies—the SFA and the EFA—to find a solution. The Government have put money into those situations. We are now saying that we will allow colleges to become insolvent, and that we will put an insolvency regime in place that rightly puts students first. We absolutely agree about that, but the difference is that we have no experience of what happens in that case. Therefore, we have to try to make lending decisions today that will apply in the future, when the regime is in place, and we do not know whether they will apply because the regime is not tried and tested.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Q Mr Harris, this question is for you, given your expertise. At the moment, the banks are saying they have no understanding of what would happen in the future but they do know what happens today. But what happens today is based on a bit of a guess, a bit of luck and a bit of Government funding coming in. Perhaps the situation will be clearer to banks in the future, but surely having this clear framework set out in law is a good thing?

Stephen Harris: I feel that very cogent points could be made in saying it is a good thing. In an insolvency environment that is unclear, because you start to add in a peppering of trusts and unusual organisations and things that are not necessarily the bread and butter of corporate insolvency, when colleges start to get into difficulty the legal bill starts to rise, as people have to seek clarity about how the matter will legally be dealt with. In the draft Bill, an element of clarity is brought to the sector as a whole, which in the long term people might appreciate. I cannot speak on behalf of the banks, but I can see that there is a lot of clarity in the Bill about what is a very specialised sector.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Thank you.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Q I will give a bit of background first. For 23 of the past 25 years I have been a governor of a sixth-form college and, before incorporation, I was chair of governors of a larger college of higher education, which was largely FE. In the sixth-form college we had internal expertise of the highest order. The previous experience was less good. I have said many times now that one of the important things for a governing body is for it to have accountancy expertise, with at least two independent qualified accountants and at least two independent legally qualified people. That makes a difference. In the college I am at now, the vice-principal in charge of finances is a chartered accountant and does a superb job.

Do you take an interest in the internal financial controls of colleges or do you just say, “Well, if they get into difficulty, we’ve got the security of the college assets and we’ll just take some of that”? Do you take an active interest or stipulate any kind of requirement about how finances are managed internally in the colleges?

Richard Robinson: Absolutely, yes. The quality of management and governance is one of the key criteria we look at when we are assessing the risk. We do not just lend the money and then disappear; this is a relationship for us. We go and see our college clients several times a year to talk about what is happening in their business and the challenges to the sector.

One thing we do is help management with their skill sets. For example, what has happened in the sector over the past couple of years, with the challenges it has faced, is new to a lot of managers. It has been quite difficult to manage through that process. We bring to bear the experience we have of dealing with lots of businesses to help them with that process.

We have often pointed out that maybe they do need some different experience on the board—people with different skill sets. I agree that there should be governors with a diverse set of experiences. That should definitely include accountants, as having people with financial literacy is very important.

Gareth Jones: Our approach is very much the same as Barclays, in the sense that the governance structure of the college, the key management team and our appraisals make us consider our overall lender proposal and whether we are willing to advance funds to that college. Fundamentally, it is the management who are in control of the college and their strength is strategically important to our lending decision.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q All that being said, I know of one college in recent times that came to the brink of disaster, until the principal was effectively chased out of town. It has now been picked up and restored but it was in a parlous situation with internal financial abuses—I can speak freely because we are private in Parliament; that is what was going on. Clearly someone was lending money to the college, presumably, but it was effectively out of control. Is that a concern to you, that such a thing can still happen?

Richard Robinson: We work very closely with the management teams and with the SFA and the EFA. If we were in a situation where we thought that the management was doing inappropriate things or had been run out of town—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q Even illegal things, I may say.

Richard Robinson: Even illegal. That is the sort of thing that would cause us quite a lot of concern. We have a close working relationship with the agencies and that is the sort of thing we would discuss with them. We do not have powers as a lender to remove people. We do have the ability to go and talk to governors, so if there were an issue with the principal, another of the things that we would do is speak to governors about that. We would also have conversations with the agencies. I do not know the college in question, but that does sound like an extreme position.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q Do you think Government ought to take much more of an active interest in what is going on in their colleges? Do you think an appropriate clause in the Bill might be helpful, to ensure that internal procedures are appropriate and disciplined?

Richard Robinson: Governors or Government?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q Both really: management and Government. Do you think there should be something specific in the Bill saying the sort of things I have said about having qualifications among governors and an inspection regime that works—as it did not in that case—to ensure that financial arrangements are not being abused?

Richard Robinson: I am not a governance expert, so I do not know if there is a clause that can be put in to help that. I do agree that the sector can always improve management and governance. No business can say it has perfect management and governance, so constant improvement in those is a good thing.

Richard Meddelton: I think the insertion of a clause in the Bill along the lines you have suggested would certainly help and be welcome, although, like the other Richard, I am no legal expert.

I would answer your first question in terms of how we look at the governance and management of a college. From a Lloyds banking perspective, we take a great deal of interest in the make-up of the management of the college. That would include the expertise of the board of governors. That is an ongoing practice in what we do. We have not got down to stipulating how many accountants or lawyers need to be there, but we would certainly look for a good mix, so that they are professionally managed and so that we have a fruitful long-term relationship over many years.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Q It is interesting to hear your views. It seems as if there is broad support, at least at the right end of the table, for the direction of travel here. One of the proposals in the legal framework is the role of education administrator, ensuring that the quality of educational provision is continued. Could each of the panel members describe whether they are comfortable with this role as being a helpful addition and whether it should be changed or enhanced in any way?

Richard Robinson: Obviously we know what a normal administrator does, in a normal administration situation with companies. We do not know what the education administrator is going to do, beyond what is written in here—the legal, written thing versus the practical reality. For us, the role seems to be broadly balanced between making sure that the interests of learners are put at the front, which is the right thing to do, and making sure that creditors are not forgotten. There are probably two other things that would certainly help, and both have been touched on by other people. The first is some clarity about who funds the administration—who funds the insolvent college during insolvency—because that could be for a number of years. It is very important for us to know that when making lending decisions. The second point is the legal position of secured creditors, which Richard has mentioned. Again, further clarity about that would be helpful. Other than that, I think it is pretty clear in the draft Bill.

Gareth Jones: From Santander’s perspective, overall we were supportive of the draft Bill and of that role as well.

Richard Meddelton: I have got nothing further to add.

Stephen Harris: If I can just clarify, your question was about the role of the insolvency office holder as an education administrator—

[David Rutley]

It is about whether the role would add anything.

Stephen Harris: From an insolvency practitioner’s perspective, it is worth standing back and recognising that insolvency practitioners are not train drivers, or people who spend their life in the railway or the London Underground, when it comes to a special administration regime, nor are they specialist property developers. They come to each situation afresh. One comforting thing that insolvency practitioners bring is recognising when they need to keep in place the existing management structure in a corporate sense, or the workforce in a pastoral sense, recognising that those people have skills and qualifications that they as an office holder do not necessarily have, and also recognising that they can bring outside specialist help to continuing the duties of education administrator, should the need arise. That is all part and parcel of any trading insolvency regime, and I would imagine that any office holder stepping into the role of an education administrator would have that at the forefront of their mind. I do not think it presents a unique challenge; it is very similar to all the other special administration roles. There is an extra dynamic—there is a pastoral element.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for your candour in your response to the Bill. What are the implications for the future willingness of creditors, given the reluctance you have mentioned of lenders such as yourselves to lend now to colleges? There is a lot of excitement around this Bill because there is an opportunity for money from big business to provide apprentice opportunities. Will that be held back by a reluctance from banks and so on to lend to this community?

Richard Robinson: For the moment, for most creditors, the status quo is the preferred position just because of our experience of what happens when things go wrong. That said, I think the Bill has been carefully considered and, apart from the two points I made before, I do not think this is a sector where you are going to see lenders just disappear altogether. But it is going to be harder to support in the same way that we used to. Banks used to be able to lend for a very long period of time—30 years on an unsecured basis—but that will change. I do not think that it will result in colleges not being able to get funding at all, but the terms and conditions will probably be different from what they were in the past.

[Tracy Brabin]

Q So you are suggesting that it will be more expensive to borrow?

Richard Robinson: Not necessarily more expensive; it could just be that the loans have to be shorter or have to be secured versus unsecured. Cost is just one element of the terms and conditions of a piece of finance.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I just want to return to the issue of cost-benefit analysis, in terms of the increased risk that will come about. Given the factors that have led to this insolvency provision having to go into the Bill, it is obvious that the Government recognise that there are increased risks in the future. That is not necessarily to say that the whole edifice is going to collapse, but it does mean that you as banks have to make difficult decisions about how you calibrate that risk.

I was struck again, going through the Bill, that there is a creative tension—hopefully it is creative and not destructive—between the needs of the education administrator and the traditional needs of the creditors. I was struck particularly by a phrase in your submission, Mr Harris, where you said, “I note also that the Bill contains measures such that a creditor or appropriate national authority may apply to court if it is dissatisfied with the conduct of an education administrator.” No one is suggesting that the majority of colleges are going to go through the procedure, but if a college was going through that procedure and the sums of money were quite large, it would not necessarily be surprising if a creditor did challenge the education administrator in that fashion.

My question is twofold. First, Mr Harris, you have already expressed the big question: where is the money going to come from? Would that presumably increase the likely legal costs to which you referred in such a way that it could make it a very expensive process? Secondly, and this is for you three gentlemen generally, it seems to me that what is coming out of this afternoon’s session is that you would welcome greater clarity, whether in guidance notes or even a new clause, although Governments are reluctant to put some details into new clauses, to understand what the Government are prepared to take on board—after all, it is the Government who are introducing the proposal—and how much security, whether quantified as a financial amount or as a supporter of last resort, you would require from the Government.

Stephen Harris: May I just stand back and piggyback on your first question? I have actually been asking myself, since you asked me the question, how I got comfortable with this last Thursday afternoon. Clearly, I was; there was a holistic package of measures here, which I felt broadly work. I would like to return very briefly to the issue of clause 22 for a moment. In subsections (4) and (5) we see the crucial words placed between commas,

“so far as is consistent”

with the overarching duty. Having stalled on it on the first read, when I went back and saw those words it became reasonably clear to me that the transcendental purpose—the carrying on for the education—is the thing that matters.

We therefore turn to the question of funding. We come full square to clause 25 and the suite of options set out in it:

“Grants and loans where education administration order is made.”

Then we travel further into the draft legislation—indeed quite a long way to the back. This is a bit of a technical area, but it is worth focusing on for a minute. The administrator will receive grant money from the funding body, and he will spend it on wages, salaries and the upkeep of the college. The fundamental question is: where is the deficit funding going to come from? Of course, he will have to borrow. Borrowing money in an insolvency process carries some technicalities. The overarching technicality is: where is the repayment of the loan going to rank? In conventional, vanilla administration, it is generally accepted that if the administrator borrows during an insolvency process, his obligation to repay the bank or the funder carries a very high priority unless it is agreed with the bank that it will be demoted for one reason or another. We need not explore that here.

In the suite of options that are available here, there is a technical clause that enables the lending authority to position the option for the repayment of the loan. Broadly—if I may put it this way—it can come at the front of the queue, the middle of the queue or the back of the queue. When I say the queue, I mean that if you take the general body of creditors as a whole, the repayment of the loan for the deficit funding can rank ahead of those creditors, alongside them or behind them.

Turning to your question, I think that what we see here is a recognition that one size might not necessarily fit all. There is probably a sense that it is not wise to be prescriptive at a total level, so having a suite of options that can be adjusted to specific circumstances may be an appropriate balance at the moment. There will be tension when it comes to borrowing the money, and I have little doubt that the funding authority will set out its stall on which it is prepared to make the money available.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Just to clarify, when you say the funding authority, are you talking about the Skills Funding Agency, the Government or some mixture?

Stephen Harris: I think the words used in the Bill are “the appropriate national authority”. An incoming office holder is going to be faced with something that ranks at the front of the queue, in the middle of the queue or behind the queue.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q No disrespect—I think your analysis is elegant and understandable—but that is not going to make the decisions of the three gentlemen sitting beside you any easier, is it?

[The Chair]

I have to hurry you, Mr Harris. We have another panel of witnesses and a question to go yet.

Stephen Harris: I cannot answer for my respected colleagues from the banks. It is an environment in which people generally try to work together to do good things for the community as a whole. We are looking here at a minority of situations—I hope it is a minority—where there will be tensions. Ultimately, lenders, taxpayers and the appropriate national authorities are all in the same country together, but I do not speak on behalf of the banks.

Richard Robinson: I think your question was about what we would like to see. All the various options that are in here are helpful; it is one of the strongest parts of the Bill. Mr Harris is right that we, as a lender, would want to work with the college and the authorities in that situation to find the most appropriate path. The issue is that it does not specify where that ranking lies. That, for us, is very important. Although it could rank at the back, it could also rank ahead of us. Obviously, being bankers, we have got to think about the worst-case scenario, and the worst-case scenario is that it is ahead of us. We are making lending decisions today for a long time in the future, and therefore we need to work on the assumption that the worst-case scenario will come to fruition.

The other point was about security. Security is important to us to ensure that we know what our rights are as a secured creditor. If the loan and the security are going to be transferred to another provider, having that option is really helpful. We would want to explore ensuring that it was in the best interests of everybody that we did that. We would also want to ensure that it was not transferred to someone we were less comfortable with. So having that legal certainty about our rights at the outset is very important to us.

Stephen Harris: I can possibly add a little more colour to this question. I was mulling this over and trying to identify in my own mind a situation in which, for totally understandable reasons, somebody might say, “I really, really want to be at the front of this queue,” in a particular situation. In some organisations you really do not know what all the liabilities are when you first approach a situation. Sometimes, when you have travelled a little way on your journey through the insolvency, you discover that there are some very unusual liabilities, which you had not really bargained for, attached to a certain site or situation.

I have some empathy with the idea that, in structuring a funding loan for an administrator early on, and not having total visibility over the level of liabilities that might rank in a particular situation, somebody might want to proceed with caution initially and perhaps take a view on things when the assignment has progressed. At moment zero you do not always know who your liabilities and your contingent creditors are. I do not know whether that is helpful context for these clauses.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q You are talking about lending to bodies that are in theory independent incorporated bodies but are actually largely funded by Government. Sixth-form colleges are funded entirely by the Government. That must make you feel a little more comfortable; the Government do not want these colleges to go under, so your money is relatively safer than if you were investing in a burger bar—if that went under, the nation’s health might actually improve and you would just take the assets and sell them off or whatever. How much are your lending policies influenced by the fact that these are quasi-public bodies?

Richard Robinson: It is an important factor. The income they receive comes from the Government and they are doing something that is of strategic importance to UK plc, and all of those are factors. We need to put this in context. Although it is harder for us to support them in the way we used to, that does not mean that we are not supporting them or that they cannot get money; it is just on different terms from how they used to get it in the past. The relative position is an important one and it is well recognised by us, as I am sure it is by Lloyds and Santander. That relationship with Government is one of the key strengths, and that does bear out in our risk analysis of the sector.

Richard Meddelton: I would echo the fact that they are, as you put it, quasi-Government bodies. We do take great comfort from that, as is obviously evidenced by the fact that we are a major lender in the sector.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q This is a bit of a mischievous supplementary question: does that mean you are less concerned about how the college behaves internally, in terms of its funding and spending, compared with a private body that might go under, where you would lose all your money?

Richard Meddelton: That is a fair question. Obviously I can speak only for my own bank on that. The answer is no, we are not less concerned. The reality is that we are lending very much on a relationship banking perspective. We are looking for longevity; we are not looking for any funding out from that. We certainly carry out the same rigorous credit and risk assessment and ongoing assessment as we would for a corporate.

Gareth Jones: The level of due diligence we apply for a further education college is exactly the same as the level we would apply to the burger bar—to return to your reference. Further education colleges might sit at the better end of the risk profile of Santander’s book as a whole, but actually the diligence we apply internally is exactly the same.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I will thank the witnesses. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Your agony is now over and we will move on to the next panel.



Examination of Witnesses

Shakira Martin, Shane Chowen and Bev Robinson gave evidence.

14:56

[The Chair]

Welcome. Witnesses, could you please introduce yourselves for Members and the record?

Bev Robinson: Good afternoon, I am Bev Robinson. I have the privilege of being the principal and chief executive of Blackpool and The Fylde College.

Shane Chowen: I am Shane Chowen; I am head of policy and public affairs at the Learning and Work Institute.

Shakira Martin: Good afternoon, I am Shakira Martin. I am the vice-president for further education, representing 4.1 million students across the UK.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I welcome all three members of the panel. Were any of you in the room and vaguely listening to our previous panel from the banks?

Bev Robinson: I only heard the last three or four minutes.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I only ask as an opener, on the back of the very interesting evidence that we have just had from the banks. We were talking about levels of risk in the situation of potential insolvency, and what the relationship between the education administrator and the actual creditors might be. Could I ask all three of you the same question? Obviously, as principal of a college that I know extremely well and rate extremely highly, you, Bev, would hope never to be in this particular situation. Do you think that in the particular clauses that establish, and balance the functions of, the education administrator, as opposed to the interests of the students and staff at a college that would be affected, the Government have got the balance right? Do you think that there is sufficient detail there for us to feel comfortable with this process?

Shakira Martin: First, I would like to praise the positive step that we are taking in ensuring that students get the best out of this situation, if it were to occur. However, I would like to focus on the Bill, making the point about students not being disrupted in their education. The problem that we at the National Union of Students feel could be encountered is that, for example, it is not clear how the Government will make sure that the colleges that students are transferred to will have the capacity and scope to take on more students at that further time. It is also not clear how the Government will make sure that the education the student receives in the college is kept open and to a high-quality standard. For example, the area review process may have unintended impacts. There will be fewer colleges, further apart. How will travel costs and access be addressed?

[Gordon Marsden]

Q That point is wider than the one I asked you about, but it is very interesting. We heard the view—I will not say the evidence—of the FE commissioner this morning, who was slightly downplaying the implications of that and said that in some cases mergers could be very beneficial. I think the point that you are making brings us back to the overall point that we have been discussing with the banks: where does the liability—the funding, in other words—for the process actually sit? That is one that I am sure we will continue to explore.

Bev, from your perspective as a college principal of some long standing—not just in Blackpool—and from having had nearly a year, with your colleagues on the panel who produced the skills plan, to look at all the facets and aspects of the FE sector, if you were an FE principal wondering about the future, would you feel that there was sufficient clarity in the Bill? Would you feel that what the education administrator would want to do in that situation would win out?

Bev Robinson: I am not an expert in the field of insolvency but I would make the following observation. First, the Bill is reasonably clear with regard to protecting students. What could be clearer, I feel, is protecting learning for a community in a reasonable travel-to-learn area. I welcome the idea of an education administrator with hopefully an FE background, but it might benefit from having clarity around the different roles of the different people in play—for example, the FE commissioner: how that would work. Because at the end of it all, colleges are businesses and students and learning are at the very heart of that business. Therefore, just to reiterate, I would wish to make sure that learning within a reasonable travel-to-learn pattern was protected as well as students.

[Gordon Marsden]

That is an issue. I think that is the point you were making, Shakira.

Shakira Martin: Yes. May I add one thing? We would like an amendment to make sure that there are local impact assessments made on local areas, especially with the devolution that is happening and local authorities having more say over what is happening in a local area. I definitely feel that those individual areas need to be looked at really carefully in a bespoke way to make sure that we are meeting those needs.

[Gordon Marsden]

Yes, I agree. There is very little in the Bill about the impacts of the devolution process except for a perfectly reasonable clause about data.

Shane Chowen: I would not contradict anything that any of my esteemed fellow panellists have said. I would add that, following on from Bev’s point about protecting the learning opportunities in a local area, following area reviews we are looking at quite ginormous FE corporations with budgets of close to or over £100 million. So in some areas where you have quite large group structures, if there was an exceptional incident and that group became insolvent, the kind of ideas Shakira just highlighted around local impact assessments would be particularly important as well as in areas such as rural areas where there are very few colleges and providers that can swoop in and rescue those learning opportunities.

Bev Robinson: With area review, obviously I have got limited experience in my own area.

[Gordon Marsden]

You are about to get a lot more.

Bev Robinson: I am currently in the area review process, so I am happy to comment on Lancashire but not about across England. That has not been my experience in Lancashire. We are still midway through the process. There has been value in the process and I am not seeing any cold spots at the moment. But I think this is something to watch for in the Bill, so I do want to make this point again. If an unintended consequence is not in a reasonable travel-to-learn area, it could create a cold spot. I remember that words like sufficiency and adequacy were used back in the day to ensure there was sufficiency in an area, and I recommend the Committee considers that.

Secondly, the only thing I wish to question is one of the paragraphs in chapter 7, “Disqualification of Officers”. I question whether that should apply to the college boards and their non-exec directors. I am a little bit concerned that it may discourage students and the business community from serving on colleague boards. I would appreciate it if consideration were given to that point.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Incidentally, that point was raised by other witnesses this morning. I cannot remember who it was, but the palette was drawn wider to include local politicians as well. As I listened, I was worried who might be prepared to serve on a board. That is a similar point to the one that was made. I would just like—

Shakira Martin: Gordon, may I add two vital points? Another concern regarding the education administrator is what qualifications and expertise they have within the sector. Are they familiar with the further education sector? When we are talking about widening access, can the Committee also consider care leavers, student parents and those with disabilities? That is it for this section.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Right, okay. Can I come back to the institute itself? We had some discussions this morning with Peter Lauener about the genesis of the institute and my concerns about capacity, particularly at the moment. I would like to touch on the issue of representation. Bev, you have quite rightly made a distinction between the community and the learners and the actual organisation in a FE college itself. Do you all believe that learners should be represented on the board of the institute? Over and above the board of the institute, where else can they add value in a process and in a new institution that—at least initially, on the basis of what Peter Lauener said this morning—will have a somewhat limited capacity in terms of the number of people working for it?

Shakira Martin: We 100% believe that there should be a learner on the board. I believe there should be two reserved places: one for an apprentice and one for a student, as their routes into education and experiences will be different. My membership—my apprentices and college students—are consumers, and they need to be around this board. As long as they are taking loan money out, they need to be getting the best deal. Additionally, we have taken the apprenticeship levy from a European model, which is fantastic. However, we have left behind the quality assurance part, which talks about collaboration and working in partnership with colleges, students and other stakeholders. I would like the Committee to consider that.

Shane Chowen: I agree. As the institute is currently set up in statute under this Bill and others, it feels like there is huge value to be added by properly consulting and working with learners at every level of the organisation. I am about to celebrate my 10th year of working in further education, and one of the lines in legislation and regulation that I have learned to fear is “having due regard for learner views”. That relegates properly consulting and involving learners and apprentices to a compliance exercise, and it quickly becomes a tick-box process. The new institute has an amazing opportunity to not do that. Learners should absolutely be on the board.

Each of the 15 route committees can do quite a lot with learners, apprentices and former apprentices. At the end of the day, they are the ones who are looking at jobs, applying for jobs, brushing up their CVs and looking at job specs, so they will have a perspective to add to the development of apprenticeship standards, right from entry up to a higher level. It is not just about the board; it is throughout the organisation.

Bev Robinson: I see merit in having a strong student voice on the board. At the moment, I do not see a strong argument for them on the 15 routes, but I would be open to that. I really welcome a debate on this aspect of the Bill. In this country, professional and technical education has been—I do not know how polite to be—woefully treated. It has been a second class and a last resort, almost. I welcome the Bill putting it where it should be, which is as a first choice rather than a last resort.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I hope that is a view shared by everybody in the Committee. I want to probe a little more on the approval process for technical education, and both of you may have something to contribute here. Before being shadow FE Minister, I spent two years as a shadow Transport Minister and I found myself being lobbied by the maritime community because they had developed a series of qualifications—their trailblazers—that were perfectly adequate and excellent for the maritime sector, but then took nearly 18 months to jump through the hoops of the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That is a particular issue in a particular area, but it raises in my mind the question of whether better learner engagement—“learner” in that respect could be treated very widely—in the approval process for technical education would facilitate and improve some of the approval process, so that the lessons from the trailblazers are heeded.

Bev Robinson: I strongly commend co-creation—by co-creation I mean the employer voice is really strong in that, and I feel it has to be. If we learn the lessons from qualifications and the proliferation of qualifications over the last couple of decades, we have lost the employer voice and therefore we have lost some of the value of some qualifications. For me, co-creation is really important. That is about employers and educationists as well as making sure that the student or customer voice—the consumer voice, as Shakira said before—is important. I commend the Committee to consider that.

Shane Chowen: I do not want this to turn into a debate about why there may or may not have been a proliferation of qualifications, but some argue that it is because employers have argued that they did not particularly want it, so something else was developed. I have seen arguments that employers themselves have driven an agenda whereby they have been allowed to create and develop qualifications under a framework —under an employer-responsive model—so there are two sides to that coin. As I said, there are huge opportunities in this Bill to do a lot of great things in technical education and apprenticeships, and it feels like we are halfway there at the moment. An area I feel we can do much more on is widening access and participation in apprenticeships and technical education. If you had learners around the table with a serious voice and a vote, you would find much more innovative, creative and effective ways to engage with marginalised and under-represented groups than you would if you had a panel just of employers.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q On that point—after this, I will conclude, Ms Dorries—I am struck by the read-across between our discussions on this Bill and those that we had during the Committee stage of the Higher Education and Research Bill, except we have substituted the words “apprentices” for “students”. There is a lot of read-across between this and the Higher Education and Research Bill, and it is right that there is because the Government’s aim is to have higher skills, whichever Bill that comes out of, and this is part and parcel of that.

Yesterday in the Report stage of the Higher Education and Research Bill, we introduced a new clause that would set up a standing commission to look specifically at how we expand adult education and learning. My question is: what more, in the context of this Bill, does the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education need to do to strengthen the argument for widening access and participation with the sorts of groups that we have talked about? I am talking about on the face on the Bill as opposed to saying simply, “Once it gets going I am sure it will think of looking at this.”

Shakira Martin: The Government are talking about parity between the two routes—was it parity? The office for students has just announced that it is going to have a learner voice—a student—at the table and that is where this starts. It starts in this room, from the beginning. You also need to remember that we are not just creating students with qualifications; we are creating citizens. Getting students around the table to take ownership of their learning and of what is happening with them in society is actually having a domino effect. They have been enabled to make decisions, and they will give this back. Once you take ownership of something then you have a much better view, love and respect for it.

I do think that it starts there, by having two reserved places, because studying in the classroom and studying as an apprentice are two very different things. That is why I stress that it needs to be two reserved places. If we are saying that there is parity, then that is the beginning of where it starts.

Shane Chowen: I would go further on that point about parity. I have heard Ministers and Secretaries of State call for parity of esteem and respect between the academic and technical route for many years, and that is laudable. This Bill feels like a good opportunity to move in the right direction with that. One of the first discrepancies is the enormous agenda to widen access and participation that there is in higher education, both in terms of what is in statute—which is why this Bill is important—and also in practice, in terms of what is funded on the ground. So in HE there is an established Office for Fair Access in statute, and the director has statutory responsibilities until the current Higher Education and Research Bill 2016-17 passes, and then that goes to the office for students.

There is a student opportunities fund managed by HEFCE that is worth about £41 million. Universities themselves spend between £700 million and £750 million a year on widening participation action in the form of bursaries and outreach activities. If we are serious about widening access and parity of esteem, there has to be a dual-pronged approach. We cannot have tonnes of resources pumped into widening access on the HE model and then not very much going into widening access on the technical and apprenticeship model, because there are still under-represented groups within the technical and apprenticeship system. There are still communities that are not engaging in the system as much as they should be. The system is not reflective of the employment sector or the general population, particularly when you look at students with disabilities and learning difficulties, and students from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. They are not reflected in the sector in the way that they should be. There is a massive opportunity in this Bill to do something about that.

At the very least, the new institute can have some responsibilities to report annually on progress towards levelling the playing field on improving access and participation, as well as achievement and progression of individuals from under-represented groups. What we can learn from the HE work is that there are already sophisticated models and benchmarks to do that. I do not think that it would be a difficult job. We would not be starting from scratch. It is important that there is a dual-pronged approach if we are serious about parity of esteem.

Bev Robinson: I would like to add something about the importance of careers advice and guidance. Understanding the many opportunities at a young age is key, and with positive models you then see them. Through careers advice and guidance, it is very simple: you can relate to that person and think to yourself, “Well actually if they can achieve that, then so can I.” That is very powerful for social mobility.

[Tracy Brabin]

Q I would like to ask about the opportunities of courses. My previous background was in the cultural industries, and it seems that culture and design are grouped. How would you like the choices within these brackets to be prioritised? Should the balance be about job creation, rather than careers? Have you had thoughts about the expectations of students and what they would be taking up within these brackets?

Bev Robinson: May I clarify: when you say brackets, do you mean the routes?

[Tracy Brabin]

Yes—culture and design is one route.

Bev Robinson: Indeed. I was involved in the Lord Sainsbury panel that contributed to the report, so I feel like I have spent a lot of my time and life in looking at that. I feel that there are real opportunities for both. It has to be about career, because it is about a journey. It is really important that we give everyone the opportunity to develop skills, to help them to secure employment for themselves and their families to have strong and healthy lives.

Because the routes are mapped against what the economy needs, it helps with advice and guidance and helps a young person of whatever age to think, “Here’s an opportunity for me. I can see my path and how that fits.” You do not always make decisions and stick to them. It is important that there is enough in there that one can transition across different pathways as well, and this proposal allows for that.

This also goes up to levels 4 and 5—a real engine of the economy in high-value jobs, for want of a better term. We talk a lot about levels 2 and 3 in technical professional education, but we must remember to include levels 4 and 5. I would like to think that this is very much about a journey—a career that enables you to move and develop further as you desire.

Shane Chowen: I welcome that the Bill does not specify that there have to be 15 routes or what those routes are. It leaves that up to the Secretary of State to define the routes and the institute to define what occupations go into those routes. I think there is a clause that says that, if an occupation does not fit into one of the routes, the institute can pop it in somewhere that it sees fit.

I would add that it comes up against this parity with HE argument. In the 24-plus advanced learning loans system at the moment, where you can get funding to go on a course as an individual, in future you would only be able to get an advanced learner loan for a course that would fit in to one of those 15 routes. Most things probably will but the parity issue for me is as follows. No, I do not have a degree. No one will stop me going and doing my first degree in classics and I will get funding for that. If I wanted to do a course that was not within one of those 15 routes—at Bev’s college, for example—I could not get an advanced learner loan for that under the proposals. Sadly, that is the case at the moment—I am involved in the stakeholder group for the 24-plus loans. For me there is also a parity issue around access to funding for individuals. If we are saying in the loan system that the risk is on you—the loan is yours and you are responsible for paying it back—I do not think we can restrict people’s choices into those 15 routes, if there is a course that does not fit neatly within them.

Shakira Martin: The skills plan proposes 15 routes. I have been speaking to my membership already, and this goes back to the reason and importance of why we need them on the board. The 15 routes do not cover qualifications in the retail industry, for example.

My members feel extreme concerns for the arts courses as there is only a route that proposes for arts “Creative and Design”. Those do not cover courses such as performing arts. Learners are already recommending that this route be split into two: applied art and design and performing arts. Again, I would like to reiterate why that is so important. It is this type of stuff we can address if they are around the table in the first instance, instead of learning by trial and error within the sector.

I would also like to draw your attention to how the clause is written. It is under “occupational categories” which, if you are not involved in the sector, you will not understand. That is again another reason why somebody needs to be around the board. The Secretary of State would be given more power to change the routes without consulting students. I would like to put to the Committee that we have an amendment to say that before any of these changes take place, learners should be consulted, as well as information, advice and guidance being part of the process. I agree with what David Hughes said this morning that IAG should be going into key stage 4. I went to the Skills Show this week and that provides an excellent example of IAG in those four days. I strongly recommend you to look into the Skills Show.

Bev Robinson: May I clarify something, please? We are talking about technical professional education. There are other opportunities for learning—A-levels, applied general qualifications—that would cover retail and performing arts. The technical education was not meant to cover absolutely everything. It is meant to cover just technical and professional education, so this would not exclude a learning opportunity because that would be covered by applied general qualifications currently.

[David Rutley]

Q Thank you for your points. Like all of you, I believe this is very important to help people achieve their potential and to improve social mobility—no question. We are all saying this is a positive step forward. Obviously there is more to follow, but this in itself is a positive step forward. I am keen to focus on these categories for a moment. I know that you were involved with helping to create these, Bev. Obviously, they are important not just for learners but for businesses and employers as well. Does the panel believe that there is enough flexibility in that arrangement to have some defined pathways but to be able to evolve, given what will happen in the economy and in those sectors in future?

Shakira Martin: I believe that, with devolution, we do need to be working at a local level, working in partnership with local organisations, such as local enterprise partnerships, local businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises, to make sure that it is relevant to the needs of that community and that area, and to the needs to the students. This is also why it is vitally important that we are training and educating our students not just for a job in a specific area, but giving them transferable skills to enable them to move out of their area and up into a different industry.

Shane Chowen: Whatever the structures put in place within the institute around oversight of those routes, it is important that they have the necessary authority to make those kinds of recommendations, so if a route needs to be modified in any way, they have the authority to do that. The digital sector, for example, is probably one of the fastest moving of those 15 sectors. That will need to change all the time: the kind of occupations that are listed within those will need to be updated all the time. I would hope that the institute would have the flexibility to allow that to happen.

Bev Robinson: I completely agree: currency is king. We have seen some of the qualifications in the market become terribly out of date. The Bill does allow for flexibility because the institute will be responsible, with those panels, for making sure that it is kept up to date. I really do welcome that.

[David Rutley]

Q Do you believe that businesses are currently engaged enough in helping to define those categories or routes, and are the mechanisms in place to ensure that will happen?

Bev Robinson: I believe it is. The panels are not there to represent a particular business. Shane alluded earlier to the fact that the panels can sometimes be too narrow, as we have seen with the early trailblazers. Lessons learned from that would suggest that you are on that panel because of your engineering expertise, not because you happen to work for AA Engineering Ltd. It is about keeping that currency and making sure that you are representing not your company but the engineering field. Also, because it is co-creation, having educationalists there as well to make sure that pedagogy is also at the heart of the design of these products.

Shane Chowen: I have nothing to add on that.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q A very important question: what measures should be put in place to protect the quality of education received in a college that is struggling financially?

Shakira Martin: As I said, I welcome the fact that learners are being considered in the insolvency regime. The NUS did put forward some recommendations in the consultation—I think that maybe some of that has not been considered before but, within this process, that is vitally important—of an independent FE ombudsman. When students do go through this process, if they are not satisfied with the end result, what steps do they take in appealing that decision to ensure that they get the best? At the moment there is nothing out there to represent students in that way. I am not really familiar with the HE sector and whether there is the equivalent there, but I am sure that there is probably something in place. After the process has happened and a student has been placed in a college and is not happy with that position—what next? How do they challenge that? I would strongly recommend an independent ombudsman.

Shane Chowen: For me, if it has got to the stage where there are crisis meetings looking at how to recover teachers and get students to a place to learn, at some point along the way the system has already failed. The whole idea behind the commissioner’s office, for example, is to ensure that learners are protected long before a college even starts looking at insolvency as an option. The flags that are highlighted within the Department and the Skills Funding Agency at the moment to trigger a visit from the commissioner, should offer those protections long before an insolvency process.

Bev Robinson: I agree with that; it is about early intervention, not waiting for a failure—it is seeing the signs and making appropriate interventions.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q Pushing that argument further, you quite rightly said that colleges are now businesses after the incorporation in 1993. They have to perform like businesses, even though they are largely publicly funded. We may have a debate about whether that was a good idea or not, but nevertheless that is the situation we are now in. If a principal wants to make money, one way of making money is to squeeze more students in per class, to reduce the quality of the teaching by having less qualified teachers, to put people on courses and not worry about whether they turn up or not—to do all sorts of things that get the money in, but do not actually do the job particularly well.

I speak from some knowledge of a case exactly like that, where a college got into a terrible crisis. The principal disappeared and is now being picked up; I will not mention any names, but you may have been aware of it—it was a notorious national scandal. What is to prevent principals, especially with weak governing bodies, from behaving like this? Many students are not in a position to challenge and staff feel nervous about challenging, because if there is a wilful principal they might choose to get rid of staff, who cannot afford to lose their jobs, and so on. There are those possibilities, unless there are some controls. What would you suggest?

Bev Robinson: What you are citing there is an extreme example.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

But a real extreme example.

Bev Robinson: I appreciate that it was not fantasy—I appreciate that it was real—but such cases are an absolute minority. There are two golden threads in further education corporations—quality and finance—and it is about the balance of the two. In terms of what measures one could put in place, you have highlighted something: governing bodies—making sure that governing bodies are looking at the two golden threads of quality and money. It is about making sure that there are enough checks and balances within an organisation to allow for challenge; any good organisation would have that. I guess, ultimately, as we mentioned about the FE commissioner before, you would say the FE commissioner again, alongside Ofsted. Remember that with the desk research they do, they would spot within 12 months—if it was a dramatic example, as you cited—that quality suddenly went down very rapidly. That would be a red flag and a trigger. I would like to think that that would not happen, but obviously it does happen in a minority of cases.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q Earlier today I was talking about governing bodies, having had 25 years’ experience on a sixth-form college governing body and some years before that on a college of higher education—which was really a high-powered FE college, with some HE and some FE. With that experience, I know that having the right governing body with the right kind of membership is absolutely crucial so that principals cannot get into that situation.

At the beginning of incorporation, all those years ago, the Government wanted small, tightly knit governing bodies made up of local businesspeople, thinking that that would make it work—the businesspeople would somehow guide the college into producing the right students. It did not actually work, and in the end the Government changed their mind and wanted broader based governing bodies including, of course, students— certainly, at the college I am at, the student council elect their own students on to the governing body—plus some accountants, some lawyers, and some headteachers from local high schools and primary schools. There was a whole range of different skills, so that the college is properly accountable— without having an elected body, but they do appoint their own governors. That approach is a way forward. Can we put that sort of thing into the Bill, to ensure the legislation is improved? I know that you and Gordon know each other very well. I am interested to know what your governing body is like.

Bev Robinson: I am thinking of the unintended consequences. It is very easy to say that we can dictate exactly the constitution of a governing body, but if we are looking at further education corporations across the country, some of them are very different. My own, for example, is an outstanding college. We are very strong financially and so on, and we benefit from the mix and balance that we have on the board: we benefit from our business community and from two very able students on the board. I am hesitant about mandating exactly what that board would look like, because it varies by college. If, for example, I were a land-based college, I might want a slightly different mix, so I am hesitant about fully supporting that.

Shane Chowen: There is an interesting overlap in what you are saying, in terms of what the new accountability and regulatory landscape would look like after the Bill, with the various new bodies. How does Ofsted interact with the institute? How does the OFS interact with the institute, which interacts with Ofsted? Who inspects HE, given that Ofsted does not have a role within that? There is definitely something in cleaning up that landscape and giving the roles and responsibilities within the sector some very clear and defined lines.

We have not spoken much today about the devolution elements within the Bill—I have been here all day, by the way; I’m a superfan. If you are devolving significant sums of money to combined authorities, the Government are absolutely right, on behalf of the taxpayer, to expect some level of accountability and assurance about that. That should be not only raw numbers of how many people are doing qualifications and at what level, but also the extent to which those funds are being managed and accounted for. There might well be another layer of accountability under devolution.

Having said that, combined authorities and LEPs often have representatives on college corporations, so they should be responsible, as governors, for noticing when something is awry—for example, a spike in student complaints when they get their spreadsheets. I am not sure the Bill currently delivers that, so it could be looked at in future.

Shakira Martin: Can I remind everybody that FE has been cut to the core for a long time now? There might be some mismanagement, but when you are cut to the core and trying to change people’s lives on a budget, this is the kind of situation we get into. There is a big call for investment at the moment. I am going to flip this and talk about money and why we need it. Something I picked up from David Hughes this morning is the point about stability and certainty. We are often known as a Cinderella sector. It was welcome to hear the new Secretary for Education put FE at the heart and say that it is a priority. However, investment is needed in that area.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q There were some striking figures this morning about the enormous difference between the spending per student in FE, post-16 and A-level students and in universities. I made the point that at university, you often have a small number of lectures with a couple of tutorials, whereas in FE, and particularly in A-levels and BTECs, you have constant contact with teachers. The level of engagement is much greater between teacher and student.

Shakira Martin: Definitely. There is another thing that is quite frustrating. I welcome the money being put into the adults skills budget, but that is not an investment directly into further education, so I would like the Committee to consider direct investment in FE institutions.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In my case, you are preaching to the converted.

Shane Chowen: It might be worth pointing out, just on that point, that there were also figures out last week showing participation in FE and skills, and in the last 12 months we have had the biggest drop in adults participating in basic English and maths training that we have had in six or seven years. That comes at a time when—I think Professor Fuller mentioned this earlier—the UK is ranked bottom of the OECD league tables for literacy and second bottom for numeracy. At a time when we have to send out negotiators and a Secretary of State for International Trade to fly the flag for the UK, those figures look really bad.

[The Chair]

Order. May I just interrupt here? The questions have to pertain strictly to the provisions in the Bill, as Mr Hopkins well knows. I know it is slightly difficult, but could you keep this answer as short as possible, so that we can move on to questions that do pertain to the Bill?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Apologies, Ms Dorries. I have finished now; thank you.

Shane Chowen: I would argue that there would be opportunities in the Bill to place extra emphasis on those kinds of issues that the country faces in international trade negotiations, such as basic literacy and numeracy.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I would like to ask this, while remaining within the scope of the Bill. There has been some interesting discussion about priorities, adult skills, training and so on. I want to return us to discussing the institute. If you had been here earlier, Shane, you would have heard a number of questions put to Peter Lauener about the nature of the institute, what its capacity might be and so on. I want to talk about one thing that strikes me about what the Bill is trying to do.

The institute had an interesting genesis, because it did not start out as an institute at all; it started out as a wish list in the Enterprise Bill by the previous Government as to who could actually look after apprenticeships. At one stage, it was going to be trading standards. Obviously, that subsequently was decided not to be the way forward, so the Government brought through, in the Enterprise Bill, the first genesis of the Institute for Apprenticeships, and like Topsy, it has just growed—very beneficially, I think, but that does raise some interesting questions that go to the heart of skills policy and of the new structure that will be set up, so I would like to ask the three of you, from your different perspectives, to answer this. We have heard a lot about apprenticeships. Obviously, that was discussed this morning with Peter Lauener. The technical qualifications are coming into this institute anew, but they bring with them the issue of how many people—actually, adults—need to be retrained and reskilled, the issue of what technical means for them. What should the balance be between the new institute focusing, obviously, on apprenticeships because that is a key Government target—

[The Chair]

Order. Mr Marsden, we have a vote just before 4 pm, so if we keep to the point of the question, the witnesses will have a chance to answer.

[Gordon Marsden]

Indeed. What do you think the balance should be in terms of the new institute focusing on apprenticeships, as opposed to focusing on other retraining and reskilling?

Bev Robinson: I would probably go 50:50, because if you look at what we are asking in terms of technical professional education up to levels 4 and 5, there will be a considerable amount of work to do.

Shane Chowen: I would agree, but I also think there is a lot of overlap between the two. One thing we have argued is that the institute could do much more to publicise and promote better data around outcomes for technical education and apprenticeships. That would be the same job for different forms of learning. I am talking about things such as employment outcomes, earnings outcomes, learner satisfaction and employer satisfaction. Those are things that the institute could do jointly between apprenticeships and technical education.

Shakira Martin: One thing that the institute could do is define what an apprenticeship is—is it employment or work? There could also be better initiatives to get young people or just people back into work. An example is council tax exemptions. What does that mean for students who are estranged from their parents or whose parents are on low incomes? If it can be clarified whether an apprenticeship is education, work or both, perhaps we would be able to take steps forward in anticipating what we actually need.

[Gordon Marsden]

That involves the Minister discussing some of these things with his friends in the DWP and brings us back to the 16-hour rule and also to the conclusion of the sitting, I suspect.

[The Chair]

Does anyone else have any questions? If there are no further questions from hon. Members, I thank the witnesses for travelling here today and giving evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(David Evennett.)

15:45

Adjourned till Thursday 24 November at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

TFEB 01 Neil Phillips

TFEB 02 Catholic Education Service

TFEB 03 NCFE

Criminal Finances Bill (Fifth sitting)

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †Mrs Anne Main, Sir Alan Meale

† Arkless, Richard (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)

† Atkins, Victoria (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)

† Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

† Davies, Byron (Gower) (Con)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† Drummond, Mrs Flick (Portsmouth South) (Con)

† Elphicke, Charlie (Dover) (Con)

† Ghani, Nusrat (Wealden) (Con)

† Griffiths, Andrew (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Harris, Carolyn (Swansea East) (Lab)

Hunt, Tristram (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)

† Huq, Dr Rupa (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

† Mann, Scott (North Cornwall) (Con)

† Mullin, Roger (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

† Sandbach, Antoinette (Eddisbury) (Con)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester East) (Lab)

† Wallace, Mr Ben (Minister for Security)

† Wood, Mike (Dudley South) (Con)

Colin Lee, Ben Williams, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 22 November 2016

(Morning)

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

Criminal Finances Bill

Clause 32

Forfeiture of certain personal (or moveable) property

09:25

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 61 to 72.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Clause 33 stand part.

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Government new clause 18—Forfeiture of terrorist cash.

Government amendments 73 to 75.

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Good morning, Mrs Main. I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship. This group deals with the provisions in the Bill that allow for the seizure and forfeiture of terrorist property. I suggest that we covered some of this ground in our debates last week on clauses 12 and 13, which will do likewise for proceeds of crime, and I will seek to avoid repeating all the same points.

Clause 32 and schedule 3 cover the seizure and forfeiture of moveable personal items such as precious metals and gemstones where they are earmarked for terrorism, are the resources of a proscribed organisation or are intended for use in terrorism. Clause 33 and schedule 4 give law enforcement agencies new powers to freeze funds held in bank or building society accounts that are suspected to be terrorist money, and provide for such funds to be forfeited if law enforcement agencies or the courts are satisfied that that is the case. Hon. Members will know that the threat from terrorism is constantly evolving. In the same way that we should have a mechanism to deal with criminals who launder money to evade disruption, we should have the ability to seize items that represent terrorist property.

Although this is a powerful new measure, several safeguards are built into the Bill to ensure that the interference with individuals’ rights to enjoy private property is managed in a way that is proportionate and guards against innocent parties being disadvantaged. Seized property may initially be detained for only 48 hours before an application must be made to a magistrates court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or to the sheriff in Scotland, for further detention for up to two years. There is therefore judicial oversight of this provision. Individuals who are joint owners of property will be able to claim back the value of their share.

Denying access to funding is already a key part of our counter-terrorism strategy, but the current powers in the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 may not always be the most appropriate operational route for combating the financing of terrorism, as they are designed to freeze the entirety of someone’s economic assets, carry a relatively high threshold for use and do not include forfeiture powers. That is why we have tabled several amendments to this part of the Bill.

New clause 18 will ensure that UK law enforcement agencies have the ability to seek forfeiture of terrorist cash without requiring a court order. An administrative forfeiture power is already provided for in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2009. However, the terrorist cash provisions in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 were not amended at that time, and we seek to address that anomaly. The new clause will ensure that the best use is made of both the courts’ and the police’s time and resources by providing that there is no need for law enforcement bodies to involve the courts where forfeiture is uncontested.

However, these provisions are not without oversight. Where terrorist cash is seized, extended detention beyond an initial 48-hour period is already subject to oversight by a magistrates court, or the sheriff in Scotland. There is therefore early judicial involvement in the detention and forfeiture process. In addition, the administrative forfeiture of cash will be exercisable only by a senior officer who is a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent.

The other amendments in this group make several technical and consequential changes to complement those provisions. In particular, they address inconsistencies in the definition of “senior officer” in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Terrorism Act 2000 to ensure that such a person is at least the rank of superintendent. The amendments will also ensure that a court can order that property be detained under the powers in ACSA for up to six months per application, with an overall cap of two years, which is consistent with the Proceeds of Crime Act, and that these administrative forfeiture powers can be applied for and implemented in Scotland. Taken together, these measures will strengthen law enforcement agencies’ ability to disrupt terrorist financing in a proportionate and effective way.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I apologise for being slightly late, Mrs Main. Her Majesty’s Opposition support the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Forfeiture of certain personal (or moveable) property

Amendments made: 61, in schedule 3, page 117, line 36, leave out “3” and insert “6”.

This amendment has the effect that an order for the detention of seized property under new Part 4A of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 may be made for a period of up to 6 months, rather than 3 months. This is in line with the provision made by Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Amendment 20, in schedule 3, page 122, line 28, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 62, in schedule 3, page 122, line 38, leave out “inspector” and insert “superintendent”.

This amendment has the effect that a police officer must be of at least the rank of superintendent, rather than inspector, in order to be a senior police officer for the purposes of new Part 4A of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Amendment 63, in schedule 3, page 126, line 33, at end insert—

“(5) If sub-paragraph (6) applies, the court or sheriff may order the property to which the application relates to be released to the applicant or to the person from whom it was seized.

(6) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the applicant is not the person from whom the property to which the application relates was seized,

(b) it appears to the court or sheriff that the property belongs to the applicant,

(c) the court or sheriff is satisfied that the release condition is met in relation to the property, and

(d) no objection to the making of an order under sub-paragraph (5) has been made by the person from whom the property was seized.

(7) The release condition is met—

(a) in relation to property detained under paragraph 10C or 10D, if the conditions in paragraph 10C or (as the case may be) 10D for the detention of the property are no longer met, and

(b) in relation to property detained under paragraph 10G, if the court or sheriff decides not to make an order under that paragraph in relation to the property.”

This amendment adds to new paragraph 10O of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which concerns the release of property seized under new Part 4A of that Schedule, provision which is equivalent to section 301(4) and (5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Amendment 21, in schedule 3, page 127, line 18, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 22, in schedule 3, page 127, line 20, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 23, in schedule 3, page 127, line 28, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.— (Mr Wallace.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Forfeiture of money held in bank and building society accounts

Amendments made: 24, in schedule 4, page 129, line 1, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 64, in schedule 4, page 129, line 7, leave out “inspector” and insert “superintendent”.

This amendment has the effect that a police officer must be of at least the rank of superintendent, rather than inspector, in order to be a senior officer for the purposes of new Part 4B of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Amendment 65, in schedule 4, page 131, line 37, leave out “: England and Wales and Northern Ireland”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 66, in schedule 4, page 131, line 38, leave out “made by a magistrates’ court”.

This amendment has the effect of extending the application of the provision in new Part 4B of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 about the administrative forfeiture of terrorist money held in bank and building society accounts from England and Wales and Northern Ireland to the whole of the UK.

Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 134, line 11, leave out “a magistrates’” and insert “the relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 68, in schedule 4, page 134, line 16, after “the”, insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 69, in schedule 4, page 134, line 22, after “the”, insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 70, in schedule 4, page 134, line 26, after first “the”, insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 71, in schedule 4, page 134, line 29, after first “the”, insert “relevant”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 72, in schedule 4, page 134, line 35, leave out “, is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.” and insert—

“—

(a) if, before being forfeited, the money was held in an account in relation to which an account freezing order made by a magistrates’ court had effect, is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(b) if, before being forfeited, the money was held in an account in relation to which an account freezing order made by the sheriff had effect, is to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 66.

Amendment 25, in schedule 4, page 138, line 15, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.— (Mr Wallace.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34

Extension of powers to accredited financial investigators

Amendments made: 26, in clause 34, page 90, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 91 and insert—

“Counter-terrorism financial investigators

63F Counter-terrorism financial investigators

(1) The metropolitan police force must provide a system for the accreditation of financial investigators (“counter-terrorism financial investigators”).

(2) The system of accreditation must include provision for—

(a) the monitoring of the performance of counter-terrorism financial investigators,

(b) the withdrawal of accreditation from any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any condition subject to which he or she was accredited, and

(c) securing that decisions under that system which concern—

(i) the grant or withdrawal of accreditations, or

(ii) the monitoring of the performance of counter-terrorism financial investigators,

are taken without regard to their effect on operations by the metropolitan police force or any other person.

(3) A person may be accredited if he or she is—

(a) a member of civilian staff of a police force in England and Wales (including the metropolitan police force), within the meaning of Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2001;

(b) a member of staff of the City of London police force;

(c) a member of staff of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

(4) A person may be accredited—

(a) in relation to this Act;

(b) in relation to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001;

(c) in relation to particular provisions of this Act or of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

(5) But the accreditation may be limited to specified purposes.

(6) A reference in this Act or in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to a counter-terrorism financial investigator is to be construed accordingly.

(7) The metropolitan police force must make provision for the training of persons in—

(a) financial investigation,

(b) the operation of this Act, and

(c) the operation of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.”

This amendment provides for a new system of accreditation and training of financial investigators for the purposes of exercising certain powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Amendment 27, in clause 34, page 91, line 24, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 28, in clause 34, page 91, line 36, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 29, in clause 34, page 91, line 38, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 30, in clause 34, page 91, line 45, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 31, in clause 34, page 92, line 2, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 32, in clause 34, page 92, line 5, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 33, in clause 34, page 92, line 7, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 34, in clause 34, page 92, line 11, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 35, in clause 34, page 92, line 14, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 36, in clause 34, page 92, line 16, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 37, in clause 34, page 92, line 20, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 38, in clause 34, page 92, line 22, leave out “designated accredited” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 39, in clause 34, page 92, line 26, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 40, in clause 34, page 92, line 28, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 41, in clause 34, page 92, line 36, leave out “designated” substitute “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 42, in clause 34, page 92, line 42, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 43, in clause 34, page 92, line 44, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.— (Mr Wallace.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 35 stand part.

[Mr Wallace]

Across UK policing, more use is being made of skilled individuals who are not warranted police officers to support the full range of police work, allowing warranted officers to focus on the activities that need their specific training and experience. The financial aspects of terrorism investigations are unlike proceeds of crime investigations—this is not about identifying illicit wealth and taking the profit out of crime. For terrorism, financial investigation allows the police to disrupt terrorist activity by removing access to funds, and to make links in terrorist investigations.

As I set out last week, clause 34 provides for the creation of a new category of civilian financial investigator, to be known as a counter-terrorism financial investigator, which will exercise certain existing investigatory powers, including applying to a court for production orders, financial information orders or account monitoring orders, and to seize terrorist cash or moveable stores of value. The investigator will also be able to use new disclosure order powers being created under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the new bank account seizure and forfeiture powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

The new provisions do not confer on counter-terrorism financial investigators any of the search powers available in the legislation for terrorist investigations, and the Government amendments we debated last week will ensure that the investigators will be subject to training and monitoring by the Metropolitan Police Service. The changes are entirely consistent with the changes currently being brought in through the Policing and Crime Bill, which will give chief officers a greater ability to designate civilians with the powers of constables.

Finally, clause 35 introduces offences of obstructing or assaulting the investigators. It is important that a civilian performing the functions of, and exercising the same powers as, a police officer is afforded the same legal protections from assault or wilful obstruction as their police counterparts. That is consistent with the approach taken in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and elsewhere in the Bill. I hope the clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

We support the clauses but we also have tabled a forthcoming new clause that questions a couple of things. If we are looking at increasing workload, we like the idea of the extension of powers of the accredited financial investigators, but we would like to see some commensurate resources. On the other stuff, public servants should never be assaulted in the line of duty, so we wholeheartedly support that provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Offences in relation to accredited financial investigators

Amendments made: 44, in clause 35, page 93, line 3, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 45, in clause 35, page 93, line 4, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 46, in clause 35, page 93, line 7, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 47, in clause 35, page 93, line 36, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 48, in clause 35, page 93, line 37, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 49, in clause 35, page 93, line 41, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.—(Mr Wallace.)

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Meaning of relevant body and acting in the capacity of an associated person

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

Mrs Main, this is like an auction—the speed at which you are dealing with matters. The only person who can understand these things is the auctioneer.

Clause 36 defines essential terms that establish the scope of the new corporate offences of domestic and foreign failure to prevent tax evasion. It defines those entities that can be liable under the new offences, and those persons for whom a corporation can be liable if it fails to prevent them from facilitating tax evasion. The relevant bodies that can be liable under the new offences are defined as bodies incorporated and partnerships, not individual men or women, reflecting the responses to HMRC’s consultation on the provisions. The new offences can therefore be committed by companies, whether established to make a profit or for charitable purposes; partnerships; and similar entities established under foreign law. Indeed, the not-for-profit sector publically welcomed the offence applying to its sector, recognising that charities can be misused to facilitate tax evasion. Individuals involved in facilitating tax evasion will of course continue to face prosecution under existing tax evasion offences.

We will go on to debate the provisions in greater depth, but for now it is important to stress that part 3 of the Bill creates offences of corporate failure to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. They are not offences of corporate failure to prevent tax evasion itself and do not create a legal obligation for corporations to prevent their client’s tax evasion.

The clause also defines broadly the persons who could attract liability for a relevant body. Those include an employee, an agent and any other person who provides services for, or on behalf of, the relevant body. That mirrors the similar offence of corporate failure to prevent bribery in the Bribery Act 2010. That is important because we have seen in the past that corporations structure their affairs to try to insulate themselves from liability by deliberately contracting out the most risky services, typically to persons based in the most secretive jurisdictions. The definition of associated persons in the clause addresses that and closes that potential loophole.

However, it is important to appreciate that not every act of, say, an employee will give rise to criminal liability for the relevant body. For example, where an employee who has gone home from work and is acting in their private capacity criminally facilitates a tax evasion offence by their partner, that will not give rise to any liability for the employing relevant body because the criminal facilitating act was not done in the capacity of employee. I hope that that explanation provides a useful introduction to how the subsequent clauses will function.

[Dr Huq]

We support the clause. The Minister mentioned the Bribery Act 2010, from which there has been an unusually small number of successful convictions. Does he have any thoughts as to whether there will be a beefed-up number from this legislation? That is largely what I wanted to ask about it. Many big companies have been blogging that it is a bad idea, which makes me think that it must be a good one.

[Mr Wallace]

In response to what has been said by the Opposition spokeswoman, it is important to note that the Bribery Act has two effects: prosecution, but also change of behaviour. If one goes out to many parts of the world where British companies are engaged in export or trying to win orders, it is clear that the message has gone out loud and clear not to bribe them and not to be involved in bribery. I was in Kenya a couple of weeks ago, and it is clear that British businesses there—people wishing to do business—do not even ask. That is a cultural change so, as I said, the effect is twofold. One thing that can be said about the Bribery Act is that it certainly went to the heart of things. There were no favours drawn: the first person convicted under the Bribery Act was an employee of the Ministry of Justice, and was convicted quite soon after the introduction of the legislation, so we all work under it, whether we are a civil servant or a business.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Failure to prevent facilitation of UK tax evasion offences

Amendment made: 50, in clause 37, page 95, line 40, after “England” insert “and Wales”.—(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment corrects an omission in clause 37(8)(b).

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 37 creates a new offence that will apply to relevant bodies who fail to prevent persons acting in the capacity of persons associated with it from criminally facilitating a UK tax evasion offence. It also provides a defence for the relevant body of proving that it had in place reasonable procedures designed to prevent persons associated with it from criminally facilitating tax evasion, or that it was not reasonable in the circumstances to expect them to have such procedures.

The offence will apply to any legal person, based anywhere in the world. It does not matter where in the world a relevant body is based. If people are criminally facilitating UK tax fraud, that body can commit the offence and be tried by the UK courts. The offence was first announced in March 2015 and has been subject to two public consultations, including one on draft clauses and guidance. A succession of high-profile data leaks has shown the lengths to which some people will go to hide their taxable income and gains from HMRC, and that there are professionals willing to help them to perpetrate that fraud. There has been unprecedented international action to increase tax transparency around the globe, but that must be coupled with action to tackle those professionals and corporations who are complicit in tax crime.

The existing criminal law already makes it an offence to evade tax. When an individual taxpayer evades their tax, they can be prosecuted. When a professional such as a banker or an accountant is complicit in the fraud, that individual can also be prosecuted. However, for the relevant criminal acts to be attributed to the corporation itself, the existing law on corporate criminal liability requires the most senior members of a corporation to be involved in and aware of those acts. At present, they can simply say, “I did not commit the crime” and blame the individual employee for the offence. That current approach to corporate criminal liability simply does not reflect the decentralised way in which decisions are made in large multinational organisations, and it can leave them beyond the reach of the criminal law.

The new offence will change that. By moving beyond seeking to attribute specific criminal acts to the relevant body, and by focusing instead on its failure to prevent those who act in its name from breaking the criminal law, we can better ensure that relevant bodies take reasonable steps to ensure that crimes are not committed when services are being provided on their behalf. The improved approach to criminal corporate liability has already been adopted with success in relation to the Bribery Act 2010. Businesses are already accustomed to the offence of corporate failure to prevent bribery and much of the new offence will be familiar. I know that hon. Members would like the approach that we are taking to go further still, to cover fraud more generally, money laundering and false accounting. That is an issue to which we will come later, in the debate on new clause 6, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton.

It is important to note that the offence we are considering is one of tax fraud—tax crime. It is not about tax non-compliance that falls short of being criminal, such as accidental non-payment of taxes. There has been much discussion about how the offence will operate in relation to tax avoidance. Tax avoidance, and even aggressive avoidance, is not a crime and falls outside the scope of this measure. The Bill is, after all, about criminal finances. However, it is right that we distinguish between actions that are within the letter if not the spirit of the law, and fraudulent acts dressed up and marketed as tax planning. We must robustly challenge those who mislabel their criminal behaviour as avoidance or planning; and the Act will address such behaviour.

The clause is not intended to criminalise conduct that is not currently against the criminal law. It is not primarily about what is a crime, but rather about who is held to account before the criminal courts. It seeks to ensure that when crimes are committed in the name of a relevant body, that relevant body can be placed in the dock, alongside the taxpayer evading their tax and the professional enabler criminally facilitating that offence.

I stress that reasonable prevention procedures are needed for the defence to be available. “Reasonable” does not mean excessively burdensome, unduly expensive, disproportionate or foolproof; nor does it demand the impossible. It means taking a risk-based and proportionate approach. Under clause 39, the Government will issue guidance to help business to assess its risks and put prevention procedures in place.

As is the case for the individual accountant, it will not matter where the relevant body is based. British businesses have welcomed the global reach of the new offence as it requires businesses providing services to UK taxpayers, regardless of where in the world those businesses are based, to operate to the same high standards as British businesses. I welcome the cross-party support, and support from the NGOs that I have met, that has been expressed for the measure.

09:44

[Dr Huq]

We support the clause, its global reach and the idea of weeding out corporate bad apples, if that is not mixing too many metaphors—weeds and apples at the same time. The Minister is correct; we think the clause could go further. We have tabled amendments to the next clause.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

We support the clause and, like the Opposition spokesperson, we commend its international reach. We look forward to discussions, perhaps this afternoon, on new clause 6, but instinctively, like Opposition Members, we are minded to take the clause further.

As time goes on, we ought to monitor the issue of designing processes that demonstrate that reasonable measures have been taken not to facilitate tax evasion. As a consumer finance lawyer, I have seen large multinational organisations roll out various folders of processes, procedures and protocols, but we were not always convinced that those had been followed to the letter. Some sort of monitoring mechanism would be most helpful.

We ask the Government to take note of the evidence we heard last week that these measures could disproportionately impact smaller organisations; larger organisations may be more suited to gathering this information in order to set out processes and procedures. We should keep an eye on those two things. We look forward to discussions on new clause 6 and support the clause.

[Mr Wallace]

To clarify, I think that statutory guidance is first published in draft. Given the hon. Gentleman’s experience, I would welcome his input on whether that guidance is appropriate. We did that with the Bribery Act; I remember when that came out. Statutory guidance is an important tool for small businesses, because big businesses have big compliance departments and can do all the work even without the statutory guidance, but for small or medium-sized businesses, the statutory guidance is a good starting point. It is really important both that we get it right, and that we get it written in plain English.

I reiterate the offence created by the clause: if someone in a Crown dependency or overseas territory—I know that hon. Members are interested in those—is advising UK citizens to evade UK tax, it does not matter that they have no nexus here; they are criminally at risk. As regards trying to change the behaviour of overseas territories or tax havens, this offence will allow us to prosecute people anywhere in the world who are encouraging people to evade UK tax. That is a major and significant step. If someone on a Caribbean island calls themselves a tax consultant and encourages British people to evade tax, we will come after them. That is a major change that goes beyond the shores of the United Kingdom. I hope that the action that we have taken to stop that will go some way to alleviating colleagues’ concerns about the behaviour of some tax havens around the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Failure to prevent facilitation of foreign tax evasion offences

[Dr Huq]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 38, page 96, line 6, after “United Kingdom” insert—

“Crown dependency or British overseas territory”.

This amendment would extend the offence of failure to prevent facilitation of foreign tax evasion offences to companies incorporated in a British Overseas Territory or Crown Dependency.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, in clause 38, page 96, line 7, after “United Kingdom” insert—

“Crown dependency or British overseas territory”.

This amendment would extend the offence of failure to prevent facilitation of foreign tax evasion offences to companies doing business in a British Overseas Territory or Crown Dependency.

Amendment 7, in clause 38, page 96, line 9, after “United Kingdom” insert—

“Crown dependency or British overseas territory”.

This amendment would extend the offence of failure to prevent facilitation of foreign tax evasion offences to conduct conducted in a British Overseas Territory or Crown Dependency.

[Dr Huq]

These amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East, and for Bootle, seek to extend the offences of failure to prevent facilitation of foreign tax evasion, and all the other good work described in clause 37, for which the Scottish National party and ourselves praised the Minister, to companies incorporated in a UK overseas territory or Crown dependency. I stress how much we welcome the new offences on failing to prevent tax evasion, and the fact that they can apply anywhere in the world, as the Minister pointed out. However, we wish that they related to all economic crime, rather than just tax evasion, and that they covered companies doing business in overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and offences committed there.

This is quite a chunky Bill that is broad in scope, but this seems to be the gaping hole—the elephant in the room. Almost all those who gave evidence, and all the speeches on Second Reading, including those from respected Members on both sides of the House, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), mentioned that this was a bit of an oversight. There is no mention of the issue at all in the Bill, and that is why we tabled these probing amendments to help the Committee better understand exactly how the new offences relate to the UK’s tax havens, as the Minister termed them; that is how they are perceived all around the world.

I raise the issue because we all know that the UK may well be facilitating tax evasion through its overseas territories. It is worth pointing out that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office appoints a Governor in each of these jurisdictions. The opaqueness and lack of transparency in these places makes it difficult to know the scale of the problem, but we know that developing countries are losing out massively. This legislation rightly seeks to hold directors of companies in the UK accountable for their business’s actions, but why does it not also apply to the UK’s overseas territories? The lack of accountability of directors there is dangerous.

Let us take the example of the British Virgin Islands, the jurisdiction that received the most mentions in the Panama papers, I believe, which is nothing to be proud of. Given its role in the Panama papers, is it not reasonable to talk about having more oversight of this UK-governed territory? It has more than 450,000 companies; nobody quite knows the exact number. That is at least 15 companies for every person—an unusually large number of companies. Every person would need to have 13 board meetings every day to get through all of them in a year.

It sounds like a bold suggestion, but we think that more action is needed. I have five questions for the Minister. When the UK receives information on the beneficial owners of companies registered in the British Virgin Islands, will it use it and look for potential tax evasion? Is there an active duty on the part of the Government? What action will they take if they find any tax evasion? How will owners of British Virgin Islands companies be held to account for their actions? What discussions has the Minister had with leaders of overseas territories and Crown dependencies about these excellent new offences? Are any of them minded to consider introducing something similar on a voluntary basis? We do not want to look like neo-imperialists, going into countries and making them do stuff, so what are they doing of their own volition? If offences are committed in UK-governed overseas territories, under what circumstances would prosecutions be possible under this new legislation?

The last question is the most important one, and the one that would help me to understand this: does the Minister concede that, as clause 40(1) refers to clause 38(2), his Bill effectively allows places such as the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands to facilitate tax evasion on an industrial scale, provided that the companies have no business dealings in the UK? There has to be that link first; they have to have an office, or be somehow incorporated, in the UK. Sham businesses go to those territories only because they are implicitly backed by UK law. Historically, overseas territories and Crown dependencies have been able to market the attractiveness of their financial services by highlighting the fact that the UK rule of law underpins their systems; thus the situation is perpetuated. The fact that people can stash their dirty cash there is part of the unique selling point of these places. I am curious about how the provisions would apply to overseas territories and Crown dependencies if that UK link was not there.

[Richard Arkless]

We are interested in hearing what the Minister has to say on the clause before we make any submissions. We take the point about the link to a UK company, but we are also concerned about this House’s authority to legislate—or be seen to be legislating—over Crown dependencies.

[Mr Wallace]

I understand the importance that Members attach to the amendments, and what they are trying to do. They allow us to begin the debate on the response of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies to tax evasion, and fraud and corruption more broadly. I am sure that that debate will continue as we consider other amendments later today.

The Opposition’s amendments 5, 6 and 7 are designed to give the foreign tax evasion offence a broad scope, and to ensure that corporate complicity in tax evasion is tackled effectively. On that objective, I share the intentions of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton. Before addressing the amendments specifically, I want to clarify that the foreign tax evasion offence in clause 38 would, as drafted, apply to a relevant body that is incorporated under the law of the UK, or carrying out part of a business activity from the UK, and where a person acting in the capacity of an associated person of the relevant body criminally facilitates tax evasion from within the UK, regardless of where the relevant body is based. The offence would, therefore, require there to be some nexus with the UK for our authorities to exercise jurisdiction; that would include a bank that is based or doing business in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies also doing business in the UK.

However, the hon. Lady’s amendments would criminalise, under the UK law, a situation where there is no link to the UK. For example, if a Norwegian were to set up a business in a tax haven, and that business were to advise an American citizen on how to evade tax, and it had nothing to do with the UK at all—we had no loss of revenue and no business with either the Norwegian or the American—the hon. Lady would be asking us to criminalise that person, and effectively to become the world’s policeman on that issue. We would have no nexus whatsoever to go after that individual; neither they nor the company helping them to evade tax would be British. We would perhaps have some ability, in some instances, to help our neighbour’s tax authorities, as we share data under agreements reached over the last year or so. For example, if we find out that someone is helping the French to evade tax, our law enforcement agencies do share information.

The amendment seeks to force Crown dependencies and overseas territories to change their law. It seeks to use neo-imperialism, to use the hon. Lady’s term, to force our will on territories with those statuses. That is a major step to take. As I said earlier, we have come a long way—90% of the way—with the establishment next year of automatic sharing of data via beneficial registers of ownership. Yes, that is not public, and I know that we will come on to that later in the Bill, but we have come a considerable way, and we should remember that.

We should also remember that because of the City of London, there will not be many financial organisations that do not have a nexus in this country. I am not going to finger a particular country, but the bank of a fictitious country with tax haven status would not be much of a bank if it did not have an operation in the UK. If that bank was encouraging people to evade tax, even if they were not British citizens or were not evading UK tax, we could deal with it, because it would have a branch here. If those concerned were convicted, they would most likely lose their banking licence. A bank that cannot trade in one of the major financial institutions of the United Kingdom is effectively a dud. In a sense, we could take quite considerable action. The fundamental difference is that we think there has to be a link. The alternative is to impose our will directly on these Crown dependencies and overseas territories.

I would like to correct the hon. Lady on two things. They are not “our” territories; we do not own them. The Crown dependencies have never been ours. They have never been part of the British Empire—well, they have never been part of our colonies. We do not even own the overseas territories. We have a governing oversight, but they have Parliaments and elections of their own, and they make their own decisions.

I think the direction of travel—my officials have been directly in touch with the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories—has been right. We are going some considerable way from where we were three or four years ago. Those places have smelt the coffee, and the world is moving forward.

10:00

At the end of next year, our law enforcement agencies will have automatic access to many of the records we need. The register is not public, though I know that some Members would like it to be. It is, however, a considerable step that I can sit in my office and read about the behaviour of significant organised crime groups, major drugs smugglers or financiers of terrorism. People at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will now be able to get those records automatically from those countries, and we can set about taking these people down and making sure that they are prosecuted. We have moved in the right direction with that.

While I understand the motives behind the amendments and agree that we want to go further and make things more transparent, what the hon. Lady proposes in these amendments is going one step too far, too fast. On the calls on the United Kingdom to be a world policeman in this area, we are already in the lead; we are the only G20 country—never mind some of these other countries—with a public register of beneficial ownership. Let us do some work on our friends across the channel.

I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment and, no doubt, she can scrutinise the progress. I would also be the first to ask her to come and see, when this Bill becomes an Act, the first case—if we do get a case sooner rather than later—of a prosecution of individuals engaged in that. Without a nexus, we are going one step too far.

[Richard Arkless]

We agree with that summary from the Government. The Minister describing the amendment as “neo-imperialism” put the seal on my view of it. The Scottish National party is reluctant to legislate on areas where there is no locus and no nexus and we fully accept that that is the position of the Crown dependencies. We accept the Minister is keen to see that direction of travel continue. In that vein, we have held meetings with representatives of the Crown dependencies over the last few weeks and have been assured that their co-operation in providing information for the register of beneficial ownership is groundbreaking. It will be co-operative and give the authorities in the UK the armoury they need to tackle financial criminality.

I agree it is very likely, if not probable, that organisations facilitating tax evasion, whether in the Crown dependencies or overseas territories, will have a link to the UK and are more likely, more often than not, to have their head office in the UK. We may need to address that again once we leave the European Union, but we can discuss it.

[Dr Huq]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said and was slightly disappointed. I said precisely that I do not want to be neo-imperialist. I do not want to rush into these countries, which is why I asked what was happening already and whether there is any way those people can do things on their own. I did not say that we own those places; I simply said that the UK rule of law underpins their systems.

The Prime Minister said on the steps of Downing Street that she wants an economy that works for everyone. This looks like an anomaly from all the evidence we have had from all those groups, and from all the speeches on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. However, we are not going to push the measure to a vote. It was a probing amendment. I wanted to hear more about the anomaly where there is a direct UK connection. I do not think it is sufficient to turn a blind eye while this goes on.

The Minister mentioned what has happened in some of these places and I have information that will be more relevant when we consider new clause 21. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 51, in clause 38, page 96, line 37, after “England” insert “and Wales”.—(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment corrects an omission in clause 38(7)(b).

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7— Corporate probation order—

‘(1) A court before which a relevant body (B) is convicted of an offence under section 37 or 38 of this Bill may make a corporate probation order in relation to B.

(2) A corporate probation order—

(a) shall require B to implement a compliance procedure or make changes to an existing compliance procedure to prevent persons acting in the capacity of a person associated with B for committing UK tax evasion facilitation offences or foreign tax evasion facilitation offences;

(b) may require B to appoint an external body to verify that compliance programme, costs of which shall be met by B.

(3) A corporate probation order may be made only on an application by the prosecution specifying the terms of the proposed order. Any such order must be on such terms (whether those proposed or others) as the court considers appropriate having regard to any representations made, and any evidence adduced, in relation to that matter by the prosecution and on behalf of B.

(4) Before making an application for a probation order the prosecution must consult such enforcement authority or authorities as it considers appropriate having regard to the nature of the relevant offending.

(5) An organisation that fails to comply with a corporate probation order is guilty of an offence, and is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine,

(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6) For the purposes of this clause “relevant body” has the same meaning as in section 36.’

This new clause would allow courts to require bodies found guilty of a UK or foreign tax evasion facilitation offence to make steps to improve their internal procedures to minimize the chance of persons working for that company committing the same offence in the future.

New clause 8—Facilitation of tax evasion offences: disqualification of directors—

‘(1) Where a body (B) has been convicted of an offence under sections 37 and 38 of this Act the Secretary of State must arrange for the relevant enforcement authorities to investigate the conduct of the directors of B.

(2) The purpose of the investigation under this subsection is to determine whether the directors of B were grossly negligent by failing to ensure that B had in place reasonable prevention procedures.

(3) In section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—

(iii) an investigation under section [Facilitation of tax evasion offences: disqualification of directors] of the Criminal Finance Act”

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“enforcement authorities” means one or more the bodies listed in subsection 362A(7) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

“prevention procedures” has the same meaning as in subsection 37(3) where B was convicted of an offence under section 37, or as in subsection 38(4) where B was convicted of an offence under section 38.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to investigate the directors of a company found guilty of a UK or foreign tax evasion offence to see whether the directors should be subject to a disqualification order for the failure to have proper procedures in place to prevent agents of that company facilitating tax evasion.

[Mr Wallace]

Perhaps I may clarify for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton that I said she used the word “neo-imperialism”—I never implied that she wanted to be neo-imperialist, but some people could describe it as that if we were to impose our will on Parliaments in some of our overseas territories.

Clause 38 creates a new offence that will be committed by relevant bodies that fail to prevent persons associated with them from criminally facilitating evasion of taxes owed to a country other than the United Kingdom. We have seen that criminals seeking to provide services to further their clients’ tax evasion will try to operate between the gaps between the legal systems of different countries. The measure will ensure that the UK is not a safe harbour for professional facilitators or the businesses for which they work. The new overseas tax evasion offence can be committed by relevant bodies that are formed or incorporated in the UK, or which are carrying out a business activity in the UK, or where the criminal act of facilitation occurs within the UK.

There is a necessarily broad scope for the new offence. It holds corporations that carry out a business in the UK, or the representatives of which are acting in the UK, to operate to the same high standards as UK businesses. The message is clear. Tax evasion is a crime. It is wrong. It is no less wrong where the revenue loss is suffered by another country. If a body is part of UK plc, or sends people to the UK, it is not okay to allow people to criminally facilitate the evasion of taxes, wherever they are owed.

The offence requires a dual criminality. Essentially, that means that, for a relevant body to be liable, the criminal law of the country suffering the tax loss must recognise tax evasion and the facilitating of tax evasion as criminal offences in their jurisdiction, and the laws must be broadly equivalent to those in the UK.

The offence does not require relevant bodies to have a thorough understanding of the tax laws in each jurisdiction, but rather to ask itself the question, “If we were providing these services to a UK taxpayer client, would this be legal?” If the answer is yes, there is no question of criminal liability under the new overseas fraud offence.

The offence is not about the UK policing the world’s tax affairs. We envisage that a prosecution for the overseas tax evasion offence will take place only where there would otherwise be a failure of justice—for example, where the country suffering the tax loss was unwilling or unable to take action because of an inability to handle a complex international fraud trial, or was unable to investigate and prosecute because of corruption concerns. I will leave my explanation of the clause there and allow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton to speak to her new clauses before I respond.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mrs Main. The Minister referred to this as the Criminal Finances Bill and the clue is in the name. People who commit an offence and go to prison come out and go on probation. New clause 7 would create a similar thing—a sort of corporate probation order that would allow courts to require bodies found guilty of a UK or foreign tax evasion facilitation offence to take steps to improve their internal procedures and minimize the chance of a person working for that company committing the same offence in future. That would be an important step in encouraging large organisations to take responsibility for those they hire and the actions they undertake, and more importantly in ensuring that financial crime and misconduct is not repeated by others in the organisation.

Before making an application for a probation order, the prosecution would have to consult enforcement agencies. Once a corporate probation order had been issued, any organisation that failed to comply with it would be subject to a fine. Currently, the only remedies a court may impose upon a company convicted of an offence is a fine, disgorgement of profit and compensation. Corporate probation orders would be an additional tool that prosecutors could seek. Courts could impose conditions requiring companies to undertake remedial action to their management and compliance procedures to ensure that the offending is not repeated.

Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, courts can impose remedial orders on companies to require them to remedy any management failure that led to an offence occurring. This provides a workable pre-existing model for such orders. Under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, if a company is offered a deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA, a prosecutor can require a company to implement a compliance programme or make changes to an existing compliance programme. There is no equivalent power in relation to convictions. DPAs are reserved for companies that self-report their misdemeanours and co-operate with enforcement authorities.

Although prosecutors could, theoretically at least, use financial reporting orders to require a company to provide financial information, under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, it is not clear that that would include information on compliance procedures. Additionally, such orders are heavy-handed, require separate court proceedings and require a prosecutor to prove that the risk of reoffending is sufficiently high.

The effect of that discrepancy is a ridiculous imbalance: companies that self-report and co-operate may be subject to greater monitoring of their compliance programme than companies that do not and are convicted. The result is that the companies that most need monitoring of their compliance procedures—those whose procedures did not pick up the wrongdoing in the first place—get none, which is a huge deterrent to self-reporting, and puts a greater burden on enforcement agencies.

The Opposition believe that corporate probation orders are required to remedy that clear anachronism. Companies and defence lawyers have noted the more stringent compliance programme monitoring requirements under DPAs as one factor, among others, that puts companies off self-reporting wrongdoing to the Serious Fraud Office. The discrepancy between what happens under DPAs and what happens on conviction is creating a disincentive for companies to self-report.

At the end of the day, we need to encourage self-reporting in a framework in which companies feel that they are able to work with enforcement agencies to deal with rogue elements or individuals. The alternative would see the continuation of a culture of secrecy in which those at the top deliberately turn a blind eye to what those at the bottom do, and in which financial misconduct is not limited to an individual, but instilled and passed on to others in an organisation.

[Richard Arkless]

The Scottish National party is broadly in support of the new clauses. In particular, a corporate probation order would give an opportunity for an offending company to have its processes meticulously examined to ensure that they are fit for purpose going forward. We support new clause 8 on the potential disqualification of directors, which goes beyond the relevant body offences in the Bill. As a matter of principle, we think it will concentrate minds and ensure the protocols are fit for purpose if the directors at the top of the organisation feel the liability could be at their heels, as it were. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Chair]

Order. I gather that Mr Dowd wants a second bite at the cherry on new clause 8.

[Peter Dowd]

I apologise, Mrs Main. I was going to deal with new clause 8 and was pre-empted, I am afraid. New clause 8 relates to the facilitation of tax evasion offences and the disqualification of directors.

It will be pretty apparent to hon. Members that a central theme to proceedings so far, as promulgated by virtually everybody, is the notion of transparency in the actions of those in positions of stewardship, such as directors of companies. Opaqueness has its advantages, I have no doubt, but when it leads to illegality there must be action to deal with it. Given that, the new clause would require the Secretary of State

“to investigate the directors of a company found guilty of a UK or foreign tax evasion offence to establish whether the directors should be subject to a disqualification order for the failure to have proper procedures in place to prevent agents of that company facilitating tax evasion.”

Under the new offences covering the facilitation of tax evasion, a company could be criminally held to account if an employee commits such an offence. That is a huge step forward. However, there is a danger that senior executives, who are ultimately responsible for ensuring the company has in place the procedures to prevent its involvement in the facilitation of tax evasion, will escape any individual accountability under such an offence. The purpose of new clause 8 is to ensure that, where a company is convicted, the director of that company should be investigated with a view to disqualification, as happens currently when a company is held to have breached competition law, for example.

A perfectly legitimate question is whether new clause 8 is taking a hammer to crack a nut. That has been alluded to in past debates. I contend that it is not, because tax evasion has huge implications for the public purse, not just in lost revenue but in relation to public confidence in the tax system.

10:15

The day before the autumn statement, with warnings from the Chancellor that the economy must be watertight to manage the sharp challenges ahead of Brexit, surely any largesse—toleration of industrial-scale tax evasion—must stop. Ensuring that there is senior-level accountability when companies are convicted of tax evasion offences will instil confidence in the public that those in companies who are responsible for allowing tax evasion to happen there will face penalties. It will create greater incentives for senior-level executives to ensure that the companies operate on the right side of the law and drive out bad actors in the sector.

The Opposition acknowledge and recognise that it is unfair to tar all directors with the same brush when it comes to the perception of financial misconduct and criminality, and we would not want to do that. Since the financial crisis, those who run financial organisations have had huge reputational damage—some warranted, some not. The new clause would create a clear distinction between directors who do the right thing, complying with pre-existing regulation and working with enforcement agencies to tackle misconduct, and those who wilfully break the law or look the other way when it happens.

A disqualification order for those guilty of tax evasion offences is only right, so that they cannot continue to sit on the board of the company in question, or the board of any other company for that matter, to encourage further financial misconduct and send out the wrong message. The new clause is not about pointing the finger at those who commit themselves day in, day out, to their companies’ and the country’s health and wealth; it is about isolating and identifying individuals in those companies and ensuring that they are held accountable for their actions, thus preventing them from working in the financial industry again, and encouraging an environment of openness and transparency rather than a milieu that turns a blind eye.

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bootle and pleased to say that the Government are supportive of what he is trying to achieve—that the new offences should be as effective as possible at changing corporate behaviour, and that law enforcement should have the tools it needs to police the new laws effectively. However, I hope to reassure him and his hon. Friends that those matters are already provided for.

As the hon. Gentleman said, new clause 7 would introduce a system of corporate probation orders, which would allow a court to require relevant bodies found guilty of the new corporate offences to make changes to their prevention procedures. Hon. Members should be aware that clause 43(2) adds those offences to the list of offences for which a serious crime prevention order can be imposed under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Serious crime prevention orders allow for a court passing sentence on a person or corporate body to impose prohibitions, restrictions or requirements to prevent, restrict or disrupt involvement in serious crime. Those orders are already available and can successfully disrupt tax fraud. Where such an order is made against a relevant body, its terms may require the body to allow a law enforcement agency to monitor how it provides services in the future.

Additionally, where the corporation in question is in the regulated sector, the regulator may, quite independently of a serious crime prevention order, undertake monitoring of the relevant body, relevant to failings in its systems and controls. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority could take steps to disqualify directors or put extra conditions on to the companies. It is the Government’s view that the hon. Gentleman’s objective can be achieved by applying the existing power to impose serious crime prevention orders on conviction of the new offences, or within the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement. Those orders can do anything that corporation probation would do.

New clause 8 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to investigate the directors of a company found guilty of a UK or foreign tax evasion offence, to see whether they should be disqualified. The existing law already allows the Secretary of State to apply to a court to have a director disqualified where he or she believes that that is in the public interest. A court can grant such an order when it is satisfied that the director’s conduct makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of the company. There is no evidence of which we are aware that the power is not being used in the appropriate cases. When not used, it is not used for appropriate reasons. When company directors are charged with offences, the sentencing court can consider disqualification.

Where the new offence is charged and the relevant body is not tried alongside a director, prosecutors will still be able to refer cases to the Secretary of State so that an application for disqualification can be considered. Indeed, there may be cases when sentencing judges recommend that this is done in their sentencing remarks. In short, rather than creating new law, we again consider it proper for the new offences to sit alongside, and work within, the existing legislative framework for disqualifying directors. If regulators have evidence that a director is unfit to be concerned in the management of the company, they can refer the case to the Secretary of State to make an application to have that director disqualified.

I hope that the hon. Members for Ealing Central and for Bootle, and others, agree that these points are therefore already accounted for, that they do not feel the need to move their new clauses, and that clause 38 can stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Guidance about preventing facilitation of tax evasion offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 requires the Government to produce guidance on reasonable prevention procedures, and empowers the Government to agree supplementary guidance produced by others, such as industry and trade bodies. The aim of the guidance is to help organisations to understand and avoid committing the new offences by undertaking a risk assessment and establishing reasonable prevention procedures to address their risks. The guidance is vital to the success of the offences and will mean higher levels of compliance with the new legislation, creating the desired culture change, and ultimately leading to a reduction in the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. In parallel, it will help to avoid an unnecessarily defensive approach to compliance, whereby excessive prevention procedures are adopted that constitute an undue regulatory burden.

Whether any relevant body can avail itself of the reasonable procedures defence will always be a matter for the criminal courts. The guidance will be only an illustrative set of principles, not a list of absolute requirements. Departure from the guidance will not mean that the defence is unavailable and that the relevant body is guilty. There may well be many different approaches—all equally reasonable—to preventing tax evasion facilitation offences by those who act in the relevant body’s name. Equally, following the guidance does not lead the relevant body to safe harbour rendering it immune from prosecution. Even full compliance with the guidance might not amount to having reasonable prevention procedures if the prevention procedures ignore a particular risk that the relevant body’s particular business carries.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs consulted with industry extensively on what support was needed to ensure compliance with the new offences. The overwhelming feedback revealed a desire for guidance akin to that already produced for the similar offence of corporate failure to prevent bribery in the Bribery Act 2010. The last draft guidance was published at the same time as the introduction of the Bill and has received positive feedback. HMRC continues to work with a number of leading financial service trade bodies on developing detailed supplementary guidance for the sector. I hope the clause stands part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

We all need guidance in life. The measures sound eminently sensible and the Minister described them cogently. We support the clause.

Question put and agree to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Offences: extra-territorial application and jurisdiction

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 41 stand part.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 40 provides for the extraterritorial application of the corporate failure to prevent offences. The UK’s criminal courts will have jurisdiction to try the domestic tax offence in clause 37, regardless of where the conduct took place. The UK courts claim jurisdiction as a result of the UK suffering the tax loss. With respect to the foreign tax offence, our courts again claim jurisdiction on the basis that the relevant body has a nexus with the UK, such that it can be regarded as part of UK plc and thus is required to abide by the criminal law of this country. We have seen, and our partners in other jurisdictions have confirmed that they have also seen, that those deliberately facilitating tax evasion will typically offshore illicit services to try to avoid detection and to hide in the gaps between domestic legal systems.

Those facilitating offshore tax evasion often do not provide those services from within the geographic borders of the country whose tax loss they are facilitating. It is therefore vital that both the domestic and the overseas tax evasion facilitation offences capture activity that takes place outside the United Kingdom. Failure to apply the laws in such a way would lead to loopholes that could be easily exploited. By its very nature, the foreign tax evasion offence is likely to raise a complicated range of competing interests and issues, including those relating to international relations and diplomatic affairs.

Clause 41 puts appropriate safeguards in place by requiring that a decision to prosecute the offence is taken only by, or with the authority of, the director of these prosecuting bodies: the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. A similar protection is in place for prosecutions for the corporate failure to prevent bribery under section 7 of the Bribery Act. I hope the clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition support clause 40.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Offences by partnerships: supplementary

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 43 and 44.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 42 makes provision for rules of criminal procedure in relation to the prosecution of companies to apply to prosecutions of partnerships for the new offences in part 3. It mirrors section 15 of the Bribery Act 2010 and provides that proceedings for an offence under clauses 37 or 38 are to be brought in the name of the partnership and not that of an individual partner; and that any resulting fine is paid out of the assets of the partnership. The clause also applies existing rules of criminal procedure applicable where bodies corporate are prosecuted. They cover various matters including the transfer of cases from the magistrates court to the Crown court, the representation of the relevant body in court, the entering of pleas and the taking of action in the relevant body’s absence.

As I mentioned in debating an earlier group, clause 43 amends a number of pieces of existing legislation, adding the new offences created by part 3 to the lists of offences for which various powers are available, which will assist the effective investigation and prosecution of the offences. That includes allowing the CPS to require suspected persons to answer questions or provide information in relation to those offences; allowing for serious crime prevention orders to be imposed on relevant bodies; and providing for deferred prosecution agreements.

Clause 44 is simply an interpretation clause, defining terms within part 3. I hope the clauses stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Huq]

We support the clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 9

Immigration officers

‘(1) Section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (seizure of cash) is amended as follows.

(2) For the heading substitute “Exercise of civil recovery powers by immigration officers”.

(3) For subsection (1) substitute—

(1) Chapters 3 to 3B of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (civil recovery) apply in relation to an immigration officer as they apply in relation to a constable.”

(4) In subsection (2)(a), for “section 289” substitute “sections 289 and 303C and Chapter 3B”.

(5) In subsection (2)(c), for “and 297A” substitute “, 297A and 303E and in Chapter 3B (see section 303Z2(7))”.

(6) In subsection (2)(d), for “section 292” substitute “sections 292 and 303G”.

(7) In subsection (2)(e), for “and 293A” substitute “, 293A, 303H and 303I”.

(8) In subsection (2)(f), in the words before sub-paragraph (i), after “295(2)” insert “or 303L(1)”.

(9) In subsection (2)(f)(ii), after “298” insert “or (as the case may be) 303O”.

(10) In subsection (2)(g), after “298” insert “, 303O or 303Z14”.

(11) In subsection (2)(h), after “302” insert “, 303W or 303Z18”.” .—(Mr Wallace.)

Immigration officers exercise the civil recovery powers conferred by Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by virtue of section 24 of the UK Borders Act 2007. These amendments of section 24 provide for immigration officers to be able to exercise the civil recovery powers conferred by new Chapters 3A and 3B of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (see clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill) in the same way.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Forfeiture of cash

‘(1) In section 289(6) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (meaning of cash for purposes of Chapter 3 of Part 5 of that Act), after paragraph (e) insert—

“(f) gaming vouchers,

(g) fixed-value casino tokens,”.

(2) After section 289(7) of that Act insert—

“(7A) For the purposes of subsection (6)—

(a) “gaming voucher” means a voucher in physical form issued by a gaming machine within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005 (see section 235 of that Act) that represents a right to be paid the amount stated on it;

(b) “fixed-value casino token” means a casino token that represents a right to be paid the amount stated on it.”

(3) In Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (forfeiture of terrorist cash), in paragraph 1 (meaning of terrorist cash)—

(a) after sub-paragraph (2)(e) insert—

(f) gaming vouchers,

(b) fixed-value casino tokens,”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—

“(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) “gaming voucher” means a voucher in physical form issued by a gaming machine within the meaning of the Gambling Act 2005 (see section 235 of that Act) that represents a right to be paid the amount stated on it;

(b) “fixed-value casino token” means a casino token that represents a right to be paid the amount stated on it.””—(Mr Wallace.)

This new clause provides for casino tokens and what are commonly referred to as “ticket in ticket out vouchers” to be treated as cash for the purposes of the civil recovery powers conferred by Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and by Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

Forfeiture of terrorist cash

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (forfeiture of terrorist cash) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 (detention of seized cash)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for “three” substitute “6”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (8) insert—

“(9) Where an application for an order under sub-paragraph (2) relates to cash seized under paragraph 2(2), the court, sheriff or justice may make the order if satisfied that—

(a) the condition in sub-paragraph (6), (7) or (8) is met in respect of part of the cash, and

(b) it is not reasonably practicable to detain only that part.”

(3) After paragraph 5 insert—

Part 2A

Forfeiture of terrorist cash without court order

Cash forfeiture notice

5A (1) This paragraph applies while any cash is detained in pursuance of an order under paragraph 3(2).

(2) A senior officer may give a notice for the purpose of forfeiting the cash or any part of it if satisfied that the cash or part is terrorist cash.

(3) A notice given under sub-paragraph (2) is referred to in this Schedule as a cash forfeiture notice.

(4) A cash forfeiture notice must—

(a) state the amount of cash in respect of which it is given,

(b) state when and where the cash was seized,

(c) confirm that the senior officer is satisfied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2),

(d) specify a period for objecting to the proposed forfeiture and an address to which any objections must be sent, and

(e) explain that the cash will be forfeited unless an objection is received at that address within the period for objecting.

(5) The period for objecting must be at least 30 days starting with the day after the notice is given.

(6) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision about how a cash forfeiture notice is to be given.

(7) The regulations may (amongst other things) provide—

(a) for a cash forfeiture notice to be given to such person or persons, and in such manner, as may be prescribed;

(b) for a cash forfeiture notice to be given by publication in such manner as may be prescribed;

(c) for circumstances in which, and the time at which, a cash forfeiture notice is to be treated as having been given.

(8) The regulations must ensure that where a cash forfeiture notice is given it is, if possible, given to every person to whom notice of an order under paragraph 3(2) in respect of the cash has been given.

(9) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(10) In this Part of this Schedule—

“senior officer” means—

(a) a senior police officer;

(b) an officer of Revenue and Customs of a rank designated by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as equivalent to that of a senior police officer;

(c) an immigration officer of a rank designated by the Secretary of State as equivalent to that of a senior police officer;

“senior police officer” means a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent.

Effect of cash forfeiture notice

5B (1) This paragraph applies if a cash forfeiture notice is given in respect of any cash.

(2) The cash is to be detained until—

(a) the cash is forfeited under this paragraph,

(b) the notice lapses under this paragraph, or

(c) the cash is released under a power conferred by this Schedule.

(3) If no objection is made within the period for objecting specified in the notice under paragraph 5A(4)(d), and the notice has not lapsed, the cash is forfeited (subject to paragraph 5D).

(4) If an objection is made within the period for objecting, the notice lapses.

(5) If an application is made for the forfeiture of the whole or any part of the cash under paragraph 6, the notice lapses.

(6) If the cash or any part of it is released under a power conferred by this Schedule, the notice lapses or (as the case may be) lapses in relation to that part.

(7) An objection may be made by anyone (whether a recipient of the notice or not).

(8) An objection means a written objection sent to the address specified in the notice; and an objection is made when it is received at the address.

(9) An objection does not prevent forfeiture of the cash under paragraph 6.

(10) Nothing in this paragraph affects the validity of an order under paragraph 3(2).

Detention following lapse of cash forfeiture notice

5C (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a cash forfeiture notice is given in respect of any cash,

(b) the notice lapses under paragraph 5B(4), and

(c) the period for which detention of the cash was authorised under paragraph 3(2) has expired.

(2) The cash may be detained for a further period of up to 48 hours (calculated in accordance with paragraph 3(1A)).

(3) But if within that period it is decided that neither of the applications mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) is to be made, the cash must be released.

(4) The applications are—

(a) an application for a further order under paragraph 3(2);

(b) an application for forfeiture of the cash under paragraph 6.

(5) If within that period an application is made for a further order under paragraph 3(2), the cash may be detained until the application is determined or otherwise disposed of.

Application to set aside forfeiture

5D (1) A person aggrieved by the forfeiture of cash in pursuance of paragraph 5B(3) may apply to a magistrates’ court or (in Scotland) the sheriff for an order setting aside the forfeiture of the cash or any part of it.

(2) The application must be made before the end of the period of 30 days starting with the day on which the period for objecting ended (“the 30-day period”).

(3) But the court or sheriff may give permission for an application to be made after the 30-day period has ended if the court or sheriff thinks that there are exceptional circumstances to explain why the applicant—

(a) failed to object to the forfeiture within the period for objecting, and

(b) failed to make an application within the 30-day period.

(4) On an application under this paragraph the court or sheriff must consider whether the cash to which the application relates could be forfeited under paragraph 6 (ignoring the forfeiture mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)).

(5) If the court or sheriff is satisfied that the cash to which the application relates or any part of it could not be forfeited under that paragraph the court or sheriff must set aside the forfeiture of that cash or part.

(6) Where the court or sheriff sets aside the forfeiture of any cash—

(a) the court or sheriff must order the release of that cash, and

(b) the cash is to be treated as never having been forfeited.

Release of cash subject to cash forfeiture notice

5E (1) This paragraph applies while any cash is detained under paragraph 5B or 5C.

(2) The person from whom the cash was seized may apply to a magistrates’ court or (in Scotland) the sheriff for the cash to be released.

(3) On an application under sub-paragraph (2), the court or sheriff may direct the release of the cash or any part of it if not satisfied that the cash to be released is terrorist cash.

(4) An authorised officer may release the cash or any part of it if satisfied that the detention of the cash to be released is no longer justified.

Application of cash forfeited under cash forfeiture notice

5F (1) Cash forfeited in pursuance of paragraph 5B(3), and any accrued interest on it—

(a) if first detained in pursuance of an order under paragraph 3(2) made by a magistrates’ court or a justice of the peace, is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

(b) if first detained in pursuance of an order under paragraph 3(2) made by the sheriff, is to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund.

(2) But it is not to be paid in—

(a) before the end of the period within which an application under paragraph 5D may be made (ignoring the possibility of an application by virtue of paragraph 5D(3)), or

(b) if an application is made within that period, before the application is determined or otherwise disposed of.”

(4) In paragraph 7(4) (release of cash on appeal against decision in forfeiture proceedings), after “of” insert “the whole or any part of”.

(5) In paragraph 9 (victims), after sub-paragraph (3) insert—

“(4) If sub-paragraph (5) applies, the court or sheriff may order the cash to be released to the applicant or to the person from whom it was seized.

(5) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) the applicant is not the person from whom the cash claimed was seized,

(b) it appears to the court or sheriff that the cash belongs to the applicant,

(c) the court or sheriff is satisfied that the release condition is met in relation to the cash, and

(d) no objection to the making of an order under sub-paragraph (4) has been made by the person from whom the cash was seized.

(6) The release condition is met—

(a) in relation to cash detained under paragraph 3, if the conditions in that paragraph for the detention of the cash are no longer met,

(b) in relation to cash detained under paragraph 5B or 5C, if the cash is not terrorist cash, and

(c) in relation to cash detained pending the conclusion of proceedings in pursuance of an application under paragraph 6, if the court or sheriff decides not to make an order under that paragraph in relation to the cash.”

(6) In paragraph 19 (general interpretation), in sub-paragraph (1), at the appropriate places insert—

““cash forfeiture notice” has the meaning given by paragraph 5A(3),”;

““senior officer” (in Part 2A) has the meaning given by paragraph 5A(10),”.”—(Mr Wallace.)

This new clause makes various amendments of Schedule 1 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to bring it into line with the provision made by Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, including amendments to provide for the forfeiture of “terrorist cash” by the giving of a forfeiture notice. This administrative forfeiture regime will apply throughout the UK; the equivalent regime under the 2002 Act is limited in its application to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Review of Scottish Limited Partnership

“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the extent of financial criminal activity associated with Scottish Limited Partnerships, and lay a copy of the review before the House of Commons within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.

(2) In conducting the review the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Scottish Government;

(b) the National Crime Agency;

(c) the Serious Fraud Office;

(d) the Financial Conduct Authority;

(e) HMRC;

(f) interested third sector organisations; and

(g) any other persons he deems relevant.

(3) The review must set out what steps the Government intends to take to prevent Scottish Limited Partnerships being used for criminal purposes.”—(Roger Mullin.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of financial criminality associated with Scottish Limited Partnerships and set out what steps the Government intends to take to prevent Scottish Limited Partnerships being used for criminal purposes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

10:30

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. Before I go into the substance of the new clause, I place on the record our thanks to the Minister for his willingness to discuss the issue with us both before and after Second Reading. Although I am a relatively new Member of Parliament, this is the fifth Bill Committee on which I have served in just over a year, and this is the most listening Minister I have come across. I would like to acknowledge that.

[Mr Wallace]

That’s my career over.

[Roger Mullin]

Yes, this is the gentle dagger.

I rehearsed on Second Reading many of the specific instances of abuse using Scottish limited partnerships. I do not intend at this moment to repeat all that, but for the Minister’s benefit, I would like to add to what has already been said.

First, we have had further discussions with the Law Society of Scotland and others. They indicate a willingness to assist us in moving forward to address what the solutions may be to Scottish limited partnerships. I have also had discussions with an individual who was named in evidence to us, Mr Richard Smith, who has undertaken a lot of research into this matter. He, too, has indicated a willingness to assist.

Why do we consider that a review is needed? A lot of research has been undertaken, including by Mr David Leask, who gave evidence to the Committee just last week. However, in our view, before the Government move towards precisely how they will take action to secure SLPs from abuse in the future, it would do us a lot of good if we conducted a detailed review, sponsored by the Government, to ensure that all forms of abuse are properly understood. It would be good to do that before we move towards saying what the precise solutions will be. Therefore, it would be valuable if the Minister, when he comments on the new clause, indicates whether he thinks there is still scope for the Government to consider a detailed review such as that which we have discussed.

I shall conclude now and allow the Minister to respond. Our hope is that the response will be such that there will be no need for us to push the new clause to a vote.

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As the son of a Fifer, I know that one always does well to listen to a Fifer—or one faces the consequences.

I am also grateful to the Scottish National party and The Herald newspaper for raising this issue. It is a genuine issue of abuse, as they have rightly pointed out. We have taken important steps to prevent the misuse of corporations for money laundering, corruption and tax evasion. The UK’s public register of company beneficial ownership went live this year—we were the first G20 country to put such a register in place. At the London anti-corruption summit, we committed to going further and creating a register of the beneficial ownership of foreign companies that own real property or wish to be involved in public sector procurement contracts in the UK.

However, we must not be complacent. Hon. Members have rightly raised the issue of Scottish limited partnerships a number of times. I hope they are assured that I take it very seriously. The stories in The Herald and the intelligence assessments that I have received from our law enforcement agencies are very concerning.

As I committed to do on Second Reading, I have spoken on this subject to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who is responsible for small business, consumers and corporate responsibility, and she shares my concerns about the abuse of SLPs. We agreed that we need to get the balance right between ensuring that the UK remains a good place to do business for the law abiding and cracking down on abuse. Her Department recently published a discussion paper that invites views on a number of questions about transposing corporate transparency requirements under the fourth anti-money laundering directive. The catchy name is “Implementation of the Fourth Money Laundering Directive—Discussion paper on the transposition of Article 30: beneficial ownership of corporate and other legal entities”.

[Peter Dowd]

Too pithy.

[Mr Wallace]

I can repeat it for those who want to write it down. That was launched on 3 November. I think that it is a six-week consultation. As a starting point, I strongly urge the Scottish National party to make a submission.

[Roger Mullin]

We are aware of that consultation with a snappy title, and it is our understanding that, appropriately, submissions have to be in by St Andrew’s day— 30 November. We intend to make a submission.

[Mr Wallace]

One issue raised in the paper is whether SLPs should be brought within the scope of the directive by including them on the UK’s public company beneficial ownership register, which would go some way to revealing the people behind some of those arrangements. The Government propose that SLPs should be on the register, although we must wait to see the responses to the consultation before we make a final decision. Hopefully my office will be in touch with hon. Members to arrange a meeting to discuss both that and some of the other issues they have raised.

New clause 1 proposes a statutory review of SLPs. The existing discussion paper already provides for interested parties to submit their views on identifying the beneficial owners of SLPs, which is a good first step. I reassure hon. Members that officials and Ministers in multiple Departments are looking closely at the wider issues related to SLPs, and I hope we will have more to say about that on Report. For now, I hope the hon. Gentleman feels suitably encouraged to withdraw his new clause.

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the Minister for his encouraging response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

National Crime Agency: Report on staff training

“Section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is amended as follows, after subsection (7) insert—

‘(8) The National Crime Agency must make an annual report to Parliament on the provision of training to persons under this section.’”.—(Dr Huq.)

This new clause would require the National Crime Agency to make a report to Parliament about the training it provides to its staff in financial investigation and the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Huq]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss

New clause 5—Accredited financial investigators: Recovery of training costs—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to work with enforcement authorities to ensure that enforcement authorities have in place training cost agreements with staff who are trained by the enforcement authority to be accredited financial investigators.

(2) For the purposes of this section

“Enforcement authority” has the same meaning as in section 362A(7) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

“training costs agreement” means an agreement requiring an employee who has been trained as an accredited financial investigator to repay the cost of their training if they voluntarily leave the employment of the enforcement authority within 3 years of their training being completed.

“accredited financial investigators” has the same meaning as in section 47A(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”.

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to work with enforcement agencies to ensure that the agencies have appropriate HR arrangements in place to recover the costs of training accredited financial investigators where the AFI leaves the employment of the agency within 3 years of completing their training.

[Dr Huq]

New clause 2 would ensure that the National Crime Agency makes an annual report to Parliament on the training it provides to enforcement agency staff who are defined under both this Bill and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 as having the power to exercise civil recovery proceedings. We selected the National Crime Agency to be subject to the proposed duty because it is the sole body responsible for the training of other enforcement agencies with such powers under POCA.

Our main reason for wanting to introduce a duty on the National Crime Agency to make an annual report is that new clause 2 is nothing new. All this stuff was in the two influential Select Committee reports—the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the proceeds of crime, and the report by the Public Accounts Committee. The report by the Home Affairs Committee showed that there is a lack of understanding at enforcement level regarding confiscation orders. There is sometimes confusion about where the buck stops.

The Home Affairs Committee report makes it clear that that misunderstanding is manifested in a number of ways, and I will give two quick examples. Some enforcement staff are not aware of their power to exercise civil recovery procedures and/or actions to that end, and confiscation orders are regularly not factored in at the beginning of criminal investigations—that is on page 13 of the report. The Home Affairs Committee alleges that, as a result, criminals regularly have time to hide their assets and that that has contributed to the poor recovery rate of confiscation orders. We know there is a lot wrong with those orders and that a lot of money falls through the cracks. According to the Committee report, as of last year there was a total of £1.6 billion in outstanding debt from confiscation orders.

The Public Accounts Committee also recently reported that administering the orders costs £100 million, yet £175 million was recovered through the orders last year. I am not arguing that that is solely down to staff training or a lack of knowledge among the staff, but the Home Affairs Committee report makes it clear that a number of causal factors contribute to the poor rate of recovery. Those factors include, but are not limited to, the overworked ELMER IT system for suspicious activity reports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East eloquently mentioned that several times in the debate on the Floor of the House. The creaking IT system is overloaded and overworked as it is. I cannot account for where he is now, but I am sure that he will be there when needed. That is one factor. There is also a reluctance among barristers and judges to specialise in asset recovery law, as the Home Affairs Committee report also mentioned. Arguably, there is a lack of specialist confiscation courts.

Obviously, we are not arguing that the amendment would suddenly wave a magic wand to remedy those problems, but building in the audit mechanism through an annual report would allow us to identify weaknesses in the context of training provided by the National Crime Agency. One problem contributing to the poor recovery rate for confiscation orders, as I mentioned earlier, is that they are not factored into the very beginning of criminal procedures. The Minister talked about behaviours. If there were a regular report, we could identify similar behaviours and remedy the problem. In theory, we would increase the rate of recovery. To that end, Labour see the duty to report as being a cost-effective performance enhancer. There is nothing quite like the fear of having to make a statement that must be relayed on the Floor of the House orally or in writing or both, and it would focus the mind on the tasks at hand.

Regular reporting would allow Parliament to assess in real time the necessity of adjusting NCA training—that form of crime and the techniques underpinning it change in real time. Since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000, 16 years ago, we have seen technology change how such evil crimes are effected—hopefully, they are ineffective. To that end, I draw Members’ attention to the debate on whether NCA training should be mainstreamed or extended to new enforcement agencies. Detective Superintendent Clark, head of the economic crime directorate at the City of London Police, has been positive about the idea of mainstreaming National Crime Agency training, so that some of it can be taken over. That is on page 9 of the Home Affairs Committee report.

That level of detail may be for another day, but the point I am trying to make is that regular reports to Government would allow the House to keep a closer eye on the quality and quantity of training provided. The reports could then be factored into more well-informed discussions at a later date about things such as mainstreaming training. Whether or not we are now living in an age of austerity, everyone in this House wants best value for money from our public services, particularly when budgets are tight. When it comes to underperforming services, we can all agree that making institutional or procedural change, rather than just throwing money around in an unfocused way, can help to drive up standards. I believe that regular, up-to-date, detailed reports would provide this and future Governments with the ability to make such changes.

The amendment is not intended to be political; it is technical. I know that the Minister is a reasonable man, and I think that he will agree that it is fair and reasoned. Everyone in the House appreciates the great work done by the NCA on our behalf, but it is only fair that we monitor and have an up-to-date understanding of the training that it provides.

[The Chair]

Dr Huq, would you like to speak to new clause 5 at the same time?

[Dr Huq]

Yes. New clause 5 is simple and does what it says on the tin. We want the Secretary of State to work with the enforcement agencies, using accredited financial investigators, to hammer out some form of agreement whereby if an accredited financial investigator chooses to leave his post within the first three years of qualifying as an AFI, they must repay the cost of training before doing so. There are some figures.

10:45

In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Serious Fraud Office noted:

“Experienced accredited financial investigators with the skills to deal with complex financial crime are scarce within the public sector, and their skills are increasingly attractive to financial institutions in the private sector.”

Since its establishment in 2009, the SFO has employed 15 senior financial investigators. Of those, six have left the SFO and the resulting recruitment campaigns, according to that Home Affairs Committee report, had very “limited success”.

This could be done through, for example, the illicit wealth that they have confiscated or that they have been instrumental in confiscating. The Home Affairs Committee report had some quite startling statistics showing that AFIs are routinely subject to what it described as private-sector poaching. Another alarming feature of the Committee’s report was that AFIs are working for organisations where one could reasonable suspect that their skills may not be put to the most ethical use. I mentioned the other day that some of them have gone over to, for example, the gambling industry—something we do not want to encourage. It is wholly unfair for the state effectively to subsidise their training costs when they then scurry off to the private sector. It is a time of budgetary restraint and belt-tightening: we need to be getting value for money. It is only fair that those who benefit from the state’s generosity should repay it in kind.

Secondly, the Government are wholly aware of this issue. In fact, I believe there was meant to be a working party on recruitment and retention of key financial staff. Whatever happened to that? Sometimes these things get swept under the carpet or become a talking shop, so I would be curious to know what happened to that. It was a Whitehall working paper—we have not heard any concrete suggestions come out of the other end of that about how this problem is to be remedied. The Government’s plan on this is as mysterious and as tightly under wraps as the PM’s plan for Brexit, but let us not be political. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is opposed to this new clause—I would have thought he was a sensible man; it is quite sensible stuff. If he is opposed to it, can he please explain what he will do to stem the poaching of accredited financial investigators?

[Mr Wallace]

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that investigation and prosecution agencies have sufficient expertise and resources to carry out their functions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Section 3 of the Act places a statutory duty on the National Crime Agency to provide a system for the accreditation of financial investigators who use the powers under POCA. This is done through the National Crime Agency’s Proceeds of Crime Centre. The accreditation system includes provision for monitoring performance and, importantly, accreditation can be removed from an investigator who fails to meet the accreditation standards.

The training can be lengthy and expensive. The Home Affairs Committee, during its recent inquiry into asset recovery, identified the risk of the private sector poaching trained resources with the promise of better pay and benefits. It was a good report. I read it in full as well as the Public Accounts Committee report.

The NCA already publishes statistics on the training activities undertaken by the Proceeds of Crime Centre in its annual report. Their last report showed the delivery of 95 training courses, support for 760 delegates through that training, and the completion of 1,400 registrations and re-accreditations. Those statistics are already published annually.

New clause 5 provides for the use of agreements to tie accredited financial investigators to their agencies, so that they would pay the cost of their training if they voluntarily left the employment of the agency that has funded their training. However, these agencies have tried such agreements and found them difficult and costly to enforce. In most cases, the benefits of such agreements are minimal.

Even if an effective and enforceable form of cost training agreement could be found—I do not want to dismiss the idea out of hand today—making it a requirement in primary legislation would not be appropriate. The operational agencies who use financial investigators should be given the freedom to manage their workforce according to their needs.

In line with the hon. Lady’s concerns, the criminal finance board, which I chair with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, commissioned a working group to examine the retention and training of financial investigators. It has not gone away or been swept under the carpet; I assure hon. Members that nothing is swept under the carpet in my Department. There is no conspiracy either—we do not do conspiracies in my Department; we are the conspiracy, according to some. That group is also considering what actions can be taken to incentivise investigators to stay and develop their career within the public sector.

The hon. Lady also referred to ELMER—the database of the suspicious activity reports IT regime. We have committed to replacing the SARs IT regime by October ’18, but in the meantime we have taken steps to upgrade and maintain it as part of the SARs reform package. We have not finished reforming the SARs programme, and before we roll out a new system we need to know what the new suspicious activity reports will look like, because if we are going to have a software database in order to cope with that effectively, we need to know what we are planning to cope with.

I am therefore alive to the issues and will be following the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East. I will visit to look at the system directly; I will have to bring my 1980s computer knowledge up to date to see whether I can remotely understand what I am looking at. I will certainly make sure that it is on because, like the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, it is not my or the Government’s intention for the system to grind to a halt. It is very important.

It is also important that we register that we are keen to make sure that all those people who benefit from that system—not just the Government but the banks and the other people who use it—perhaps make a contribution towards the new system. That is important. It is for their benefit as well for the system to work successfully and efficiently.

I hope that demonstrates to the hon. Lady that I take both matters seriously. I think the training has already been dealt with, because it is published in the National Crime Agency’s annual report. I hope she is inclined to withdraw her motion on that basis.

[Dr Huq]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Annual reporting: Adequacy of resources

“(1) In Part 12 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (miscellaneous and general), after section 455, insert—

“455A Annual reports on resources

(1) A relevant authority must, no later than 1 June in each calendar year, prepare an annual report on the adequacy of the resources available from money voted by Parliament for the exercise of any functions of that authority—

(a) under this Act;

(b) in connection with investigations into terrorist financing offences under the Terrorism Act 2000;

(c) under Part 3 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017.

(2) In this section, “a relevant authority” means—

(a) the National Crime Agency;

(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(c) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, and

(d) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

(3) The reports prepared in accordance with subsection (1) shall be sent—

(a) in the case of the National Crime Agency, to the Secretary of State;

(b) in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, to the Attorney General, and

(c) in the case of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(4) The person receiving annual reports in accordance with subsection (3) must lay those reports before each House of Parliament in the form in which they were received no later than 30 June in the same calendar year, together with a statement on plans for future resources to be provided from money voted by Parliament.”.”.—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause would require the National Crime Agency and other agencies to report annually to Parliament on the adequacy of its resource to fulfil its functions relating to combating financial crime.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Peter Dowd]

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

This is not a technical clause. It goes to the heart of transparency of resources for the enforcement agencies concerned. It is crucial that they are adequately funded, given the nature of the task that they are dealing with. They are chasing billions of pounds of evaded tax in relation to crime, with a particular emphasis on concerns around terrorism, and it is therefore perfectly legitimate for Parliament to be directly reported to on the adequacy of resources. That is the starting pitch.

In the evidence session, I, along with other Members, in particular the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, as I recall, asked many questions of witnesses about the resources available to law enforcement agencies. To Detective Superintendent Harman, who heads the national terrorist financial investigation unit at the Met, the hon. Lady asked:

“Are you confident that the enforcement agencies will have sufficient resources to make full use of the new powers in the Bill?”––[Official Report, Criminal Finances Public Bill Committee, 15 November 2016; c. 9, Q8.]

“Yes” was the response from the police officer and the witness accompanying him. I have to say, it is a pleasure to have the police helping us with our inquiries, rather than the other way around.

Clearly, the adequacy of resources goes to the heart of the ability of enforcement agencies to stamp out and tackle abuse within the financial sectors, particularly that which is linked to crime and terrorism. It is self-evident that, if the resources are not there, or if they are not used forensically and wisely, the agencies concerned will certainly not fulfil the intention of the Bill. It is worth reminding hon. Members of the intention of the Bill, as set out in the explanatory notes—I alluded to this in the evidence sessions last week—namely,

“to give law enforcement agencies, and partners, the capabilities and powers to recover the proceeds of crime, tackle money laundering and corruption, and counter terrorist financing.”

It is fair to say the Government could not be any more plain on this matter. The measure is, after all, the Criminal Finances Bill, so the clue is in the title. Given that we all agree with the Government’s intention as set out in the overview of the Bill—in the section relating to its mission—it is incumbent upon us to establish whether the resources are available to effect that good and laudable intention, notwithstanding the view expressed by the superintendent and his colleagues that they felt that they had enough money.

One way of holding the Government to account is to ensure that those intentions are backed up with the wherewithal to carry them out through a parliamentary annual review, given the crucial nature of these issues. All those who were asked about the adequacy of the resources to do the job agreed that the intention of the Bill was sound, and I do not dispute that. However, aside from the enforcement agencies themselves, which felt that they had enough to do the job—I am not sure whether that was in hope rather than in expectation—it is fair to say that most of the other witnesses’ enthusiasm for that element of the equation was not quite as clear-cut, although I would stand corrected and am challengeable on that.

For illustration purposes, Members may recall that when I asked the witnesses representing the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies at the Royal United Services Institute, Corruption Watch, Global Witness and Transparency International a question about whether they felt that—in their experience—the resources were available to do the job, there was a bit of a tumbleweed moment, with sideways looks at one another. I read the clear body language—and you do not have to be an experienced psychologist to have spotted it—that in their experience they felt that there clearly were not enough resources, and that they felt that that would hinder the enforcement agencies in doing their job. In response to the question from my hon. Friend for Ealing Central and Acton about the adequacy of resources, the director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies Mr Keatinge said:

“Resourcing is clearly a major issue. Cynically, one of the reasons for involving the private sector is to harness it to do some of the work…I do not believe we have the resources that we need.” ––[Official Report, Criminal Finances Public Bill Committee, 15 November 2016; c. 69-70, Q150.]

I accept that that is a view, but it is a view that has been reached after asking expert witnesses. We at least have to listen to them and take on board some of the concerns that they had. Moreover, when I followed up with the representative from the Metropolitan Police Authority, the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs Council earlier the response to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, I felt that they had begun to row back a little on their unequivocal answer to the hon. Lady.

That is why it is paramount that the professionals, and those whose day to day job is to tackle financial crime adequately, are adequately equipped with the resources to do the job. That is why we have to challenge them, and it is our responsibility to challenge them. In a sense, it is Parliament’s responsibility to challenge the Government and the Executive, and one of the best ways of doing that is for the information to be reported directly, rather than articulated through some sort of pontifical process to Parliament. I can inform Members now—I do not think I have to, but I will—that the people the law enforcement agencies are trying to catch are ahead of the game in relation to the crimes that they are committing, and we need to ensure that the enforcement agencies have the resources to do the job.

A clear example of where annual reporting would be effective is in the oversight of the IT system for SARs, which I know the Minister has referred to as being revamped or changed. As far as I am aware, ELMER is designed to process up to 20,000 suspicious activity reports; it is currently processing up to 381,000 of them. Of those, only 15,000 are looked at in detail, as was noted in the Home Affairs Committee’s fifth report of the 2016-17 Session, “Proceeds of crime”. That raises the question of whether reporting that many SARs is simply over the top, and borne out of caution on the part of banks. If so, then that approach wastes a good deal of time for those doing the reporting, and for the receiving agencies, who have to search through the haystack. Alternatively, if the reporting numbers are, to all intents and purposes, a reasonable reflection of concern that has reached a mutually agreed threshold, that raises another question: why are so many reports being ignored, brushed aside or not acted on? The Minister has reassured us that they are not under his office carpet.

11:00

The next question, unsurprisingly, is whether there is a resource deficit that dare not speak its name, especially for witnesses from one of the enforcement agencies that kindly gave evidence to us last week. It is not unreasonable to suggest that, as a result of the Government’s funding levels, SARs are now seen by many private regulators and bodies as a box-ticking exercise that underperforms, at the very least. I recall some witnesses alluding to that. Although the Government have committed to replacing the system, annual reporting to Parliament would ensure that its replacement is effective. If that had been instituted earlier, no doubt it would have shown up the inadequacies of the system, but we are where we are.

It is up to the Minister to take us where we would all like to be. We need well resourced agencies that are able to deliver the tasks set out for them in the Bill. Ultimately, the new clause would allow Parliament to hold the Government to account, through annual reports from professionals and experts on the ground, on their funding of enforcement agencies, and on the impact of that funding on the ability to prevent and disrupt attempts to hide the proceeds of crime. Given the seriousness of the issue we face—the loss of billions of pounds to the Exchequer—that is not too big an ask of the Government.

[Mr Wallace]

In my response to the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton on new clauses 2 and 5, I explained what we are doing to assess the capacity and capability of investigator resource. The new tools in the Bill are a key part of strengthening our response to economic crime. The Government continue to invest in law enforcement agencies through the asset recovery incentivisation scheme, which returns recovered assets back to the frontline. A top-slice of £5 million has been set aside every year until the end of this Parliament to fund key national asset recovery capabilities, and I can announce today that we are going further. We made a manifesto commitment to return a greater percentage of recovered assets to policing, and we are implementing that commitment by investing in policing the whole Home Office share of amounts above a certain baseline collected by the multi-agency regional asset recovery teams. That will give the agencies greater financial resources, if performance continues to increase—100% of the Home Office share, rather than the 50% that they currently get. There we are: an announcement in a Bill Committee—a new way of venturing forward.

Let us be honest: I say to the hon. Member for Bootle that in Government, we never have enough resources across all our priorities, because different priorities are preyed on by events such as flooding in the west of England, or issues for the Home Office such as a surge in terrorism. I therefore question the use of the word “adequacy” in the new clause. We can scrutinise accounts or budgets, but asking a police officer whether he feels he has enough is like asking, “How long is a piece of string?” Of course we never have enough for crime fighting across the country. If I had millions of pounds, I could find things to spend that money on immediately, and so could every Member in this Committee Room.

I am concerned about whether it would be right and fair to publish a report to Parliament, as the new clause demands. The agencies that use their powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act already report on their resources and results through the departmental annual accounts, which are subject to scrutiny from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The use of criminal justice tools and powers is also subject to scrutiny by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and, in the case of terrorism legislation, by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The criminal finances board also closely monitors performance and resourcing issues. I hope that the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton, and for Bootle, can see that there is already significant scrutiny of resourcing. I invite the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton to withdraw the motion.

[Dr Huq]

I was interested to hear a groundbreaking announcement in this Committee. I completely get the Minister’s point that we will never feel satiated, and that there will always be inadequacy, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle made a really powerful case. He mentioned SARs and the ELMER IT regime. Originally, 20,000 SARs were anticipated, but there are now 381,882—my hon. Friend said there were “up to” 381,000 of them, but there are even more, and the figure is rising.

I want to mention the NCA’s ability to cope with the greater workload. It takes an increasing length of time to get investigations into the courts. We have heard that it could take more than 200 days, with the new SARs regime. The NCA was created as a successor to several different organisations. The budget of those it replaced was £812 million, but the NCA’s new annual budget was £474 million. Those figures put the situation into context. The Government have cut that budget even further since the NCA’s creation; it received £411 million in 2015-16. I accept that there was a one-off £200 million cash injection last year, but the agency needs steady long-term funding to carry out its functions effectively. It is no good just sprinkling blockbuster sums now and then; it needs a consistent funding model.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle made some powerful points. For effective crime fighting, we should not have agencies that are overworked and under-resourced. The announcement that 100% of assets will go to the Home Office conflicts with an amendment that we have tabled.

[Mr Wallace]

Not the Home Office; it is going to the law-enforcement agencies.

[Dr Huq]

Okay, so it is within the system. We have tabled new clause 20, which is about repatriating assets to the jurisdictions they came from. Some charities—Christian Aid and all those people—are saying that third-world health budgets get robbed when someone buys a house in Hampstead with such proceeds. Are we going to—

[The Chair]

Would the hon. Lady please face the Chair?

[Dr Huq]

I think we will press the new clause to a vote.

[Richard Arkless]

I would like to make a very small point about the Minister’s comments on new clause 3. He rightly suggests that if we were to ask any police officer or public servant whether they had enough resources, the answer would clearly always be no, but the new clause does not seem like a generic question about whether there is enough generally. The hon. Member for Bootle is asking whether adequate resources are available for specific functions to be exercised under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. That is a marked departure from asking any Department the generic question, “Have you got enough, guv?”, to which we would almost certainly know the answer. The new clause is about activities undertaken under the Act, and I do not think it is fair to categorise the suggestion as the Minister did.

[Mr Wallace]

Perhaps I can clarify some of the issues. Obviously the word “adequate” is subjective. We heard evidence in Committee from members of the law enforcement agencies, and they did use the word “enough”. My point is that we scrutinise the accounts in this place, and then compare that with agencies’ performance and outcomes. That is how we come to a decision—subjective, often—on whether there are adequate resources. It is not necessary to put that in primary legislation.

Perhaps I could clarify for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton the issues around asset recovery and where those funds go. At the moment, if we recover assets from drug dealers, for example, the money is split, with 50% going to the Home Office, and 50% to the Crown Prosecution Service and all the other agencies—the National Crime Agency or the police—involved in that operation, so that they can invest it in their capabilities, and use it to increase their ability to fight crime. I can say today that further to our manifesto commitment, in future, instead of having that 50% of the cake, they will be able to keep 100% of the amount coming in above the baseline, which was set in 2015, if I am not mistaken. They have a very strong incentive to ensure that they are rewarded for their good work, and to make sure that we go after big sums as well as small. That is important.

On the point the hon. Lady raised about returning money that is stolen—we will come back to this—we sent back £27 million to Macau recently. Where we identify the ownership of stolen assets that we can return to a foreign country or wherever, we will, and we have already done that. My colleague the Minister for Immigration signed a memorandum of understanding with the Nigerian Government in August to make it even easier for us to return stolen property or assets to a country’s people. It is absolutely our intention to do that.

Across the money laundering piece, we can identify the owners of certain assets and take steps to return them. Other assets that accrue because of the high margins in the illicit trade of, say, drugs may be harder to return. In fact, the people who contributed to those sums may have committed a crime themselves, so there is a difference there. I recently saw in Mombasa some confiscated stuff that we will be returning, as soon as we can get through the paperwork. It is not our intention to divvy up the proceeds from the house in Knightsbridge and hand them all over to the National Crime Agency, and rob the third country from which the money was stolen.

[Dr Huq]

I wanted clarification on just one other thing. The Home Affairs Committee report wanted ELMER replaced by the end of December. Am I right in thinking that the Minister referred to October 2018?

[Mr Wallace]

2018.

[Dr Huq]

So it will not be December?

[Mr Wallace]

No. As I said earlier, we have spent money updating and making sure that ELMER is maintained, but we are also in the process of drawing up a SAR reform policy. There are a number of reasons why there are so many referrals—380,000-odd—but the Bill will hopefully cut that number. We want quality, not quantity. At the moment, we are getting quantity, partly because in the suspicious activity regime, if a body makes the report, its defence is halfway there—that is the tick-box bit that is highlighted in the report. Also, many institutions currently report a fragment of the transactions, because they say that they are unable to report the complete transaction due to data-sharing barriers. That is why this Bill removes those barriers. Hopefully, instead of 15 pieces of a transaction being reported as 15 separate SARs, we will get one, because one institution will be able to report the transaction from beginning to end.

We are already taking steps to reduce demand on the system. The system is working; people should not think it has stopped working. The challenge is the analysis, and making sure that we act on the suspicious reports and are quick enough to discard the ones that are not, because we want quality, not quantity.

This time last year, we agreed a £200 million capital improvement budget for the National Crime Agency between 2016 and 2020. That is a huge sum of money for it to spend on a whole range of capital projects to bring them up-to-date. We all have lessons to learn—Labour Governments and Conservative Governments—from rushing into IT replacement projects that cost much more than anyone envisaged. It is therefore important we get the new SARs regime right before we replace the system. I assure hon. Members that that is at the forefront of my mind. We are not going to fall over—that is the main thing—and we will make sure that when we replace it, we do so with the right system, so that we are not all back in this Committee Room in a few years’ time saying, “The SARs regime is not working.” I hope that clarifies the point for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton.

11:15

[Peter Dowd]

I started by talking about Parliament being able to have reports from the agencies concerned, given the seriousness of the issue facing us. The Minister, reasonably, told us that 100% of the proceeds will go to the appropriate agencies and be divvied up as appropriate. I completely accept that, in good faith, and repeat the point made earlier: that he is a reasonable man. I do not challenge the Minister’s reasonableness; my challenge is based on the fact that Parliament, given the nature of this issue, is perfectly entitled to receive reports from agencies—no doubt articulated through the Departments in some fashion—on their resources. A definition of “adequacy” is that something is proportionate, or sufficient for its purpose. That is a matter for Parliament to discuss. It will not necessarily be able to do anything other than discuss it, but the discussion may produce views and experiences for the Minister to consider.

As to the Minister’s point that this is not something to go into primary legislation, about this time last year I was on the Committee that for 17 sittings considered the Housing and Planning Bill. There were all sorts of things in that Bill far less important to the health and integrity of the nation. Indeed, in the past, local government Acts—primary legislation—have even included provisions on how many hours off a person in one local authority can have, compared with a person in another. Primary legislation can be used in a range of ways. It is for the Government of the day to say, “We have nothing to fear from the reports coming before Parliament, from openness and transparency, or from challenge.”

[Mr Wallace]

Anyone who is a victim of financial crime takes that crime incredibly seriously; the same goes for victims of violent crime. The National Crime Agency has a number of threats to deal with, including drugs, firearms, child sexual exploitation, financial crime and foreign national offenders. Our police forces deal with a range of threats. Are we to say, on the principle that the hon. Gentleman has set out, that primary legislation should require our law enforcement agencies to produce a report every year, under each heading across the whole range of crime, on whether they believe they have adequate funding to do their job? If so, I envisage that our law enforcement agencies will be full of people doing reports all year, arguing about whether resourcing is “adequate”, and submitting them to Parliament, rather than getting on and prosecuting the people we need prosecuted.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a fair point, but we know that, every day, Parliament debates issues that are far less important for the body politic, security and the safety of the country. The point that I am trying to make is that the issue is of great importance and significance. It is so different in degree as to be different in kind. My hon. Friends and I therefore say that Parliament should have this opportunity. This is not a technical proposal. I repeat that, given the nature of the threat to the country, and the importance that people place on the safety of the country, we would like the report to be made to Parliament.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 1

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 3
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

New Clause 6

Failure to prevent financial crime

‘(1) A relevant body (B) is guilty of an offence if a person commits a criminal financial offence when acting in the capacity of a person associated with (B).

(2) It is a defence for B to prove that, when the criminal financial offence was committed—

(a) B had in place such prevention procedures as it was reasonable in all the circumstances to expect B to have in place, or

(b) it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to expect B to have any prevention procedures in place.

(3) In subsection (2) “prevention procedures” means procedures designed to prevent persons acting in the capacity of a person associated with B from committing criminal financial offences.

(4) For the purposes of this clause—

“criminal financial offence” means one of the following offences—

(a) an offence under section 1, 6 or 7 of the Fraud Act 2006;

(b) an offence under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968;

(c) an offence under section 327, 328 and 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;

(d) a common law offence of conspiracy to defraud;

“relevant body” has the same meaning as in section 36.

(5) A relevant body guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine,

(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether—

(a) any relevant conduct of a relevant body, or

(b) any conduct which constitutes part of a relevant criminal financial offence

takes place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause would create a corporate offence of failing to prevent financial crime.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Peter Dowd]

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

The new clause would create a corporate offence of failing to prevent financial crime. It would compel the financial services industry to take greater steps to stamp out financial crime, and to tackle tax evasion and other economic crimes. At the heart of the new clause is the need for a level playing field, and to end the impunity that many large global organisations have enjoyed, whereby directors have plausible deniability if they are not involved in decisions taken at a lower level by employees.

The 2015 Conservative party manifesto stated:

“We are...making it a crime if companies fail to put in place measures to stop economic crime, such as tax evasion, in their organisations and making sure that the penalties are large enough to punish and deter.”

At the UK anti-corruption summit on 12 May this year, the Government announced that the Ministry of Justice would consult on an extension of

“the criminal offence of a corporate ‘failing to prevent’ beyond bribery and tax evasion to other economic crimes.”

They acknowledged that law enforcement struggles

“to prosecute corporations for money laundering, false accounting, and fraud under existing common laws.”

As far as I am aware, no consultation has been announced; it appears that the consultation is likely to have been downgraded to a call for evidence, bringing further delay and sending the wrong message.

The Opposition are always willing to assist the Government where it is sensible and in the interests of the country to do so. The new clause would enable the Government to fulfil their manifesto promise, which I know is dear to the hearts of every Government Member; I know that they recite the manifesto with catechistic fervour before, during and after meetings of the 1922 committee. The Minister will sleep easier knowing that he has delivered his part of the schedule ahead of time. I expect Government Members will want to fulfil the UK summit’s commitment before the parliamentary calendar becomes clogged up with Brexit-related measures. The Prime Minister has promised to deliver an economy in which everybody plays by the same rules.

UK corporate liability laws rely on a “directing mind” test, which requires prosecutors to prove that senior board level executives intended misconduct to occur. This moves the focus of attention away from the bigger fishes, and on to small and medium-sized enterprises, where directors are more involved and can therefore be more easily prosecuted—quite rightly, if appropriate. This was a concern of some of the witnesses. The system undermines corporate governance by creating perverse incentives to keep boards in the dark about decisions that may lead to misconduct. Several recent major scandals, including LIBOR and Euribor, have resulted in no prosecutions against companies owing to the current corporate liability regime.

Where individuals have been prosecuted under conspiracy to defraud, they have argued that their actions were condoned and encouraged by their employers. However, the Serious Fraud Office has not charged any of the employers concerned, which include Barclays, UBS and Deutsche Bank, and not a single UK financial institution faced criminal charges as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. A “failure to prevent” offence for fraud and conspiracy to defraud would have enabled such prosecutions. Similarly, in 2015 the SFO was forced to drop its case against Olympus after the Court of Appeal found that it was not illegal under current corporate liability laws for companies to mislead their auditors. This was also the case in 2015, when the CPS stated that because of corporate liability laws, it could not mount a successful prosecution against the companies in the phone hacking scandal, which included some of the largest tabloid newspapers in the UK. Although the new clause would not specifically address the phone hacking case, it highlights the urgent need for broader corporate liability reform.

The Government also need to tackle the facilitators of corruption.

11:24

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Criminal Finances Bill (Sixth sitting)

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †Mrs Anne Main, Sir Alan Meale

† Arkless, Richard (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)

† Atkins, Victoria (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)

† Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

† Davies, Byron (Gower) (Con)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† Drummond, Mrs Flick (Portsmouth South) (Con)

† Elphicke, Charlie (Dover) (Con)

Ghani, Nusrat (Wealden) (Con)

† Griffiths, Andrew (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Harris, Carolyn (Swansea East) (Lab)

† Hunt, Tristram (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)

† Huq, Dr Rupa (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

† Mann, Scott (North Cornwall) (Con)

† Mullin, Roger (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)

† Sandbach, Antoinette (Eddisbury) (Con)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester East) (Lab)

† Wallace, Mr Ben (Minister for Security)

† Wood, Mike (Dudley South) (Con)

Colin Lee, Ben Williams, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 22 November 2016

(Afternoon)

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

Criminal Finances Bill

New Clause 6

Failure to prevent financial crime

‘(1) A relevant body (B) is guilty of an offence if a person commits a criminal financial offence when acting in the capacity of a person associated with (B).

(2) It is a defence for B to prove that, when the criminal financial offence was committed—

(a) B had in place such prevention procedures as it was reasonable in all the circumstances to expect B to have in place, or

(b) it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to expect B to have any prevention procedures in place.

(3) In subsection (2) “prevention procedures” means procedures designed to prevent persons acting in the capacity of a person associated with B from committing criminal financial offences.

(4) For the purposes of this clause—

“criminal financial offence” means one of the following offences—

(a) an offence under section 1, 6 or 7 of the Fraud Act 2006;

(b) an offence under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968;

(c) an offence under section 327, 328 and 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;

(d) a common law offence of conspiracy to defraud;

“relevant body” has the same meaning as in section 36.

(5) A relevant body guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine,

(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether—

(a) any relevant conduct of a relevant body, or

(b) any conduct which constitutes part of a relevant criminal financial offence

takes place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause would create a corporate offence of failing to prevent financial crime.

Brought up, read the First time, and motion made (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.

14:00

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

This morning I was indicating that the Government also need to tackle the facilitators of corruption—by that, I mean those institutions that fail to conduct due diligence on their clients. The UK anti-corruption summit committed countries to pursuing and punishing those who facilitate corruption, and the new clause reaffirms Britain’s commitment to do so.

The failure to include such measures in the Bill will lead to many of our partners accusing us of hypocrisy and double standards; it will severely damage our prestige abroad, or will have the potential to damage our prestige abroad; and it will undermine our reputation. I find it perplexing, as do many others, that not a single bank has yet been criminally prosecuted for handling the proceeds of corruption, despite the fact that they may have been fined for doing so. This is not just about banks, but about some of the people in the banks—that is the important thing to take away. My constituency is similar to those of other Members, in that as well as having lots of local branches, Santander has 2,000 people based there. I am certainly not in the business of pointing the finger at everybody in the banking sector—it is important to make that point.

In March 2012, Coutts was fined £8.75 million by the Financial Conduct Authority for serious systemic failings that resulted in “an unacceptable risk” that Coutts had handled the proceeds of crime, yet despite that fine, in April 2016 Swiss authorities investigated whether money from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal had ended up in Coutts’ bank accounts, which suggests that regulatory action alone is an insufficient deterrent against laundering corrupt proceeds. From that instance, it is clear that an extension of a failure to prevent money laundering offence would significantly enhance the scope for criminal sanctions.

We should not forget that the cost of fraud and money laundering greatly exceeds the cost of tax evasion. In 2016, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimated the tax gap to be £36 billion, of which tax evasion accounted for £5.2 billion. Some witnesses last week believed it to be higher. In May 2016 the annual fraud indicator put the cost of fraud to the UK economy at £193 billion. The cost to the public sector is £37.5 billion, with procurement fraud costing as much as £10.5 billion a year. We are talking about significant figures, which is why we need significant action. I am pleased that the Government are taking significant action but we want to push them further. The National Crime Agency estimates that billions of pounds of suspected proceeds of crime are laundered through the UK every year. That money, if accounted for, would be more than enough to help fund a whole range of services in the country.

The Crime and Courts Act 2013 specifies that certain economic crimes, which include fraud, money laundering and false accounting, as well as bribery and tax evasion, can be dealt with by way of a deferred prosecution agreement. The absence of an extension to a failure-to-prevent offence to the other economic crime offences listed in the Act results in a disparity in how different economic crimes, which all cause significant damage to the taxpayer, can be dealt with by prosecutors.

New clause 6 would also improve corporate governance. Companies are already subject to criminal law for all the additional offences listed in the amendment, although currently on the basis of the “directing mind” test. In addition, companies are required under FCA regulations to have effective systems and controls in place to prevent themselves being used to further financial crime, including money laundering.

At the end of the day, we are trying to get the message across to the Government. Mostly, in broad terms and in specific situations, the Government have got that message, but it is the duty of the Opposition to push the boundary a bit more where we feel that the Government have not acted as forcefully as they could, in the light of what I have just said about scale, and in the light of the comments we heard from our witnesses last week.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

We broadly support new clause 6, tabled by the Opposition, which seeks to extend corporate financial crime beyond the provisions in the Bill as drafted—beyond tax evasion and bribery. We are generally supportive. It is worth mentioning the point made by the hon. Gentleman that the provisions in new clause 6(4) defining a criminal financial offence are at the moment corporate offences that require the directing mind to be present. To my mind, the new clause would merely remove the directing mind provision from those offences.

We broadly support the new clause, but I question subsection (2)(b), which states that a defence could be that

“it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to expect B to have any prevention procedures in place.”

Although the provision seeks to catch other offences, it strikes me that the bank or organisation would merely need to demonstrate that it was not reasonable to have prevention procedures in place. To my mind, that defeats the purpose of extending the offence so widely. Nevertheless, we broadly support the new clause, and I would like to hear from the Minister about the Government’s inclination, if not to accept new clause 6, then to recognise that, at some future point, corporate financial crime could be extended beyond the provisions agreed in the Bill.

Another way of framing new clause 6 would be to codify specifically the exact offences within the three Acts. That might have negated the need for subsection (2)(b), which strikes me as a direct negative that might defeat the purpose. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the thought process, but generally speaking we support extending corporate financial crime, and are provisionally minded to agree to and support the new clause.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Main. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle made an excellent speech. New clause 6 is supported by Amnesty International, CAFOD, Corruption Watch, Global Witness, ONE, Rights and Accountability in Development, Tax Justice Network, The Corner House, Traidcraft and Transparency International UK. Those are some heavyweight organisations. Before we adjourned, my hon. Friend asked what happened to the consultation promised at the anti-corruption summit. I would be interested to hear the answer.

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

New clause 6 highlights an issue raised on a number of occasions when we heard from interested parties about the Bill last week. I am pleased that the Opposition have tabled it, because it allows me to restate that the Government appreciate those concerns and agree that the damage caused by economic crime facilitated by those working for major companies is serious and affects individuals, businesses and the wider economy, and indeed the reputation of the United Kingdom as a place to do business.

As the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton is aware, the Labour Government took action in the Bribery Act 2010 in respect of bribery committed in pursuit of corporate business objectives. The Act is widely respected as both a sound enforcement tool and a measure incentivising bribery prevention as part of good corporate governance. We have already debated the new corporate offence of failure to prevent tax evasion created in the Bill. The provisions followed a process of extensive consultation, as did the Bribery Act 2010. I trust that hon. Members will agree that such an approach is necessary when considering the adequacy of the existing legal framework in matters involving complex legal and policy issues.

In respect of the current law governing corporate criminal liability for economic crime, the Government announced that a consultation would take place in May this year. I confirm that we will publish a call for evidence on the subject. In keeping with the considered and methodical approach adopted for the reforms on bribery and tax evasion, the call for evidence will form part of a two-part consultation process. It will openly request and examine evidence for and against the case for reform and seek views on a number of possible options. Should the responses that we receive justify changes to the law, the Government will then consult on firm proposals. The Government believe that it would be wrong to rush into legislation in this area for the reasons I have given. In the light of my assurances and the forthcoming publication of the call for evidence, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Peter Dowd]

As I have said, the job of the Opposition is to push the issue as much as we can. As to what the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said about subsection (2), the reality is that we are building into the new clause the capacity for someone to defend themselves, but not stating categorically, “Someone commits an offence if this happens.” There is room for manoeuvre, which is only right. However, in the light of what the Minister has said and the assurance he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Unexplained wealth orders: reporting requirements

‘In Chapter 2 of Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, after section 362H insert—

“362HA Unexplained wealth orders: reporting requirements

(1) The Secretary of State must make an annual report to Parliament setting out the number of unexplained wealth orders applied for by enforcement agencies under section 362A of this Act (and by Scottish Ministers under section 396A of this Act) during the previous 12 month period.

(2) The report must also provide information in respect of each unexplained wealth order about—

(a) the value of property subject to the order,

(b) whether the respondent was—

(i) a politically exposed person,

(ii) a person involved in serious crime (whether in a part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere)

(c) whether the order was granted,

(d) the value of the property reclaimed as a result of the order.

(3) For the purposes of this section “enforcement agencies” has the same meaning as in subsection 362A(7).”’—(Tristram Hunt.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament about the number of unexplained wealth orders made each year.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 2

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

New Clause 14

Public register of beneficial ownership of UK property by companies registered outside the UK

‘(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the purposes of

(a) the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and

(b) Part 3 of this Act

to establish, within 6 months of the commencement of section 1 of this Act, a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of UK property by companies registered in non-UK jurisdictions.

(2) In 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.”’—(Tristram Hunt.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of UK property by foreign companies within 6 months of the commencement of this Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

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

The purpose of new clause 14 is to require the Secretary of State to establish a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of UK property by foreign companies within six months of the commencement of the Act. That is another helpful intervention to support the Minister in his work.

As I read in The Observer on Sunday, money launderers use anonymous offshore companies to acquire properties in the UK with the proceeds of crime. That became evident from the Panama papers. More than 2,800 secret companies set up by Mossack Fonseca held 6,000 Land Registry titles in the UK with combined historical costs in excess of £7 billion. In London alone more than 40,000 properties —one in every 10 in the borough of Westminster—are owned by offshore companies with unknown beneficiaries. There is not only an impact on housing costs in the capital, which can, indeed, spread to St Albans, Mrs Main, but a fear about money laundering and the hiding of finance through the use of London property essentially as a reserve currency.

Requiring offshore companies holding property titles in the UK to declare their beneficiaries would be fully in line with the legal obligations of UK companies to disclose persons with significant control, which came into effect in June. Requiring the Government to set up a public register of the persons with significant control of non-UK corporations holding properties and other assets, or PSCs willing to do business in the UK, will naturally tie the two purposes together: the commitment to lift offshore secrecy; and the passing of the Bill with the aim of the eradication of money laundering in the UK. It will build on exactly what the Minister suggested with reference to the former Prime Minister’s anti-corruption speech in Singapore, and the anti-corruption summit. I hope the Minister will agree to the new clause.

[Mr Wallace]

At the London corruption summit earlier this year, the Government announced that we plan to create a beneficial ownership register of overseas companies that own or wish to purchase property in the United Kingdom. The Government remain committed to delivering that policy and are developing the detail of how the register will work before we issue a call for evidence in the coming months. Our intention is to bring forward legislation to provide a statutory basis for the register in due course and as soon as possible.

The UK leads the world in corporate transparency. That is a position that the UK Government are rightly proud of: we are the first in the G20 to have started a public register of beneficial ownership. We should build on that position, and I am determined that we complete what we started at the summit.

The proposal is that the register will apply throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. That is important to ensure that control of companies owning land is transparent wherever in the UK the land is. However, Scotland and Northern Ireland have different land registration requirements from England and Wales, which makes the drafting of the legislation more complex. The Government therefore believe that it is important to spend time to get the policy and its implementation correct, and to consult on the policy before legislating.

14:16

The UK property market is attractive to overseas investors and we must ensure that it remains so for legitimate investment. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, his earlier support and the meeting we had last week. I joined him in reading his article in The Observer over the weekend—that makes two readers of The Observer, a double demerit of the readership in that respect—

[Peter Dowd]

Three!

[Mr Wallace]

It is getting higher—we will be getting into double figures for The Observer’s readership if we are not careful.

The best time to examine the register is when we have had a full consultation. We have worked closely with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that we get it right. As the Scottish National party has pointed out, things such as Scottish limited partnerships were set up often for landowners to avoid ownership obligations way back in 1907, if I am not mistaken. Therefore, legislating is easier said than done, and we want to ensure that we get it right so that there are no loopholes or areas in which people can hide in the shadows, which might happen if we rushed it. We want to ensure that public means public. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the Minister for his response. I understand that such a register throws up legal complexities and matters to do with the interrelationship between the English property market and legal system and the Scottish and Welsh ones. That is why it should be a UK-wide process. I am willing to admit that six months might seem a little aggressive in terms of the full publication of the register. The Minister said “in due course” and “as soon as possible”. On Report, perhaps he will give us slightly greater clarity about the commitment with which the Government are approaching the register. I very much welcome his enthusiasm. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Failure to prevent facilitation of tax evasion offences: exclusion from public procurement

‘(1) In section 57 of the Public Contract Regulations 2015 after paragraph 3(b) insert—

“(c) the contracting authority is aware that the economic operator is a body that has been convicted of an offence under section 37 or 38 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017.”’—(Tristram Hunt.)

This new clause would ensure that companies convicted of failure to prevent a tax evasion facilitation offence are excluded from public procurement.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tristram Hunt]

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

The new clause builds on new clause 6, which we looked at earlier. Exclusion is the key means of incentivising good corporate governance. The threat of exclusion from public procurement is known to be one that companies fear more than fines. Making the new offences subject to exclusion would ensure that companies take preventing such offences seriously. The UK’s anti-corruption summit committed to excluding corrupt bidders from public procurement contracts, so it is important that companies that facilitate tax evasion are similarly excluded.

Under the Public Contract Regulations 2015, public authorities must exclude companies found to be in breach of their obligations related to the payment of taxes. Unless the Bill specifies whether the new offences under clauses 37 and 38 will constitute such a breach, the Crown Commercial Service, which is often narrow in its approach, is unlikely to consider that they do. The purpose of the new clause therefore is to urge Ministers to ensure that the Crown Commercial Service understands there to be a breach in that context.

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling his new clause because it allows us to cover another important element of the tax evasion offence we debated earlier. I also thank him for meeting me to discuss those proposals.

New clause 15 would create mandatory exclusion from public contracts of a relevant body convicted of an offence under part 3 of the Bill. I fully agree that, where an organisation has been convicted under the new offences and grave professional misconduct has taken place, it should be possible to exclude that organisation from public contracts.

I am pleased to say that existing law already allows for that by virtue of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which allow for the exclusion of a body from a public contract

“where the contracting authority can demonstrate by appropriate means that the economic operator is guilty of grave professional misconduct, which renders its integrity questionable”.

That is quite a low threshold if you ask me; nevertheless, it allows us to do it. I know the hon. Gentleman will be interested in this part, because it is a European angle to his proposal. I am advised that it is not possible lawfully to include a new mandatory exclusion under regulation 57, as proposed by the amendment. Regulation 57 contains a list of offences based on the six categories set out in the EU public contracts directive. The categories outlined in the directive are exhaustive. Case law indicates that member states are not free to add new additional grounds for exclusion to those set out in the directive.

[Peter Dowd]

Not yet.

[Mr Wallace]

I hope the Committee is satisfied that, where there has been grave professional misconduct by an organisation convicted under the new offences, contracting authorities will have the discretion to exclude them from public contracts.

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the Minister for his answer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle quietly alluded, this might be something we will have to look at again amid the welter of opportunities—count them!—thrown up by Brexit. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

As a result of European regulations, I am willing to accept the Minister’s point. On Report, will he say whether we could have included in the statistical bulletins on unexplained wealth orders and other elements of the Bill an account of any corporations excluded from public procurement as a result? Is there a statistical account of whether any companies have fallen foul of the measure? Could we gain some account of that?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s idea, which I think is a good one. I will certainly try to ensure it is released in any statistical bulletins. When the Bill is up and running, I would like to know as much as he would how many people are precluded from public procurement practices.

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the Minister. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Failure to prevent facilitation of tax evasion offences: reporting

‘The Secretary of State must make an annual report to Parliament containing the number of prosecutions brought and convictions made under section 37 and 38 of this Act.’ —(Tristram Hunt.)

This new clause would require that the Secretary of State reports annually on the number of prosecutions brought and convictions made for failure to prevent the facilitation of UK and foreign tax evasion offences.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tristram Hunt]

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

The new clause would

“require the Secretary of State reports annually on the number of prosecutions brought and convictions made for failure to prevent the facilitation of UK and foreign tax evasion offences.”

That is connected to an earlier new clause about culture change within Government to ensure the right degree of ministerial push and importance given to the implementation of the Bill, and to ensure that attention is given at the top of the Home Office and in ministerial offices, which is something a report to Parliament encourages. The fear that I and some of my colleagues have is that, if that detail is hidden away in obscure departmental documents, it does not necessarily have the drive and political push it deserves. The new clause is therefore another attempt to support the Minister in his job, and to encourage proper transparency about this interesting and in many ways useful Bill.

[Mr Wallace]

I do not want to look ungrateful to the hon. Member who is, as he says, trying to help me enhance the Bill and do my job. I am incredibly grateful for all the suggestions from hon. Members over the last few weeks.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Wonderful.

[Mr Wallace]

I am not that grateful.

New clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the number of prosecutions brought and the number of convictions made under the new corporate offences. Under the domestic tax evasion offence, HMRC will be the investigating authority and the decision on whether to prosecute will rest with the Crown Prosecution Service. In relation to the overseas offence, the Serious Fraud Office and the National Crime Agency will be the investigating authorities and the decision to prosecute will rest with the SFO or the CPS.

It is important to emphasise that, as with the corresponding offence under the Bribery Act 2010, the number of prosecutions alone will not be a true metric of the level of success of the measure. The new corporate offences are not only about responding to wrongdoing but about changing corporate culture and behaviour. True success will lie in changing corporate culture and preventing wrongdoing from occurring in the first place.

In any case, all of the prosecuting authorities already undertake extensive public reporting on investigations and prosecutions. For example, HMRC publishes quarterly performance updates and the CPS publishes an annual report. Neither of those documents are obscure—they are weighty but not obscure. I can confirm that information relating to the new offences will be included in those existing formats. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central to withdraw his new clause.

[Tristram Hunt]

I will not detain the Committee with an inquiry into the difference between “weighty” and “obscure”; these things can often be lost in the mists of time. As we did not quite generate the success that we needed to on new clause 11, I will not put the measure to a Division. However, I urge the Minister to ensure that, having created this interesting Bill and having delivered these interesting reforms, if the reforms are going to be put to proper effect and have the political momentum—a terrifying word—behind them, then a degree of political transparency and support connected to Parliament is important. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

Whistleblowing in relation to failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion

‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall conduct a review of arrangements to facilitate whistleblowing in the banking and financial services sector, including the protection of anonymity, in relation to the disclosure of suspected corporate failure to prevent facilitation of tax evasion, and report to Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act.’—(Roger Mullin.)

This new clause would conduct a review into the facilitation and protection of whistleblowers with a focus on the protection of anonymity for those who suspect corporate failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Roger Mullin]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—The culture of the banking industry and prevention of the facilitation of tax evasion—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the extent to which the banking culture contributes to the failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion in the financial sector, and lay a copy of the review before the House of Commons within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.

(2) The review must set out what steps the UK Government intends to take to ensure that banking culture is not facilitating tax evasion.’

[Roger Mullin]

I rise to speak to new clauses 19 and 22, which are on today’s amendment paper for the Committee to scrutinise thanks to the complacent and worrying attitudes of both the FCA and the BBA at last week’s evidence session, when I specifically raised the issues of banking culture and whistleblowing.

During the previous exchanges, the Minister indicated the importance of culture, for which I am grateful. I have been concerned with culture for a long time. In one of my previous lives, I undertook more than 30 cultural studies of large, complex organisations. As many Members will be aware because I have related this fact more than once, large-scale international studies have shown that around 70% of major corporate failures are primarily as a result of a failure of culture—they are not about detailed regulation or detailed law, but about culture. In that regard, this issue must be taken very seriously indeed.

A very important part of culture for the related new clause on whistleblowing is to assess internal trust within organisations. Unless there is sufficient cultural trust, whistleblowers will not feel secure or safe. Despite advances in recent years in the protection of whistleblowers, I am sure that I am not alone in having had people come to me, an MP for barely over a year, saying that they wish to raise issues in organisations but fear the consequences.

I will highlight that by picking just one example—the case of Paul Moore, with whom some Members will be familiar—from the financial sector to show the importance of culture and whistleblowing. He is best known as the HBOS whistleblower, following his dismissal from Halifax Bank of Scotland in 2004. He was appointed to the role of head of group regulatory risk at the end of 2003 and had formal responsibilities for the bank’s policy and oversight of executive management’s compliance with Financial Services Authority regulation. During 2004, while conducting reviews of the bank’s sales culture, Moore and his team uncovered mis-selling and unethical practice. He reported those findings to the HBOS board as his job demanded, and was fired on 8 November 2004 by the HBOS group chief executive officer, James Crosby. Since then, Mr Moore has been shunned by the financial community for doing his job and doing it well.

14:30

Crosby, however, did not immediately suffer for his actions. He was part of an almost untouchable banking and establishment culture. Some time later, on 11 July 2006, Crosby was appointed by my predecessor as Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to lead the Government’s public-private forum on identity management. Also in 2006 and after sacking his risk manager, Crosby received a knighthood for services to the financial industry. In April 2008, Crosby was appointed by the then Chancellor, Alistair Darling, to head up a working group of mortgage industry experts to advise the Government on how to improve the functioning of the mortgage market. I could go on. Only after parliamentary inquiries into the collapse of HBOS, which included reviewing Mr Moore’s situation, did Crosby lose all his positions and half his pension, and relinquish his knighthood.

That it should take parliamentary inquiries to deal with something that was in the public domain—that a senior bank official had been sacked for doing his job—tells us something about what has been wrong and what many consider still is wrong with much of the remaining close-knit culture in the financial sector. Despite changes since that time, we remain unconvinced that enough has been done to explore the culture in the financial sector and properly safeguard whistleblowers, hence we have tabled new clauses 19 and 22. I am sure we will return to this issue many times as many of us try to secure a much more sensible regime, but in the meantime I will be pleased to listen to the Minister’s response.

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for his contribution. New clause 19 would require a review of arrangements to facilitate whistleblowing in the banking and financial sectors. Whistleblowing can play an important part in bringing wrongdoing to light. The Government value the contribution of whistleblowers and believe they should be able to highlight wrongdoing without fear of retribution. To that end, the UK has put in place a strong framework of employment rights for workers who disclose malpractice in the public interest.

If a worker loses their job or suffers some other detriment —being overlooked for promotion, for example—as a result of blowing the whistle, they may bring a claim to the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal or detriment. To qualify as a protected disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, the legislation that protects whistleblowers, the issue in question must fall into one of the categories listed in that Act. Those categories include both criminal offences and failure to comply with the law in other ways, so the issues in the Bill are certainly catered for, as is any new offence as soon as it comes into force.

To retain their employment protections, whistleblowers must generally make their disclosures either internally to the employer or to the relevant prescribed person named in statute. Two such prescribed persons are most likely to deal with issues covered by the Bill. HMRC is prescribed for matters about the administration of UK taxes, and the Financial Conduct Authority is prescribed for matters relating to the conduct of banks and all other funds and firms subject to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. MPs are now also prescribed persons, so Public Interest Disclosure Act remedies will also apply if a person suffers a detriment in employment as a result of disclosure to us.

Both HMRC and the FCA have published information for whistleblowers on how to disclose wrongdoing in their workplace. They both accept, and act on, anonymous disclosures. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, under which disclosures are made and protected, was comprehensively reviewed as recently as 2014. There is a code of practice and guidance for its use. The Government are taking significant steps to ensure that effective arrangements are in place to facilitate whistleblowing in relation to tax evasion or other matters. I am not sure that, as yet, I see a case for further review at this stage.

On new clause 22, I agree with hon. Members that the culture of the financial services sector, as well as other sectors such as advisory, accounting and legal, plays a key role in preventing financial crime. That is the very reason that the Government are legislating for the new corporate offences in part 3 of the Bill—to drive culture change among businesses in relation to preventing complicity in and facilitation of tax evasion. A key measure of the success of the new offences will be how businesses respond and drive culture change.

We have engaged extensively with business over the last 18 months on the offences, both in the UK and overseas. We have seen examples of good practice in a number of sectors and organisations, which have responded swiftly to the new measures and are proactively seeking to drive culture change and operate to the highest standards. Some organisations have been slow to react, but HMRC officials have been working with them and their representative bodies to support business in putting in place compliance procedures.

Given that ongoing engagement, I do not believe it would be prudent to conduct a statutory review immediately following Royal Assent, although I share the same objectives as hon. Members. It is the Government’s view that we should focus our efforts on effectively implementing the new offences, and on using them to help trigger further cultural change, prior to diverting resources to a further review of the arrangements. I would be happy to discuss that further with hon. Members in case they have specific concerns that I should raise with other ministerial colleagues, which I am also happy to do. I hope I have provided adequate assurances for now or that we can agree to disagree. I hope the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw the new clauses.

[Roger Mullin]

I thank the Minister for his remarks, particularly his conclusion, when he indicated an open mind, as is only to be expected from him. However, we remain concerned about culture. He mentioned the role of the FCA. After the comments made last week by the FCA representative, I would have thought that the FCA itself needs a bit of a culture review to see whether it is fit for purpose.

[Mr Wallace]

When the Bill was being rolled out, I specifically asked for a meeting with the FCA to demand that when it comes into force—hopefully it will do so—they will up their game. The overall intention of the Bill is not just the criminal prosecution of individuals, but to bring about cultural change. As a regulator, I would like steps to be taken. One of the things that I welcome in the English part of the Bill is that the perpetrators are faced with unlimited fines for some of the offences—there is no cap on fines. With large fines, we change not only employees’ habits, but shareholders’ behaviour, which is important.

[Roger Mullin]

I think the Minister for those remarks and I particularly welcome his remarks about his meeting with the FCA. He is to be commended for that, and we would fully support him. Given his remarks, we will not at this stage push either of the new clauses to a Division, but we will reserve our position and perhaps return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 20

Recovery orders: repatriation

‘(1) The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is amended, after section 266, by inserting—

“266A Recovery orders: repatriation

(1) Where a court—

(a) issues a recovery order under section 266; and

(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that property subject to the recovery order was obtained through unlawful conduct in a foreign country,

the court must issue a repatriation order in relation to that property.

(2) A repatriation order shall provide that within a year of the property’s having been recovered the property must be repatriated back to its country of origin.

(3) When a repatriation order has been issued, the Secretary of State shall send a request for cooperation and assistance to a representative of the government of the country of origin, in consultation with relevant third parties, and must, upon a court having issued a recovery order, endeavour to agree with that representative—

(a) as to how such property or the value of such property will be used upon its being repatriated to ensure that wherever possible the property repatriated will be used in a manner that will contribute to the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 16, that benefits victims of the unlawful conduct, or that ensures the repatriated property is used for the original purpose from which it was diverted;

(b) a mechanism for accounting for the disbursement of the property and for making public a report on the use to which the property has been put.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“relevant third parties” will include civil society actors and non-governmental organisations; independent audit bodies; the Department for International Development and multilateral development banks; and

“victims” will include communities affected by the unlawful conduct as well as the State.

(5) A repatriation order shall not be issued where—

(a) the court is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities that successful repatriation would lead to the property or the value of the property being subject to conduct that, were it within its jurisdiction, would violate the Human Rights Act 1998;

(b) the court is satisfied that on, the balance of probabilities, that successful repatriation would most likely result in such property being subject to illicit financial activity by a Politically Exposed Person in its country of origin; or

(c) the court is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the property would not reach and/or be used for the purposes as agreed to by the Secretary of State and the representative of the country of origin.

(6) The UK may retain the total value of the recovered property where the Secretary of State and the relevant enforcement agency take all appropriate steps as set out in section (3) subsections (a) and (b) to assist the State in question in repatriating such property and yet receive no cooperation from the other State within a year of having taken such appropriate steps.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) “cooperation” is defined as the foreign State’s conclusively demonstrating to the Secretary of State and enforcement agency of its having done or being in the process of implementing the necessary steps required to ensure that the property or value of such property will be used for the ends laid down in section (3) (a) and the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property or value of such property will be used in accordance with those activities and probabilities as laid down in subsection (5)(a), (b) and (c).

(8) The court may order that a repatriation order may grant that the property could be given, subject to an agreement between the Secretary of State and a representative of the government of the country of origin, to a non-state actor who may distribute the property in accordance with subsection (3)(a) and (b) above.

(9) Upon application by the relevant enforcement agency the court may increase the time period within which repatriation must happen up to a maximum of five years if the court is satisfied that operational circumstances preclude the possibility of repatriation within the period previously required.

(10) The relevant enforcement agency may apply to the court for further extensions to the time period, where there is less than a year before the date of repatriation.

(11) Where the court grants an extension the enforcement agency in conjunction with the Secretary of State must publish a public report detailing the reasons why it sought an extension to the deadline for repatriation.

(12) Where the Secretary of State in conjunction with the enforcement agency publishes such a report as set out the Secretary of State may omit sensitive operational information which would preclude the possibility of repatriation being successful should such details be published.

(13) Such a report without redacted information will be passed to the Secretary of State upon each application made to the court for an extension.

(14) No later than one year after such property is repatriated all such reports will be made public in an uncensored form.””—(Dr Huq.)

This new clause would require property that was subject to a recovery order to be repatriated to its country of origin where the money was options through unlawful conduct in that country.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Huq]

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

The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State—and the enforcement agencies vested with the power to do so—to receive recovered property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and to repatriate recovered property where a court is satisfied that the property or the value of the property was begotten by illicit means. I hinted at the issue this morning. The clause builds on former Prime Minister David Cameron’s global forum for asset recovery, which came about after the anti-corruption summit of May 2016. We Opposition Members commend him for that. How he is missed. We have seen the forum begin to bear fruit, with the Government having signed a memorandum of understanding with Nigeria last September. There has clearly been limited progress on repatriation, but the Crown Prosecution Service’s most recent asset recovery strategy laments the low take-up of mutual legal assistance requests:

“Since London is a global centre for finance, there are a large number of criminal proceeds deposited in its financial institutions. Despite this, historically the CPS has not received a high volume of incoming MLA requests for the restraint and recovery of assets.”

Many of the people from the charitable sector who gave evidence worry that, at the end of the process, little will go back to those communities and third-world economies.

The Minister said on Second Reading, in relation to repatriating illicit wealth, that

“It is important to note that we are already doing this. In November 2015, the UK returned £28 million to Macau, which were the proceeds of corruption laundered in the UK. That is a concrete example of our giving back money to those countries that have been robbed by crooks who have used Britain to launder the money or to make the money in its jurisdiction. I want to see more of that and to see it go further.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 198.]

Through this new clause, we seek to help him with that process. He has made a clear commitment to seeing repatriation go further, and to ensuring that there is more of it. The CPS has also stated that mutual legal assistance is seriously underused, and that massive sums of illicit wealth are simply not subject to such requests and are therefore not being repatriated.

The new clause would not obstruct the Minister or the Government in their desire to see greater repatriation of illicit wealth. In fact, it would aid the Government in realising their aims. The new clause seeks to provide a different avenue from mutual legal assistance for repatriating illicit wealth, and it has a number of in-built safeguards to ensure that the UK repatriates such wealth to deserving countries, as well as safeguarding against the UK’s time being wasted.

Although the new clause is substantial in scope and takes up a number of pages in the amendment paper, we are not trying to cause an argument for argument’s sake. A precedent for repatriating wealth has been set, and the Committee has heard an example. The new clause would streamline the process, and I hope that the Government will take that in good faith; the new clause is technical, rather than political.

This is how we envisage the new clause working: where a court is satisfied that property is recoverable and issues a recovery order, and where it is also satisfied that the property was acquired with wealth illicitly obtained abroad, it may instruct a receiving enforcement agency to take steps towards repatriating that wealth upon the property being initially recovered. We term that a “repatriation order”—that is snappy.

Once such an order has been made, the Secretary of State would request co-operation and assistance in the repatriation process from a representative of the Government of the country of origin. The Secretary of State would then be free to enter into consultation with any other relevant third party. After that initial contact, an agreement would be reached with the aforementioned actors on how the value of the property would be used on repatriation.

The purpose of the measure is international development. In the new clause, proposed new section 266A(3)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 states that

“wherever possible the property repatriated will be used in a manner that will contribute to the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 16”,

or the repatriated property will benefit the victims of the crime, or it will be used for its original purpose. The Government have some flexibility and room for discretion in the phrase “wherever possible”. Proposed subsection (4) contains a list of definitions.

14:45

There are two obvious questions: what are the conditions by which the property will be repatriated, and how will this large-scale, cross-jurisdictional activity be funded? To answer the first question, if a court is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the property or value of the property, if repatriated, would be put to a use that would violate the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK would have the right to retain the entirety of the property and its value, and no repatriation order would be issued.

Secondly, if a court was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, a politically exposed person or group of PEPs would subject the property or value of the property to illicit financial activity, the UK would retain the property or its value, and no repatriation order would be issued. If the court was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the property or its value, if repatriated, would not be put to use for the purposes agreed by the Secretary of State and the country of origin, yet again, the UK would retain the entire value of the property, and the repatriation order would be rescinded.

Finally, proposed new subsections (6) and (7) stipulate that the UK will retain the total value of the property if the Secretary of State has taken all the necessary steps to aid the country of origin in working towards the provisions set down in proposed new subsection 3(a), but the other state has been unco-operative. That is meant to be the basis of the new clause. As for the timescales, they are in proposed new subsections (9) to (14).

Proposed new subsection 8 is a last-chance saloon for an unco-operative state that receives a repatriation order. Lots of conditions must be satisfied first. It simply affords the courts the chance to grant the Secretary of State the discretion to work towards an agreement by which a non-state actor may distribute the property or its value in the country of origin, provided that the distribution would not violate proposed new subsections 3(a) and (b).

On funding, the new clause would basically pay for itself. It is common practice for the UK to retain some of the value of any property that it repatriates to another country. I see no reason why that should change, and the new clause does not argue that it should. We acknowledge that there are states that are hugely corrupt—I think “fantastically corrupt” were David Cameron’s words —that routinely violate human rights agreements, and that engage in behaviour that would be deemed illegal here. In such instances, it is only fair that the UK retains the value and puts it to good use.

There is a third dimension to the new clause: it provides the UK with soft power to influence other states, to ensure that the UK does not stand idly by where there is corruption and systemic human rights violations. Nor can it be even remotely complicit by returning value to countries if it could be used for untoward purposes. I am open to questions from the Minister and tweaks to the clause, but I hope that he will agree that the principle is a good one.

[Mr Wallace]

First, I think that we all support what we are trying to do: returning money that we take off the bad guys to whomever it belongs to. If that is not possible—I used the example earlier of a criminal enterprise whose wealth was created by drug dealers, rather than by ripping off a state or somebody else’s assets—we return it to the prosecution authorities to ensure that they can continue.

Significantly, in the past, we have seen money paid back in cases of grand corruption. The UK is party to the UN convention against corruption, article 57 of which clearly requires embezzled funds to be paid back to the victim state, so we are already obliged under international law to do that. We must do that, and it is what we want to do. The £28 million returned to Macau that the hon. Lady and I both mentioned fell under the auspices of that convention. As we are subject to international law, there is no requirement to put such provisions in our domestic legislation. Nothing in our law prevents us from returning recovered assets.

Sharing and repatriating assets in asset recovery cases is a fast-developing issue in international law, and it is something that the UK fully supports. For example, there is a requirement, under the EU framework decision on the mutual recognition of confiscation orders, that at least 50% of assets recovered on behalf of another member be sent back to that state. The UK can return assets to any country, and where underpinning international agreements are required, we enthusiastically pursue them. For example, we recently concluded an asset-sharing agreement with Nigeria, under the formal title I referred to earlier.

This helpful debate on the Opposition’s new clause has allowed us to put these points on the record, but I trust that the Opposition will agree that there is no need for further primary legislation. Asset return happens anyway, with my full support and encouragement. Indeed, strict requirements in an Act could restrict our flexibility and make it harder to obtain effective asset-return agreements tailored to the peculiarities of individual cases. I am aware of a number of cases in which another country’s Government members have requested that we effectively co-return assets for certain projects, for fear of them disappearing into other parts of that Government that are corrupt. That type of flexibility is important to make sure that moneys returned do indeed get to the right place, rather than going back to the same place, and the same individual turning the assets of crime back into another townhouse in London.

That flexibility is really important, and while I cannot bind any successor Government, it would be odd if any Government chose to say, “No, thank you, we are going to keep everything, break our international law obligations, and upset a number of countries around the world by just pocketing this for ourselves.” It is not what we have done in the past, and it is not what we will do in the future. I urge the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton to look to our obligations under international law; I hope that that will satisfy her that we do not need more restrictive primary legislation on this issue.

[Dr Huq]

I listened carefully to the Minister. The 14 subsections in new clause 20 have a set of in-built checks and balances, and I know that the development charities would be disappointed if the new clause was not in the Bill. I accept, as I said, that things are being done on this front—the Macau example is a very good one—but as I understand it, the Minister says that there is no need for the new clause because there are international agreements. He mentioned the EU framework; the first money laundering directive also came from the EU, and we are leaving the EU, so I think it is no bad thing to put our own defence in the Bill, if only for ourselves. We would like to put the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 3

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

New Clause 21

Public registers of beneficial ownership of companies registered in Crown dependencies and overseas territories

‘(1) In Part 1 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (introductory), after section 2A, insert—

“2AA Duty of Secretary of State: Public registers of beneficial ownership of companies registered in overseas territories and Crown dependencies

(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in furtherance of the purposes of—

(a) this Act; and

(b) Part 3 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017

to take the actions set out in this section.

(2) The first action is, no later than 31 December 2017, to provide all reasonable assistance to the Governments of Crown Dependencies and overseas territories to enable each of those Governments to establish a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies registered in that Government’s jurisdiction.

(3) The second action is, no later than 31 December 2018, to enact an Order in Council in respect of any overseas territory that has not yet introduced a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies within their jurisdiction. This Order would require the overseas territory to adopt such a register.

(4) The third action is, no later than 31 December 2018, to consult with the Governments of the Crown Dependencies that have not established a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies, regarding the ability of those jurisdictions to do so.

(5) The fourth action is to take all reasonable steps to support the Crown Dependencies to consent to adopting publicly accessible registers of the beneficial ownership of companies.

(6) In 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.”’—(Dr Huq.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take steps to provide that overseas territories and Crown dependencies establish publicly accessible registers of the beneficial ownership of companies, for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Part 3 of the Bill (corporate offences of failure to prevent facilitation of tax evasion).

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Huq]

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

We discussed this subject this morning in connection with clause 38. The new clause would make it incumbent on the Secretary of State to do all that she can to ensure that there are public registers of beneficial ownership in the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies for companies operating and registered in their jurisdictions.

Proposed new subsections (2) to (5) delineate the steps that the Secretary of State would take to ensure that such registers were adopted. Proposed new subsection (3) states that those territories that failed to do so by a specific time would be subject to an Order in Council. I know what was said this morning, but there is precedent for that; I could go through a whole list of examples, but I will not bore the Committee with that quite yet.

The Government have created a Bill with the express intention of stamping out financial crime and clearing up the UK and London’s image. We quite rightly no longer wish to be seen as a country that is a soft touch, or as a City where dirty money can be hidden. To me and others, it is therefore astounding that there is no mention at all of the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies in the Bill.

Thanks to the Panama papers, we and the rest of the world know that the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies facilitate corruption, money laundering and tax evasion on a global scale. I am sure that the Minister is sick to death of hearing about the issue—we heard about it so many times in the evidence, and pretty much in every speech on Second Reading, with both Government and Opposition Members mentioning it—but I am afraid to say that the public are also sick of hearing about the double standards that exist for the politicians and wealthy elite who do not pay their taxes.

Opinion polling and recent research has shown that more than eight in 10 people think that it is morally wrong for businesses to avoid paying tax, even if that is legal or looks like, prima facie, a victimless crime. Only 20% of people think that any political party has done enough, and 77% think that the Government should be doing more to ensure that companies stop tax-dodging; among leave voters, that figure rises to 83%. More than two thirds of people want the Government to insist on public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Again, there is a whole alphabet soup of different organisations and charities involved. This is all according to ComRes polling done on the issue for Oxfam and Christian Aid.

The issue will continue to reappear until the Government start listening to the people, finally step in and, if needs be, compel overseas territories to toe the line. None of us wants overseas territories to have registers forced on them, so we would be delighted if they did something. Christian Aid suggested a timeline, a set of goals being put in place to make something happen, because nothing will happen overnight; those jurisdictions are used to propping up tax evasion, so they will not fall into line quickly. A set of dates and objectives, however, would be extremely helpful.

We have already heard today about how overseas territories and Crown dependencies are making progress, but it is not swift enough. They have had three years, but nothing has happened. Under the former Prime Minister, they were first asked to take action three years ago, but not one of them bothered to consult on that request. The ones that responded to it largely said a simple no to the supposed consultations. In April 2014, they were asked again to do so in a letter from the former Prime Minister, but only one, Montserrat, committed to adopting a public register. The worst offenders, however, the ones that facilitate the stealing of wealth from developing countries and so in effect harbour blood money —the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands—ignored the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s request to meet and discuss the issue. I tried to ask about that this morning, but did not get a proper answer.

At every step of the way, the overseas territories and Crown dependencies have sought to frustrate any real progress. I did not mention any particular ones by name in my speech on Second Reading, but I had a really snotty, or not very friendly, letter from the Isle of Man, basically saying, “How very dare you. You don’t understand any of this.”

The Library brief on beneficial ownership cites a Minister who said:

“We have made huge progress in ensuring that we have registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories…The progress that has been made in the overseas territories is the greatest under any Government in history, which perhaps is one reason Transparency International said that the summit had been a good day for anti-corruption.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2016; Vol. 611, c. 1745.]

However, the brief also states:

“Given that some of the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories have already…said very firmly that they will not be creating public registers, it seems likely that any further negotiation towards such registers will not be easy.”

That is an impartial brief. Transparency International recognises that some people are setting their faces against this.

15:00

I have a copy of Hansard from Jersey that I was thinking of pulling out this morning. It was pointed out to me that a Deputy asked the following question in the Jersey States Assembly on 15 November:

“Following statements made in the House of Commons by the Minister for Security on 25th October, that the U.K. Government”—

that is the Minister opposite me, is it not?

[Mr Wallace]

That’s me!

[Dr Huq]

Yes. The Minister was quoted in the Jersey States Assembly in a question about the fact that

“the U.K. Government hopes the Crown Dependencies might have made their Registers of Beneficial Ownership of Companies public by the end of this year, or into next year.”

The Deputy asked whether the Chief Minister would

“advise what discussions he has had”

and what steps were being taken to put in place the good work that the Minister has mentioned. The following answer came back:

“The U.K. Government accepts, and has accepted in conversations with us, that our approach meets the policy aims that they are trying to meet and international bodies, standard setters and reviewers, have acknowledged that our approach is a leading approach and is superior to some other approaches taken.”

The answer is quite long, and I will bore people if I read it all out, but in essence it was, “We’re doing enough, and we’ve been told that it’s fine.” That is quite scandalous. A supplementary question was also asked. The Chief Minister of Jersey has said, “We’re doing what we’re doing, and it’s enough.” That does not go far enough. As long as such countries can get away with that, they will do that. There is a race to the bottom. They are all saying, “We don’t have to do it; no one else is doing it.”

As I am sure the Minister knows, Orders in Council have been made over the years in relation to different things. One was made in 1991 to abolish capital punishment for the crime of murder in the Caribbean territories of Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands. In 2009, the UK Government suspended the ministerial Government and the House of Assembly of the Turks and Caicos Islands. The Government basically went in to run the thing: direct rule from London was imposed, despite opposition and criticism. There is a longer list of examples. That has been done before. It seems from the Chief Minister’s answer that Jersey thinks it can get away with it. Could we perhaps set a date of, say, 2020 and say that if it has not published entirely public registers of beneficial ownership by then, we will presume that all money coming through is dirty, or something like that? That may concentrate minds.

I could go on and on about the new clause, but I was told to be brief this afternoon, so I will end there for now. I am curious to hear the Minister’s response.

[Richard Arkless]

The SNP generally supports that proposition—we would prefer that Crown dependencies and overseas territories held publicly available registers of beneficial ownership—but to further a point that I made earlier, as the Scottish National party, we are obviously reluctant to compel this place in primary legislation to legislate for jurisdictions where it perhaps does not have locus. Proposed new section 2AA(5) in new clause 5 highlights the constitutional quagmire that that would put this place in. It states that this place would

“take all reasonable steps to support the Crown Dependencies to consent”.

Are we going to try to persuade them to consent? I do not quite understand what that subsection is getting at. If we have jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction; if we do not have jurisdiction, we simply do not have jurisdiction.

In conversations that I have had with the Jersey authorities—I have forthcoming conversations with the Isle of Man authorities, which sent me a similar letter, although I perhaps would not describe it in such terms—they have been at pains to stress that this place does not have competency to make such legislative provisions. I am minded to agree, even though I think it would be a good idea if they did, under their own steam, make those public registers available. Our position is that we support the proposition in principle, but we do not see that this new clause is competent, given the jurisdictional capabilities of this place over the Crown dependencies.

[Roger Mullin]

The SNP has been very supportive of everything today, but I have to say that for the past year and a half I have been having discussions with the Isle of Man authorities, including with the First Minister there, and I have found them genuinely willing to engage in discussions. I think that the language used about the Isle of Man was unfortunate.

[Mr Wallace]

As the hon. Lady rightly says, this subject has been raised significantly, both on Second Reading and elsewhere. New clause 21 would set a legislative timetable for the UK Government to ensure that overseas territories have a public register of beneficial ownership, and to work with Crown dependencies to achieve the same outcome. There is considerable interest in this specific issue and I am pleased that this amendment allows us to debate it. I understand where the Opposition are coming from and appreciate the desire for these jurisdictions to have publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership information—David Cameron made this an ambition in 2015. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady clarified why she chooses to treat Crown dependencies differently from overseas territories when it comes to some of the measures; that would be helpful to all Members.

While the overseas territories and Crown dependencies are separate jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Governments, and are responsible for their own economic diversification and fiscal matters, we have been working with them on their role on company transparency. If public registers emerge as a new global standard, the UK Government would expect all relevant jurisdictions to meet that standard. However, it would be wrong to say that, in the absence of public registers, no efforts have been made to increase corporate transparency and tackle tax evasion and corruption. The Crown dependencies and those overseas territories with financial centres are already taking a number of important steps on beneficial ownership and tax transparency, which will put them well ahead of most jurisdictions. This includes some of our G20 partners and other major corporate and financial centres, including some states in the United States. These measures will prevent criminals from hiding behind anonymous shell companies and mark a significant increase in the ability of UK law enforcement authorities to investigate bribery and corruption, money laundering and tax evasion.

I asked officials whether there has ever been an example of our imposing legislation on the Crown dependencies. As far as we can find out, in recent history there has never been an example of our imposing legislation on Crown dependencies without their consent. That is important—we have not gone around imposing our will on Crown dependencies as we see fit. Where we have done so on overseas territories, it has been on very strong moral issues such as capital punishment. Both in Crown dependencies and overseas territories, people have moved quite significantly and, I have to say to the hon. Lady, far more significantly than in 13 years of a Labour Government. We cannot sit here and ignore the elephant in the room.

Under our Government, we now have a position where the debate in this room is about the word “public” and whether registers are going to be public. It is not about whether these islands and other places will have a central register of beneficial ownership. By next year, they will either have a direct central register or linked registers and that is 90% of the way. By the way, our law enforcement agencies will have automatic access to that information.

The best thing, in my view, would be to say, “Yes, we know what David Cameron’s intention was in 2015 when he made that statement; yes, the United Kingdom pretty much leads the world in making our register public for the whole of the United Kingdom”, but also to say, “Let us revisit this once we get the Bill through, once we see whether our law enforcement agencies can use that access to prosecute, deter, change culture and show the way forward.” If that is not happening, of course we can have these debates again, but we should recognise that a lot of those countries have moved without our imposing our will on them, and we are hopefully giving access to our National Crime Agency and HMRC—all the things that we struggled to get for very many years. Let us see where that journey takes us. Our intention is clear. We pretty much lead the world in this. I urge hon. Members to recognise that we are going a long way.

[Richard Arkless]

The Minister will forgive me if I am wrong, but he has only outlined the position and the progress made by the Crown dependencies in having registers and information sharing. Will he elaborate on the overseas territories or did I miss something?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I meant and/or the overseas territories. The full house will, hopefully by next year, have those registers in place with automatic sharing enabled for our law enforcement agencies, and vice versa—should someone choose to use our country to hide tax from those other countries, their law enforcement agencies will be able to have it.

What I notice about all this is that the world is changing. Transparency is in the ascendancy, secrecy is not. Whether these places are overseas territories or other countries that are nothing to do with the United Kingdom, it is not secrecy that makes them competitive or attractive, but the tax rates and surrounding regulations. That is generational change. Yes, there will be people who wish to hide their wealth for all the wrong reasons, but we are now in a position where our agencies and bodies of law and order will be able to access those areas. They will not have to rely on leaks or third-hand information.

I would not be surprised if, in five or 10 years, we are talking about entirely different countries around the world, maybe even countries that we might think would not be harder to access, but actually are. Those countries might have a more developed legal system and a more protective privacy system that makes it harder for our forces of law and order to get hold of data. I certainly think that these places have come 90% of the way, and we should see whether that works for us. We all have the intention and the United Kingdom is leading by example.

The new clause is a very strong measure. We should not impose our will on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies when they have come so far. Irrespective of the point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton about their attitude and about whether they were pushed or forced, they were not pushed there by a gunboat. It is important to recognise that we have got where we have through cajoling, working together and peer group pressure, which, after all, makes a real difference. Therefore, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Huq]

It is not good enough to say that we just have to pat ourselves on the back and that everything is fine. I am a bit disappointed with the Minister for trotting out that thing about 13 years of Labour. What did Labour do? We passed the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which the Bill amends; the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005; the Bribery Act 2010, section 7 of which we discussed so much this morning; and the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. We created the Serious Organised Crime Agency to ensure a single, intelligence-led response to organised crime.

[Mr Wallace]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Huq]

Let me finish this list. We also passed the Terrorism Act 2000, part 3 of which we have been amending here, as well as part 2 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—legislation to deal with all these things that we have been talking about, such as terrorist funding. It is a bit low of the Minister to trot out that one about 13 years of Labour. We have been consensual and friendly all the way through this Committee, saying what good legislation this is, so that is a bit tawdry. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. It is a bit difficult to hear what the hon. Lady has to say. Is the Minister intervening?

[Mr Wallace]

We could say that that is a whole list of missed opportunities for Labour to impose its will on the Crown dependencies. The point is that this takes time. I do not expect Labour to rustle up a perfect, tax-transparent solution to the problem; I did not expect Labour to do it in 13 years, and it is unreasonable to say suddenly, “We are going to impose it in the Bill.” There has been a direction of travel all the way through the last decade and a half. This has been about building a slow but thorough process to make sure that we got to where we are. We will be back again on economic crime and reviews of regulators, and to build on some of these issues.

15:15

I am not making the party political point that Labour did not do anything for 13 years. My point is that these things are easier said than done. Labour had plenty of opportunities to do them, but did not, and I respect the reasons for that. Labour did not do these things, not because it could not be bothered, but because it felt it had to build a foundation of recovering assets from crimes. Once the foundation was built, Labour moved to elements of the Bribery Act 2010, and to all the other parts of the law, so that we have ended up where we are. We can go on to build on that. That was my point. I do not need to make cheap party political points; I need to make the point that these things are easier said than done, and we have all come a long way.

[Dr Huq]

I respect the Minister and I know that he is a reasonable person, but six years into government, he is dragging up the record of a previous Government. I would like to pass on to him the Hansard of the States of Jersey legislature. In it, the question was asked:

“Can the Chief Minister confirm that this is not something that, from Jersey’s perspective, is immediately on the cards”

or is

“the Minister for Security in the UK”—

that is the Minister opposite me—

“under a misunderstanding of what direction the Crown Dependencies are going in?”

The answer from Senator Gorst, from the governing party in Jersey, was as follows:

“they have decided that the best approach for them is a public register. Of course, they are asking others around the world to consider following their approach. We take the approach which meets the international standard which is, as far as we are concerned, a leading approach.”

Judging from that, Jersey has no plans to have a public register until it becomes the international standard.

I accept that the Minister says that it is bad to compel people to do things, but in my last speech, I said that we could work towards some sort of timeline or some dates. Rather than compelling and forcing people to do things, we can encourage them with dates. Already three years have passed, and very little has happened. From what the Chief Minister and all these people in Jersey have said, it looks very much as though they have no intention of taking this action. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle referred to things looking a bit hypocritical from the outside; I worry that people might judge us that way. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. We will not push the new clause to a vote, but I am sure that he is aware that a lot of people are concerned about the issue. I thought he would be interested to see that Hansard, in which he is mentioned; it is quite flattering. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45

Minor and consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 46 to 51 stand part.

[Mr Wallace]

The remaining clauses in part 4 are relatively technical and straightforward. I am tempted to sit down after saying that. They are also similar to other pieces of legislation, so I will not delay us much longer, beyond highlighting a few points.

Clause 46 allows the Secretary of State to make by regulation such provision as they consider necessary in consequence of this Bill. Clause 47 sets out the procedural requirement for making regulations in respect of the devolved Administrations, while clause 49 covers the Bill’s territorial extent. Most of the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As I stated on Second Reading, we expect the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to seek legislative consent motions from their legislatures; I welcome that, and support them in doing so. I am grateful for our constructive and ongoing engagement with the devolved Administrations.

As this brings us to the end of the Committee, I pay tribute to the Chair and co-Chair for their expeditious and authoritative chairing of our proceedings, and to the many members of the House authorities that have facilitated our consideration of the Bill. They include the Clerks of the Public Bill Office, the Doorkeepers, Hansard and many others.

I am grateful for the constructive approach taken by the Opposition Front Benchers and the Scottish National party in trying to make the best of the Bill. It is not over yet; I understand that there is a long way still to go. I am grateful for the amendments that were tabled, including those from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. I thank the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway, and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, for pointing out the issues to do with Scottish limited partnerships and other concerns; I shall meet them for discussions.

The fact that the Committee stage is to finish early is a testament to the significantly cross-party approach, it says here. We shall, I hope, return to the Floor of the House with the Committee’s strong endorsement of the Bill as well drafted legislation that will make a difference in the fight against organised crime.

Since I took on my present job, I have had to deal with a range of matters, including terrorists and serious organised crime. The bit that scares me the most is the serious and organised crime—the wealth of those individuals, and the impunity with which they operate. I cannot say how helpful the Bill will be, at least in taking away their profit and returning it to the countries or people they have stolen from or, failing that, to the forces of law and order. When I go to sleep at night, it is serious and organised crime that scares me more than anything else in my brief. I hope that we have gone a long way towards at least deterring those engaged in it, and sending a strong message to people who think that such behaviour is permissible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: 54, in schedule 5, page 140, line 11, leave out “designated” and insert “counter-terrorism”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 16.

Amendment 73, in schedule 5, page 140, line 32, at end insert—

‘( ) In paragraph 5, in sub-paragraph (1), for “this Schedule” substitute “any provision of this Schedule other than Part 2A”.

( ) In that paragraph, omit sub-paragraph (4).”

This amendment is consequential on NC18.

Amendment 74, in schedule 5, page 140, line 33, at end insert—

‘( ) In paragraph 8(1), for “this Schedule” substitute “paragraph 6”.”

This amendment is consequential on NC18.

Amendment 75, in schedule 5, page 140, line 34, at end insert—

‘( ) After paragraph 9 insert—

Restrictions on release

9A Cash is not to be released under any power or duty conferred or imposed by this Schedule (and so is to continue to be detained)—

(a) if an application for its forfeiture under paragraph 6, or for its release under paragraph 9, is made, until any proceedings in pursuance of the application (including any proceedings on appeal) are concluded;

(b) if (in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) proceedings are started against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected, until the proceedings are concluded.”

( ) In paragraph 10, in sub-paragraph (1) after “Schedule,” insert “and the cash is not otherwise forfeited in pursuance of a cash forfeiture notice,”.

( ) In that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (8) insert—

“(8A) If any cash is detained under this Schedule and part only of the cash is forfeited in pursuance of a cash forfeiture notice, this paragraph has effect in relation to the other part.””

This amendment is consequential on NC18.

Amendment 55, in schedule 5, page 141, line 27, leave out “303O(4) and insert “303O(5)”

This amendment corrects an incorrect cross-reference.

Amendment 56, in schedule 5, page 142, line 2, at end insert—

( ) in paragraph (b) (as amended by section 28 of this Act), for “or 298(4)” substitute “, 298(4) or 303O(5)”;” —(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 15 and corresponds to the amendment of section 82 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 made by paragraph 18(3)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Bill, as amended by amendment 55.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Extent

Amendment made: 52, in clause 49, page 102, line 34, at end insert—

“() section 28(2A);” —(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 15.

Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Commencement

Amendment made: 53, in clause 50, page 103, line 5, after “25” insert “and 28(2A)”—(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 15.

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Dr Huq]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and that of Sir Alan Meale in the earlier sittings. I commend the Minister on the Bill. We can all sleep safely in our beds because of it. I am fortunate that my first Front-Bench service has been with such a nice Minister. I look forward to working constructively with the Government on Report—even if there were some tiny things. However, let us not raise those.

[Richard Arkless]

I add my thanks to you, Mrs Main, and congratulate you on your splendid chairing today. We got through the Bill at a rate of knots, and like other Members, I am delighted to be leaving before 3.30 pm, thanks to you. I do not wish to inflate the ego of the Minister any further, given the compliments that he has had from all sides. Suffice it to say that with the second name Wallace, I wonder what happened.

There is a great deal of cross-party consensus about the objectives of the Bill. It is about making sure that the bad guys, who elicit huge sums of money from criminal activity, have nowhere to hide. We are all focused on that goal, and we will all come together to make sure that that happens. If we can achieve that—subsequent, obviously, to lengthy conversations that we still have to have on a few points, and I am sure that the Minister will treat those conversations as he has done others throughout the Bill process—then I am sure that we can get to a position that will satisfy us, if not in this primary legislation on Report, then certainly within the contemplation of Government in future. That is certainly our objective. Unlike my more experienced colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who has been an MP for the same amount of time as me, this is my first Bill Committee. It has not been the most contentious in the world, which I suppose I should be grateful for, but I look forward to the other stages on the Floor of the House, and I thank all Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

15:26

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

CFB 04 Standard Chartered Bank

CFB 05 British Banking Association

CFB 06 Save the Children, ActionAid, Christian Aid and Oxfam