Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Tuesday 15th November 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 November 2022 - (15 Nov 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning. I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drink other than water is permitted during Committee sittings.
Clause 89
Fees: costs that may be taken into account
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 89, page 68, line 33, at end insert—
“(aa) any function of a Northern Ireland department under or in connection with the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4));”
The amount of fees set under the Companies Act 2006 is determined in accordance with regulations. This amendment allows the regulations to reflect the costs or likely costs of a Northern Ireland department in discharging functions relating to directors disqualification.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. The Bill seeks to ensure that companies and other entities benefiting from incorporated status directly contribute to maintaining the integrity of the company register. We will do that by including investigation and enforcement costs in Companies House fees. We will debate those issues shortly, but first, I hope that Members will agree that it is right that the costs incurred through pursuing enforcement activity in Northern Ireland should also be included in the Secretary of State’s decision making when setting Companies House fees, which is the effect of these amendments.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendments made: 15, in clause 89, page 68, line 36, at end insert—
“(ba) any function of a Northern Ireland department under or in connection with the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I. 19)), so far as relating to bodies corporate or other firms;”.
The amount of fees set under the Companies Act 2006 is determined in accordance with regulations. This amendment allows the regulations to reflect costs or likely costs of a Northern Ireland department under the insolvency legislation.
Amendment 16, in clause 89, page 68, line 40, at end insert—
“(d) any function carried out by the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland on behalf of a Northern Ireland department in connection with the detection, investigation or prosecution of offences, or the recovery of the proceeds of crime, so far as relating to bodies corporate or other firms.”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
The amount of fees set under the Companies Act 2006 is determined in accordance with regulations. This amendment allows the regulations to reflect costs or likely costs of the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland in connection with enforcement.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 89, page 68, line 40, at end insert—
“(3B) Prior to making any changes to the level of fees payable to the registrar, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult with the registrar on the proposed changes; and
(b) set out in writing what the basis is for the proposed changes, with reference to subsection (2) above.”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 25—Fee for registering a company—
“(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1063, after subsection (3), insert—
‘(3A) Regulations under this section must set a fee of at least £50 for the incorporation of a company.’”.
New clause 33—Fees—
“(1) Section 1063 (Fees payable to registrar) of the Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) Before subsection (1) insert—
‘(A1) The registrar must charge a fee of £100 for the incorporation of a company.
(B1) The Secretary of State must once a year amend the fee in subsection (A1) to reflect inflation.
(3) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “fees” insert “other than the fee in subsection (A1)”
(b) in paragraph (a) after “functions” insert “other than the incorporation of a company’.
(4) In subsection (5), in paragraphs (a) and (b) after ‘regulations’ insert ‘or subsection (A1)’.”.
This new clause requires Companies House to charge a fee of £100 for the incorporation of a company. It gives the Secretary of State the power to amend this fee once a year to reflect inflation.
New clause 40—Retention of fees by Companies House—
“(1) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament on the case for incorporation fees for companies being retained by the registrar.
(2) The report must be laid before Parliament within three months of this Act being passed.”.
Stephen Kinnock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I rise to introduce amendment 115. When considering any piece of legislation that creates new criminal offences, one of the most important questions we have to ask is how confident we can be that the offences will be adequately policed and enforced. The question is particularly relevant in our deliberations on this Bill, because there is such a wealth of evidence that the laws we already have on economic crime are not being enforced as rigorously as we would hope. The reason is clear: the chronic under-resourcing of the various law enforcement bodies in recent years—or, to put it another way, under this Government.
I am sure that the Minister needs no convincing on this point. In fact, some of the most compelling arguments for greater resourcing for economic crime enforcement have been made by the Minister himself. Just over four months ago, he joined my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking in leading a debate on this issue. The motion for that debate pointed out that
“law enforcement agencies are significantly under-resourced to deal with the scale of the problem”.
In speaking to the motion, the Minister pointed out:
“We know that roughly 40% of our crime is economic crime, yet only 0.8% of our resources in man hours are dedicated to tackling economic crime, so there is a huge disparity.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 1042.]
Those figures are striking, and it should alarm Committee members that the Bill is likely to widen that disparity even further. The reforms to Companies House set out in part 1 of the Bill represent
“its biggest upgrade in 170 years”.
Again, I am quoting the Government’s own words. It is still the case today that if someone goes to the official Companies House website to search the register, they find a disclaimer stating:
“Companies House does not verify the accuracy of the information filed”.
Of course, one of the most important goals of the Bill is to change that, through new requirements on Companies House to verify the accuracy of new filings, and to continuously monitor and update records; but despite that fundamental shift in the scale and scope of its responsibilities, there is nothing in the most recent corporate plan for Companies House, published in July this year, on increasing either its budget or workforce in the light of those changes.
Not only is there unlikely to be additional Treasury funding for Companies House, but it appears there may even be cuts. Given the repeated warnings from the Chancellor to expect “eye-watering” decisions on public spending in this week’s fiscal statement, it seems unlikely, to say the least, that Companies House can expect a financial settlement that is even remotely commensurate with its obligations under the Bill. If the Minister could provide any reassurance to the contrary, it would certainly be welcomed by the Opposition—but we are not holding our breath.
In the absence of more resources from the Treasury, we are left with just one option, which is for Companies House to generate more income from registration fees. The case for higher fees is compelling. Not only is there the increased workload that the Bill will create for Companies House, but it has been abundantly clear for some time that the fees charged for registration are ludicrously low. The Minister is aware that it is undeniably too cheap, quick and easy to form a new company in the UK; there is minimal to non-existent verification or oversight.
For evidence of what appears to be emerging cross-party consensus on the necessity for higher fees, we need look no further than the exceptionally thoughtful and balanced report on economic crime published by the Treasury Committee in February this year, which stated:
“The low costs of company formation, and of other Companies House fees (such as filing fees), present little barrier to those who wish to set up large numbers of companies for dubious purposes…The Government should…review…Companies House fees to bring them closer to international standards.”
As a member of the Treasury Committee at the time of the report’s publication, the Minister presumably agreed with that statement back in February. I see no good reason why the position would have changed since then.
It is striking that the Bill does not address the question of fees payable to Companies House until clause 89. Even then, the clause sets out what costs may be taken into account in setting future fees, but avoids the next logical question of what an appropriate fee might be. Like so many fundamental details of how the legislation will work when in force, that has been left up to regulations that will be made at some indeterminate point in the future. It does not seem unreasonable to expect, or at least hope for, more detailed provisions on the subject in the Bill.
Clause 89 refers to the need for future regulations setting new fee levels to reflect the expanded responsibilities of Companies House under the Bill and other recent legislation. That is welcome as far as it goes, but unfortunately it does not go far enough. Through amendment 115, the Opposition seek to fill some of the gaps left open by the Bill by introducing an explicit requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with the registrar before changing fees. It would also require the Secretary of State to set out explicitly in writing the justification for any changes to the functions and workload of Companies House.
The amendment would provide a stronger statement of the necessity of setting fees at a level commensurate with the actual day-to-day needs of Companies House in carrying out its responsibilities under this and other relevant legislation. It should go without saying that fees should not be set at such low rates that we become a magnet for dodgy business dealings by criminals in search of the weakest possible regulatory environment; but it is not by any means clear that we can trust the Government’s wisdom in determining appropriate fees. A clearer, stronger set of criteria for such decisions should be incorporated into the Bill. Amendment 115 provides what we hope is a useful way forward.
Turning to new clauses 25, 33 and 40, there are strong arguments in favour of setting a specific level of fee as a baseline for any future changes. We should all be in agreement by now that the current fee—it is just £12 to register a company—is far lower than it should be. Certainly, that was the message from the many expert witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee last month. I recall in particular the testimony of Nick Van Benschoten of UK Finance, who pointed out that the UK’s £12 fee puts it in closer alignment with countries such as Benin and Turkmenistan than with comparably well-developed economies in Europe and North America, where fees roughly in the range of £50 to £100 are the general rule.
New clause 25, tabled by Scottish National party Members, suggests a minimum fee of £50. That would certainly be a good start, but the Bill could and should go further. New clause 33, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, would require a fee of at least £100 to be charged for company formation, with annual increases based on inflation. On behalf of the official Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston and I are pleased to add our names to the proposed new clause, which we believe is a necessary and proportionate solution to the problem at hand.
It should be pointed out that the figure of £100 has not been plucked out of thin air. It is useful to return to the report that I mentioned by the Treasury Committee, of which the Minister was a member at the time. It concluded that a £100 fee for company formation would not deter genuine entrepreneurs, and would raise significant additional funding for Companies House and the fight against economic crime. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether that remains his view. If he has changed his mind, he may wish to say a little about the basis on which he has done so.
New clause 40, also tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, would add a further requirement on the Government to review and report on the case for measures to ensure that any future revenue from fees can be retained by Companies House for reinvestment in its work to police and enforce our laws against economic crime, under its remit as set out in the Bill and elsewhere. Again, this is a common-sense proposal that we should all welcome. It should not continue to be the default position that either all or a large part of any fees payable to Companies House go straight to the Treasury, with no guarantee that there will be any reinvestment into efforts to tackle economic crime. New clause 40 would make an important contribution by addressing that problem. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
New clause 25 is a probing amendment. I am minded to have a higher fee than £50, but what does the Minister think the baseline ought to be? Is it £100 or £50, or is he not prepared to put a number on the minimum price for registering a company? By way of contrast, a provisional driving licence fee application is £34, a passport is £75.50, and citizenship is £1,330 pounds. The Government are prepared to levy a whole range of fees for a whole range of privileges to do with living in this country; £12 to register a company seems miraculously low in comparison to all the other fees that the Government are willing to charge. In all those cases, I am sure that the Government would say that they are trying to recover costs, but they are not prepared to say how much it would cost to run Companies House in such a way that it can prevent economic crime, although that is pretty crucial to the whole endeavour.
I agree with everything the hon. Member for Aberavon has said, and I support the amendments from the right hon. Member for Barking, who is, I am sure, absolutely correct in everything she is about to say; I often agree with everything she says. I draw the Government’s attention again to the written evidence from UK Finance, which says:
“Clause 89 should be amended to ensure an initial increase in registration fees within six months of commencement, and to ensure annual reporting on planned investment, fee increases and scheduled implementation of new powers.”
If we set a minimum in legislation and do not update it, the problem is that often prices increase—mostly artificially, but also through factors such as the runaway inflation that we see in the UK at the moment. It is important to commit to an annual increase and annual reporting to ensure that fees keep pace with changes in a way that is considered reasonable.
Twelve pounds to register a company is really nothing in the grand scheme of things. I ask the Minister to consider how we can better ensure that the Companies House registration scheme forms part of the deterrent. Rather than allowing the bulk creation of lots of small companies at £12 a pop, we can ensure that people say, “This is a real company. There is a real financial commitment to it.” I do not think that any company will be deterred by a fee of £100 rather than £12.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Robertson. Why is new clause 29 not included in this group?
Dame Margaret Hodge
Thank you. New clause 29 is on a similar area of debate, so there might be a bit of repetition when we come to it. The new clauses we are discussing speak for themselves. The Minister knows full well that it is really important that we get a grip on economic crime, and that means resourcing our enforcement agencies. He often says—and I completely agree—that it is pointless passing legislation if we do not enforce it, and that means funding agencies properly. If we look at the record on enforcement, it is pretty abysmal right across the piece.
That particularly goes for Companies House. The first conviction it achieved was against Kevin Brewer, a man in his mid-60s who formed a company and stated that Vince Cable, then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, was a director and shareholder. He formed another company and put Baroness Neville-Rolfe and the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), now Foreign Secretary, down as directors. He did it to demonstrate that Companies House never checks the data. When he put that information in the public domain, Companies House’s response was to sue him, and he had to pay a hefty fine. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this was a case of a genuine whistleblower trying to demonstrate that the system was not working and being wrongly pursued by the authorities. It should never have happened. That is the record of Companies House to date. We hope the reforms we are discussing and debating will improve the matter.
The current position is absurd. Everybody has used figures, but the figure that I like to use is the £12 it costs to form a company against the £1,220 it costs to get a visa for a skilled worker. Our perspective is just wrong. Everybody wants to make it easy to create new companies, but any business worth its salt would not find a greater sum an inhibiter to creating a new business. We just have this completely wrong, and that is what the Opposition are trying to put right in a way that does not burden the taxpayer.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I know it is, but most of that comes from the economic crime levy. The £300 million comes from the economic crime levy; £100 million comes from the Government’s coffers. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is my understanding of it, so a third of that—£32 million or £33 million—is the Government’s annual contribution out of taxation. That is where I got the figure from. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but that is my understanding.
Looking across the world, even the British Virgin Islands, our favourite secrecy jurisdiction, charges £1,000 to people who wish to create a company there; I cannot think that that has put anyone off using the BVI if they want a secrecy jurisdiction to support them. Australia charges £247; in the USA, in California, it is £150; in Delaware, another secrecy jurisdiction, it is £590; in New York, £570; Italy, £2,000; and Germany, £383. Even with our new clause, we would still be a cheap place in which to do business.
That is all I need to say at this point. We brought in new clause 40 because we think that should also be embedded. The Minister may tell me that it happens, but we think it should be embedded in legislation so that no future Government are ever tempted to take the money they earn from fees and put it towards other purposes. I hope that the Minister will accept that.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen anything in legislation that ensures that money raised in fees goes directly to enforcement. The Minister may want to do that, but his successors may not feel the same. The issue is never a high political priority so it is important that we get sustainability for the issue over time. That is the reason for the new clause.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. It is fantastic for the Minister to be able to kick off today with this debate—surely there has never been a Minister as lucky as this one is in taking this Bill through Committee. Here we have an entire Opposition side of the Committee united in wanting to give the Minister the tools to do the job—the job for which he has argued for years and years in this House.
We want to send the Minister into the spending review, with his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his hands bound. We want to ensure that he goes into those conversations with the law of the land changed, so that he is required to put up the fees for Companies House and actually has the money he needs to do the job. We know that that is not going to damage the business investment environment in this country. How? Because it could not get any worse than it is today.
The business investment level in this country over the last 12 years has now been the worst in the G7, so it is unlikely to get any worse if fees at Companies House are put up a little bit: it is already spectacularly bad. That underlines a simple point: that the level of economic crime in this country is now so infamous around the world that it could be damaging the level of business investment here. If we are known around the world—certainly, in Washington and in European capitals—as a global epicentre of dirty money, how does that help us become a great, global hub of business investment in years to come? Obviously, it does not. There is a competitive advantage to be had by becoming one of the great capitals of clean trade. Here we are, an Opposition united in wanting to help the Minister achieve that ambition and make sure that he has the resources to do the job.
In the public evidence sessions, we heard a clear set of arguments as to why these amendments need to be made. We heard that our country has now become the centre of the Russian laundromat, the Troika laundromat and the Azerbaijan laundromat. Indeed, the Security Minister and I were on the Foreign Affairs Committee together when we heard the most appalling evidence that some of the biggest money-laundering scandals have involved UK corporate structures more than anything else; I think I am right that about 40% of the billions laundered through Danske Bank came through UK corporate structures. That is truly a mark of shame, and why Bill Browder was absolutely right when said in evidence to this Committee that it is appalling—a matter of shame—that there has been only one prosecution for money-laundering around economic crime in this country. That truly is an appalling record of law enforcement.
Worse than that, we also heard from the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation that the situation is not simply bad news for economic crime, but a national security issue. When the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation tells the Committee that it is a matter of national security that we clean up the dark mass of economic crime in this country, we as Members of Parliament ought to listen and do something about it. Then we heard from a range of police specialists who said, first, that they thought the problem was getting much worse quite quickly, and secondly, that they did not have the resources they needed to enforce the law in this area.
All that evidence points in one direction: Companies House needs more money. When we took evidence from representatives of Companies House, we heard, startlingly, that they have not even discussed their budget with the Treasury for the next financial year, which is due to start in only a few months’ time. They mooted the idea of asking for cash for an extra 100 people, which the dogs in the street know is not going to be enough to enforce the measures in the Bill.
With all his native cunning and wit, the Minister needs to find a way to make the concessions the Opposition are asking for and to agree to the amendment, so that he can be the great, historic, legendary, reforming Minister who took the bull by the horns once and for all and helped make sure that this country is once more renowned around the world as a capital of clean trade—all because of the efforts, cunning and wisdom of the Minister in accepting the amendment before him today.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and other Members for the amendments and their contributions. I would never take credit for all the progress we are making on economic crime. In fact, I would hark back to the words of Ronald Reagan, who said something like, “There is no limit to what you can achieve in life, as long as you don’t mind who takes the credit.” I am happy to share the credit with anybody on this Committee or the many people who have campaigned on the issue over the years.
One thing I do agree with the Opposition about—it is a point on which we all agree—is that Companies House and the other enforcement agencies should have enough money to do the job. That is what we are trying to get to and what I think we will get to. I also agree that, in the past and currently, enforcement agencies have been and are under-resourced, so we need to do something about that. I also have to agree with myself on the statements I made about the proportion of spending on law enforcement for economic crime and in respect of the Treasury Committee report’s conclusion that Companies House fees should be raised. My position on that absolutely stands.
I disagree on a number of points, the first being that this situation is somehow just the current Government’s fault—that somehow, Companies House fees have been reduced to £12 over recent years. That is not the case; it has been the case for years, including when Opposition Members were in charge of setting those fees. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill was in the Treasury at the time when fees were at £12. The reason for that is that Companies House has always had the principle that its fees are levied to the extent it needs to do the job that it is set to do.
Kevin Hollinrake
Very briefly, because we are over half an hour into this debate already.
Liam Byrne
We are just getting warmed up. The Minister is absolutely right to flag that point. The fee level was always set in relation to the perception of the crime environment at the time, which was very different in 2009-10 from what it is today. As we have heard in the evidence, the crime environment is much worse and is multiplying exponentially each year, which is why the fees have to go up so dramatically. Hopefully, that is the point he is going to make.
Kevin Hollinrake
Again, we are all in agreement. Changing the environment is what this Bill—this very substantial document—is all about. There is no doubt that the situation has been hastened by what we have seen in Ukraine and other matters. It is absolutely high time to do this; I agree.
The shadow Minister suggested that somehow the fees to Companies House are going to face cuts in the future—that is the opposite of what is happening. I think he said the disparity would widen and there would be an absence of additional funding. That is absolutely the wrong way to look at the situation. The right hon. Member for Barking said that somehow these matters would be subject to cuts, and we would have to go to the Treasury as part of the comprehensive spending review to get funding for Companies House. That is exactly what is not happening—what is happening is that Companies House will collect the fees that it needs to do the job.
The position we take is that we do not put the cart before the horse. Companies House needs to set out exactly what resources, staffing and IT implementation it will need to do the job. It will present that to the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and say, “Right, this is what we need to do”. Fees will then be set on a commensurate basis and ringfenced to the job, not stolen by the Treasury. They are set in accordance with the rules and the oversight that they need, including enforcement. As we know, Companies House is moving from that dumb register to being a proactive body, in terms of overseeing the integrity of the register.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am coming to that. The simple answer is that, when the fees are assessed, they are subject to regulations that are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They are laid before the House before the fees are approved.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is under the affirmative resolution. Different Members have suggested different figures, from £50 to £100. The right hon. Member for Barking said £1,000, as if to say, “We charge that in the BVI, therefore why not charge it in the UK?” That was the implication. What she said was that the people who look to use those jurisdictions to hide their money would be quite happy to pay £1,000, but that is exactly the point. On 99.9% of occasions, we are not just dealing with companies that indulge in nefarious activities; we are talking about not deterring bona fide businesses by setting the fee level at a fair level that does not deter business activity but does mean that Companies House has the right enforcement capability. That is what we want to get to, and we want to ensure that Companies House is able to do that.
I will touch on a couple of the points made about the SFO case last week, which I think we all welcome. It was not actually about resourcing; changing legislation made that possible. It was about corporate criminal liability and failure to prevent, which was successfully enforced in that case. That is a lesson for us all. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said that there has been only one case ever of a successful economic crime prosecution in the UK, and that Bill Browder had said that. Mr Browder did not say that; there have been many prosecutions of economic crime. To clarify, he was talking about it in connection to the money that came out of Russia.
Companies House is funded by the fees that it charges. If the Secretary of State considered changing those fees, there would of necessity be an appraisal of the resourcing needs of Companies House before that could take place. Fees can be charged only to cover the costs of the activities that they are intended to fund, including enforcement.
In order to arrive at an appropriate level of fee, my Department would have to work directly with Companies House to determine the funding requirements. Of course, there has to be Government oversight of that, because that is what we are elected to do. It is right that the Secretary of State would oversee that and then present it to Parliament for scrutiny. I agree that companies will justifiably want to understand how and why a particular level of fee has been arrived at, but the mechanism for that already exists. Fees will continue to be set by regulations, and the basis for any changes will be included in the accompanying analysis and explanatory memorandum that are published and presented to Parliament for scrutiny.
New clauses 25 and 33, introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and the right hon. Member for Barking, will shortly set out intentions on the level of fees to be charged. We do not intend to enshrine a level of fee in primary legislation, as doing so would restrict flexibility that may be required at a future date. We will commit to reviewing the fees on a regular basis to ensure that they provide the funding that Companies House needs.
Liam Byrne
I think we all welcome the revelation that fees will be set shortly. What month of the year does the Minister think that might be?
Kevin Hollinrake
Sorry, I did not catch that. Will the hon. Gentleman repeat the question? I do apologise.
Liam Byrne
The Minister said that he will set out the fees shortly, but what month of the year does he mean by “shortly”?
Kevin Hollinrake
I am a new Minister, but I have heard many Ministers speak on such occasions and I have never heard a Minister commit to a date before.
Kevin Hollinrake
I cannot imagine that in his many years as a Minister the right hon. Gentleman would have ever set out a date, but it will be shortly.
Finally, I turn to proposed new clause 45 and the points made by the right hon. Member for Barking. The Bill amends the fee-raising power within the Companies Act 2006, in order to enable costs associated with investigation and enforcement to be included when setting the level of fees. Companies House is able to retain incorporated fee income under current arrangements between the Treasury and Companies House, with the arrangement reviewed periodically. Legislation does not set the level of fees, but rather the level of fees is set by our regulations. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Barking that that is under the negative resolution procedure and therefore receives parliamentary scrutiny.
Dame Margaret Hodge
If it is under the negative resolution procedure, the Minister well knows that it will not receive the parliamentary scrutiny it deserves. The advantage of the way we framed our new clauses is that the fee would automatically rise with inflation rather than any other mechanism being needed. I would have thought the Minister would welcome that because it would ensure consistent resourcing.
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not accept that the two things—inflation and the resources needed by Companies House—necessarily correlate. Salaries do not rise automatically on that basis. As the right hon. Lady will know, Companies House reports annually and I am keen to ensure that there is the right level of scrutiny around this type of activity in terms of resourcing, as I have said to her before. Therefore I do not think an automatic inflationary increase is right, but I absolutely believe in parliamentary scrutiny and it is something that perhaps we can discuss.
Dame Margaret Hodge
Will the Minister therefore come back with an amendment that provides for affirmative resolution?
Kevin Hollinrake
That may be something that the right hon. Lady wants to table, but this is a significant commitment, both in terms of legislation and resourcing. I cannot imagine a situation where Companies House comes to the Secretary of State or to me, as I will have some oversight over it, and say, “We need this level of resourcing, which will impact on fees in this way,” and we respond by saying, “Actually, that is too much.” It depends what they say, of course, and it is right that we have scrutiny over that, but I am sure there will be many mechanisms the right hon. Lady can use to ensure we have that level right.
Stephen Kinnock
No. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 17, in clause 89, page 69, line 5, at end insert—
“(b) the reference in subsection (3A)(d) to functions carried out by the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland on behalf of a Northern Ireland department, so long as the functions referred to are functions of a Northern Ireland department that are of a similar nature.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
The amendment allows the reference to functions carried out by the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland on behalf of a Northern Ireland department to be amended in the event that, in future, the functions are exercised otherwise than by the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
As I have just set out to the Committee, clause 89, as amended, will enable Companies House fees to be used to fund enforcement and prosecution action against companies and other entities. As we increase the powers of the registrar and expand the role that Companies House and the Insolvency Service play in tackling economic crime, we need to make sure that they are appropriately resourced to carry out that activity. The clause is therefore vital in ensuring that Companies House can do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Disclosure of information
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 90, page 69, line 24, at end insert
“and,
(c) to an insolvency practitioner appointed over a corporate who has requested information not publicly available on the register about to a corporate over which they have been appointed, or any other corporates linked to that of the entity to which they have been appointed, from the Registrar.”
This amendment would enable the Registrar to share non-public information on the register upon request by insolvency practitioners, in relation to the corporate over which they have been appointed, or any other corporates linked to that of the entity to which they have been appointed.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. Clause 90 amends the Companies Act 2006, inserting proposed new sections that allow any person and the registrar to disclose information to each other, and help the registrar to perform its functions. It is an important clause that effectively widens disclosure provisions, allowing the registrar to disclose any information held, and to do so proactively where that disclosure enables the exercise of the registrar’s functions. I am concerned that it perhaps does not go far enough. We heard in evidence about the importance of clarity around information sharing, what is and is not permitted, and what can be disclosed.
It is in this light that I speak to amendment 105, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, which would enable the registrar to share non-public information on the register on request by insolvency practitioners in relation to a corporate over which they have been appointed, or any other corporates linked to the entity to which they have been appointed. In short, the amendment would ensure that, where the registrar holds non-public information that could aid insolvency practitioners in carrying out their duties in investigating a corporate that they have been appointed to investigate, the registrar can, on request, share that information with the insolvency practitioners.
As R3, the insolvency practitioners group, laid out in its evidence to the Committee, insolvency practitioners, when appointed over corporate entities, are required by law
“to investigate a company’s affairs and director conduct…in order to discharge their duties.”
The group recommends
“that insolvency practitioners be able to request access to Companies House’s non-public information pertaining to any other corporates linked to that of the entity to which they have been appointed.”
This is a simple but quite important amendment, which would ensure that, where economic crime could have taken place in a dissolved company, insolvency practitioners can proactively request all the non-public information held by the registrar on the register that would help in either preventing or detecting the possible economic crime. It is not about a fishing expedition, or anything like that: it is about giving, in specific circumstances, insolvency practitioners the further tools that they have said are important to help them to do their incredibly important job.
I ask the Minister to give the amendment serious consideration. We are not necessarily planning to press it to a vote, because this is an area where he will probably see the merits of the argument. He may want to come back to it later, perhaps with a Government proposal, or we may pick it up again. It seems to plug an important gap in a part of the legislation that concerns the disclosure of information. The legislation is proactive, from the point of view of the registrar being able to share information; if, however, the registrar does not know where it might be needed, insolvency practitioners, who have duties under the law, should have the opportunity to request information that can provide evidence for economic crime or give insight into a company, so that potential economic crimes do not go undetected and unpunished.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Members for the amendment.. The registrar is already permitted to share information with insolvency practitioners for purposes connected with her own functions—clearly now expanded, given this legislation. However, we acknowledge that there may be other specific circumstances in which she wishes to share information, so I sympathise with the tabling of the amendment.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. That is a constructive step forward. I would be very happy to meet the Minister, whether before Committee stage concludes or soon after at Report stage. It feels quite an important space. We would be prepared to look at rewording the amendment or to work with the Government on one to see if it needs to be narrower but still serve the purpose. That makes for better legislation and we would be very happy to look at it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Clause 91 to 93 stand part.
New clause 36—Disclosure of PSC information to local authorities—
‘(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 790ZH (inserted by section 92 of this Act) insert—
790Z1 Disclosure of PSC information to local authorities
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to facilitate the release of information held by companies on people of significant control to any relevant local authority which may request such information for the purposes of—
(a) tackling economic crime; and
(b) recovering a relevant unpaid debt;
(2) For the purposes of subsection (4A)(a) above, “tackling economic crime” includes any reasonable steps which the local authority may see fit to take as part of an investigation into a company which the authority has reasonable grounds to suspect may be involved in the commission of a relevant offence.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (4B) above, a “relevant offence” includes an offence under—
(a) the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; and
(b) the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, as amended.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4A)(b) above, a “relevant unpaid debt” includes unpaid business rates subject to recovery by the local authority under the Local Government Finance Act 1988.’
This new clause makes specific provision for relevant information to be disclosed, upon request, to a relevant local authority in connection with any effort by such an authority to investigate suspected economic crime, or to collect outstanding debts from companies which have not paid business rates.
Kevin Hollinrake
Currently, the registrar is restricted in what information she can share, which can be done only on a reactive basis. Clause 90 enhances the data sharing powers of the registrar so that she can proactively share information. Sharing will be allowed for the purposes of the registrar’s own functions or where she is sharing with a public authority for the purposes of their function.
Schedule 3 makes consequential amendments to the Companies Act 2006 and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2002 resulting from clause 90. Clauses 91 to 93 make further amendments to the Companies Act to improve the registrar’s information sharing capabilities, ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place and improve the integrity of the register. Clause 91 closes a gap by making it an offence for a company to use or disclose protected information in contravention of section 241 of the Companies Act.
Clause 92 confers a power on the registrar on application to make an order requiring a company not to use or disclose relevant people with significant control particulars. Currently, the registrar can use directors’ residential addresses only for the purpose of communicating with the director. Clause 93 will remove the restriction on the use of protected information, specifically directors’ residential addresses. That means that the registrar will be able to use residential address information for alternative purposes such as cross-checking the accuracy of information on the register. That will help to improve the integrity of the register.
I thank hon. Members for new clause 36. Its effect would be to give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations to facilitate the release of people of significant control information from companies to local authorities for the purposes of tackling economic crime and recovering a relevant unpaid debt. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Clause 92 already provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify the circumstances in which a company may disclose relevant PSC particulars.
Furthermore, the Government consider that it would be more appropriate for the registrar to have the power to disclose such information to local authorities, rather than the company, given the closeness of the relationship between a company and its people of significant control, and the risk of tipping off. A company may have only one director, person of significant control and shareholder. Such person could, in effect, be disclosing self-incriminating information about themselves.
Committee members can rest assured that under the new powers given to the registrar in clause 90, they can disclose information to a public authority for purposes connected with that public authority’s functions. That includes local authorities. The registrar may also disclose information to any persons for purposes connected with its own functions, such as for the purposes of crime prevention and detection. Clause 90 already provides a route for local authorities to access PSC information for the purposes of tackling crime and recovering relevant unpaid debt. I hope that provides reassurance to hon. Members.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to speak in this stand part debate. I will defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon to speak to new clause 36.
I have referenced some points on clause 90 and its importance. I will make a couple of other remarks on that more generally. It widens disclosure provisions, and the registrar will proactively disclose information held where that disclosure enables the exercise of her functions. I have a question for the Minister on subsections (5) and (6), where offences and defences are set out. That is obviously important, but I have a concern about the disclosure or data sharing provisions.
The fear of being on the wrong side of the law can sometimes deter the use of those powers. It is a question about whether there has been any discussion with the registrar, for example, about the interpretation of the wording; being as clear as possible about what is permissible within the law and where the offences might be, and the possible defence for a person who could be charged with an offence under subsection (5). So often we say, “There are powers to do X” or “The police have a power”, but there are concerns about the use of that power and how someone could be accused of not using that power within the law, so we might end up having a challenge. Someone could go through a process to clear their name or to say that their actions were within the scope of the law. We just need to be clear to reduce the challenges that can come later.
Perhaps the Minister will respond today or clarify in discussions with the registrar on this very important clause that it is as clearly worded as it could be, with less room to be challenged where that power is used as intended by Parliament.
Schedule 3 makes consequential amendments to clause 90 and amends the Companies Act to enable the registrar to disclose usual residential addresses. It states that where additional trust information is protected from disclosure to the public, regulations made under section 25 may not require the registrar to refrain from disclosing that information under proposed new section 1110E. Will the Minister explain that aspect a little further? Broadly, we welcome the schedule as a necessary provision in expanding the information sharing aspect.
Clause 91 highlights an offence that can be committed by a company and every officer who is in default. Clause 92 confers a power on the Secretary of State, on application, to make regulations requiring the registrar to make an order requiring a company not to use or disclose relevant information regarding persons of significant control. The Minister has spoken to this point briefly, but could he expand a little more on the introduction of this clause, and can he provide any examples of instances in which—as per clause 92—the Secretary of State might require a company not to disclose PSC information? We would welcome that clarity.
I have no further comments on clause 93, which restricts the registrar from using directors’ residential addresses for anything other than communicating with the director. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification of the points I have raised.
Stephen Kinnock
I rise to speak in support of new clause 36. In considering the Bill’s provisions on information sharing, we should ask ourselves two main questions. First, do the clauses strike the right balance between protecting individuals’ privacy on the one hand, and making as much information as possible available to members of the public on the other? Secondly, does the Bill make adequate provision for information to be shared between organisations in order to facilitate the robust enforcement of these laws? It is the second of those questions that new clause 36 seeks to address.
On a number of issues, the Committee has been able to find an encouraging degree of cross-party consensus on the actions we need to take against economic crime. I think we can all agree that the existing frameworks for law enforcement are not currently up to the task. It has been widely acknowledged for some time now that the diffuse nature of enforcement responsibilities across so many different government agencies, police forces and private sector institutions often acts as a hindrance to efforts to achieve a comprehensive, strategic approach across all sectors involved. Alongside the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which came into force earlier this year, the Bill seeks to reduce barriers to information sharing in order to facilitate more timely and effective enforcement action where it is needed. However, the information-sharing provisions that we are currently discussing leave some important issues unresolved.
With new clause 36 we have sought to address one of the most troubling gaps in the Bill as currently drafted: the absence of any specific measures to facilitate information sharing with local authorities. That is a serious weakness that, if left unaddressed, could pose a serious challenge to efforts to ensure a strong, unified, cross-government approach to law enforcement, in terms not only of Whitehall but the vertical relationship between national Government and local government. Many local authorities, particularly in London, are at the coalface when it comes to dealing with some of the most pernicious effects of money laundering and other forms of economic crime. It is disappointing that the Committee was not able to hear from any local government representatives during our evidence sessions. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what steps, if any, the Government took to consult local authorities during the process of drafting the Bill.
In the meantime, I would like to share some of the points raised with me recently by members and officers from Westminster City Council. It should come as no surprise to Committee members that the effects of money laundering and other criminal activity, particularly in relation to property ownership, can be seen more acutely in Westminster than probably anywhere else in the country. As we should have the opportunity to discuss issues related to property ownership when we debate part 3 of the Bill, at this point I want to provide an example that illustrates the need for measures that specifically address the need for more information sharing with local authorities.
In Westminster, the council is trying to deal with a range of problems caused by the huge and growing presence of so-called American-style candy stores and souvenir shops across central London, with 21 such stores in the Oxford Street area alone. Extensive investigations by council officers, together with raids that have led to the seizure of more than £650,000-worth of counterfeit goods, provide an important evidence base that indicates the scale of the problem. Among the goods seized in those raids were thousands of disposable vapes that are in breach of UK standards on nicotine levels. That suggests that these stores may pose risks to public health, in addition to their apparent role in illicit financial activity. In Westminster alone, unpaid business rates from the stores amount to some £8 million.
Alison Thewliss
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon. As a former local government councillor, I can confirm that there definitely needs to be an interface between central Government and local government and it needs to look at economic crime. I was curious about previous discussions we have had about fit and proper persons. The fit and proper person test applies to parts of licensing within local government, but there is not necessarily any way of linking that with Companies House information.
The point about phoenixing is also important. Local businesses often come to local government for support, particularly during the pandemic or other times of crisis, and quite rightly so. Councils may hold information about the legitimacy of companies that have perhaps phoenixed many times—they applied for Government grants but the previous directors of the company dissolved it when business rates were due. Local government will have information, but there is not necessarily a place for it to reside. The Government need to think about how that information goes between the two levels of government.
With companies involved in property or homes of multiple occupation, there may be concerns about the fit and proper persons test and how that interacts with the companies engaged in housing provision. There needs to be some thought as to how those bits interact. We very much encourage the Minister to look at how the Government can be involved in that, and we support the Opposition new clause.
Kevin Hollinrake
I shall respond briefly to the queries raised. All the information must be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. The way the Bill operates is consistent with similar legislation that deals with data sharing.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston raised the issue of the protection of information. The provision applies in a situation of risk of harm or serious risk of violence or intimidation—for example, in respect of domestic abuse victims.
Data sharing was raised by both shadow Ministers—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberavon. It is permitted to assist public authorities when they exercise public functions, such as confirming the accuracy of data or providing intelligence to law enforcement agencies.
Stephen Kinnock
Does the Minister have any comments on the points about local authorities?
Kevin Hollinrake
Data sharing is permitted to assist public authorities when they exercise their public functions. For example, they could ask the registrar to confirm the accuracy of data that is held, which may lead to information being shared for intelligence purposes with enforcement agencies.
Kevin Hollinrake
Local authorities are a subset of public authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Disclosure of information: consequential amendments
Amendment made: 49, in schedule 3, page 162, line 5, leave out paragraphs 5 to 7.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on NC17 and NC18.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94
General false statement Offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 94 amends the general false statement offence in section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006 to create two separate offences: a basic offence and an aggravated offence. The Bill also amends section 32 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to make a mirror-image, two-tier approach. The existing false statement offence under the Companies Act requires a document or a false, misleading or deceptive statement to have been delivered or caused to be delivered knowingly or recklessly to the registrar. Clause 94 substitutes that existing offence for two new offences with commensurate penalties.
The basic offence is committed when the false statement is made without reasonable excuse. The aggravated offence is committed when the false statement is knowingly made. It is worth noting that that refines the amendments made by the Government during the passage of the 2022 Act in response to parliamentary scrutiny. When either offence is committed by a firm, every officer of the firm that is in default also commits the offence. The structure of the new sections maintains consistency with amendments to the 2022 Act, the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 and the Reports on Payments to Governments Regulations 2014, as amended by the Bill.
On clause 95, we have already discussed many of the new powers that we are providing to the registrar and how they are intended to work. In exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to allow material that would otherwise be treated as false, misleading or deceptive to be deliberately provided to the registrar to protect our nation’s interests or to assist in the prevention or detection of serious crime. The clause ensures that when such action is taken, the Secretary of State can issue a certificate that ensures that the person to whom it is issued is not liable for the commission of acts that might otherwise amount to a false filing offence.
Clearly, the work of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies must be able to be carried out without fear of prosecution when they are acting in our interests. The certificate that may be issued provides an exemption for those purposes. The Secretary of State must be satisfied about the reason why a certificate has been sought and may issue one only if to do so is in the interest of national security or for the prevention or detection of serious crime. The certificate can be revoked at any time.
To further limit the circumstances in which a certificate can be issued, serious crime is defined in the clause, providing further assurance about the need for such a certificate. The definition of serious crime aligns with that used in section 18 of the 2022 Act, which allows the Secretary of State to exempt a person from the requirements of the register of overseas entities for the same reasons. The Government listened to the concerns expressed about such exceptions and exemptions during the expedited passage of the 2022 Act; the clause is therefore carefully constructed so as to be as narrow as possible.
Stephen Kinnock
One of the key problems the Bill seeks to address is the difficulty that arises when enforcing laws for which the burden of proof is exceptionally high. In that regard, the Opposition welcome the changes set out in clause 94. The current requirement to prove that somebody who has delivered false or misleading information or documents to Companies House did so knowingly and recklessly seems to set the bar so high as to act, in effect, as a hindrance to successful prosecution. It is a sensible change to replace the current requirement with language that enables a defence on grounds of a reasonable excuse, especially in the context of the related provision in the clause to prosecute those who can be shown deliberately to have provided false information for an aggravated offence that is subject to imprisonment for up to two years.
Clause 95, however, raises some questions that I hope the Minister will clarify. It will amend the Companies Act to allow the Secretary of State to issue any individual with a certificate that, it would seem, could provide blanket immunity from prosecution for any offence related to the delivery to the registrar or the making of a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive. This power is potentially very broad and, beyond a couple of lines stating that a certificate could be issued for reasons of national security or to assist in the prevention or detection of serious crime, there is little clarity as to how it might be used. I am sure the Committee would be grateful if the Minister could provide any further detail on how frequently and in what kinds of circumstances the power might be used. Perhaps the Minister could also set out in a bit more detail what safeguards, if any, might be put into place to ensure that the power is used only in cases in which there is a compelling need to do so.
Alison Thewliss
I am glad that an aggravated offence is included in clause 94, on general false statement offences, because quite clearly there are some people who are absolutely taking the piss in terms of their company registration.
The false filing bit leads me to the topic of enforcement, which is the other side of the puzzle. Out of interest, I tabled a written parliamentary question to the Minister to ask
“how many fines have been levied in each of the past ten years for the offence of false filing to companies house, and what estimate he has made of the value of those fines.”
His response was quite interesting. In 2012, the number of fines levied was nil, as it was in 2013. In 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 it was also nil. In 2018, things got slightly better, because one fine of £1,602 was levied. In 2019, there was a much better £15,000 fine for false filing. In 2020 and 2021, the number of fines was nil, and up to 31 October 2022 there was one fine of £500.
I guess there have been far more instances of false filing to Companies House in the past 10 years than those fines suggest. I do not believe that there have been only three cases of false filing to Companies House, because all the evidence suggests that it is absolutely rife. Will the Minister tell us more about how, in looking at the false statement offences, the aggravated offences and the fines that will be levied for non-compliance, he intends to pursue those who file false statements? Currently, they are not being pursued at all.
Kevin Hollinrake
I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon, had two main queries. On the type of circumstance in which a certificate would be issued, it is impossible to predict other than to say that it would be when it is in the interests of national security or in the case of a serious crime, which is defined in the clause. The actual circumstances around that are incredibly difficult to predict. It is fair to say that we expect such a certificate to be issued on extremely rare occasions, but we cannot rule out the possibility of our needing to do so. Ultimately, it has to be a judgment for the Secretary of State.
On false filing, I well remember responding to the written question from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. It was a very fair question. That is why we are in this Committee Room: it is about not just legislation but implementation. There have to be the proper resources for Companies House to do that job and I absolutely want to make sure that it has not just the powers but the resources to interrogate the database, make sure it is accurate and share the data information, because it is critical to look at the context. A number of things align in this respect: it is about the powers, the resources, the data-sharing capability and, for the first time, the sanctions of up to two years in prison on individuals who file falsely.
We absolutely want to ensure that the figures improve. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that there will be many more cases of false filing than those that have been identified, but to be fair to Companies House, without the resources to do it, which it has never been given before, that is a pretty difficult job for it to do. Companies House does publicly report annually, and I would very much like to see that kind of accountability in future reports, in terms of its efficacy in this area.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Financial penalties
Dame Margaret Hodge
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 96, page 75, line 23, leave out “the Consolidated Fund” and insert
“a fund established by the Secretary of State for the purposes of tackling economic crime (see section 1132B)”.
This amendment requires penalties paid to the registrar to be paid into a fund for the purposes of tackling economic crime, rather than the consolidated fund.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 80, in clause 96, page 75, line 26, at end insert—
“1132B Fund for the purposes of tackling economic crime
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a fund for the purposes of tackling economic crime.
(2) Penalties received by the registrar under section 1132A must contribute to the fund.
(3) The regulations must specify the purposes for which the fund may be used including funding the activities of law enforcement agencies in tackling economic crime.
(a) funding the activities of law enforcement agencies in tackling economic crime;”
This amendment provides for a fund to be established for the purposes of tackling economic crime.
New clause 29—Report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime—
“(1) The Secretary of State must produce a report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime.
(2) The report must consider the case for penalties paid to the registrar to be ringfenced and used solely for the purposes of tackling economic crime.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”
This new clause requires a report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime to be laid before Parliament.
Dame Margaret Hodge
Let us see where we get with this one—I will have another go. This is a vital amendment and I hope that the Government will listen carefully, because it would go a long way to ensuring that our enforcement capabilities, which we have been talking about all morning, really are fit for purpose and properly funded, without burdening the taxpayer—that is really important. If we tried to get competition between funding enforcement and funding other Government priorities, we would get nowhere in trying to ensure properly funded enforcement agencies.
The UK’s record is abysmal. I am going to put this on the record. The NCA has had five prosecutions each year for the last five years. That is hopeless. Money laundering prosecutions are down 35% over the last five years, at a time of exponential growth in money laundering. Less than 1% of the billions of pounds laundered annually is ever restored to us. And the number of criminal fraud cases by the SFO has halved in the last three years, although again I welcome the Glencore case, and I agree with the Minister that it shows the importance of introducing the offence of failure to prevent economic crime.
This is not a criticism of the agencies; it is a criticism of us and our failure to fund this work properly, which is what we are trying to do here. If we look at the totality of the UK’s expenditure on enforcement, we see that it is pathetic. It is 0.042% of GDP, whereas we know that the cost to the UK economy of economic crime is 14.5%, so there is an absurd relationship between our need to detect and prevent crime and our capability to do so. The FBI is 15 times larger than the NCA. We have already said that the police spend less than 1% on fraud, even though it represents 40% of crime—and that is just reported crime. And we have already said that the Americans have increased their budget, because they see this as a security threat, whereas we have reduced one.
I would welcome a comment from the Minister on this matter. My understanding is that the Government contribution to the fight against economic crime is £100 million. Out of the totality of £400 million in the budget, £300 million comes from the economic crime levy and only £100 million, over the comprehensive spending review period, comes from the taxpayer, so that is a mere £32 million or £33 million a year.
Kevin Hollinrake
If the right hon. Lady includes what we resource—the SFO, NCA and other enforcement agencies—it is not entirely clear, but we give about £825 million a year to our enforcement agencies.
Dame Margaret Hodge
The Minister knows that that is not necessarily to fight economic crime, but to fight other crimes. I was talking about the economic crime levy and those are the figures that I have.
It is irritating but understandable that the enforcement agencies prioritise other crimes in their day-to-day work; they do not prioritise economic crime. Despite the lack of funding, a lot of money is brought in by the enforcement agencies. Between 2018 and 2021, £3.9 billion was brought in in fines, confiscation and forfeiture. If all of that had been reinvested, all of the agencies would have had an extra £748 million to fight economic crime over that period. That would have had a fantastic impact on our ability to fight, detect and prevent economic crime.
It has been said in previous debates that money from fines cannot be hypothecated in that way, but I draw the Minister’s attention to three precedents that negate that claim. In June 2022, the Information Commissioner announced a new arrangement allowing the office to keep some of the proceeds of its civil penalties to fund its work with the big tech companies. In 2019, Ofwat kept the proceeds of penalties it had raised on Southern Water to pay out to and reimburse customers. The Gambling Commission can also require payments rather than penalties to compensate victims or make payments to charities. Those are three precedents on which the Minister could build the argument that it would be perfectly appropriate for the proceeds of fines to be kept in order to resource the fight against economic crime.
I also draw the Minister’s attention to a report on fraud published by the House of Lords last week, which states:
“To support the forthcoming fraud strategy”,
which is only a part of addressing economic crime,
“with adequate resources, the Government must commit to a long-term funding strategy with an increased offer for law enforcement agencies”—
and this is the important bit—
“focussed primarily on recycling revenue collected by law enforcement agencies back into law enforcement activity.”
The House of Lords has, therefore, come to the same conclusion as we have in tabling this amendment.
The UK’s asset recovery incentivisation scheme ensures that some assets are recycled. Most of them go to the Treasury. Of the £354 million recovered in 2021-22 from confiscation orders, forfeiture orders and civil recovery orders, only 40% went back into fighting crime. If we compare ourselves with the Americans, we will see that all of their forfeiture proceeds go back into enforcement.
Under our proposal, money would be ring-fenced and it would be a cross-Government fund to finance enforcement against fraud and dirty money. The Minister knows that if the UK is to tackle economic crime effectively, far greater ambition is needed on the scale of public investment, and establishing an economic crime fund is the radical response that we need.
Stephen Kinnock
I would like to add some comments to the eloquent remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking.
In clause 96, the Government provide a framework for the registrar, within parameters to be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations, to impose direct financial penalties for many offences without the need for lengthy and often costly court proceedings. That is surely a welcome development, at least in so far as it should enable the registrar to take swifter action to deal with any offences involving false representations made to Companies House.
Of course, we will need to look closely at the details of how that will work in practice. In that respect, it is right that the Bill provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the relevant regulations via the affirmative resolution procedure. If the Minister could give a rough indication of when we can expect those regulations to be published, I am sure that the Committee would be grateful.
One thing that clause 96 makes clear is that any civil penalties imposed by the registrar will not exceed £10,000. I would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister about how that figure was arrived at, and whether he is confident that the power to impose a fine at that level will act as a deterrent to would-be offenders. Given the profit margins involved in some of the most serious crimes, we must ensure that the threat of civil penalties is both real and sufficient in terms of its potential to take a meaningful chunk out of criminals’ assets. I am not entirely convinced that the threat of a £10,000 fine will be taken all that seriously by some of the intended targets, but if the Minister is aware of any convincing evidence to the contrary, I would be glad to hear it.
Even if we assume that the Government make rapid progress with the regulations enabling the registrar to impose civil penalties, we must then address—not for the first time in Committee—what happens to any funds raised from civil penalties. In amendments 84 and 80 and new clause 29, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has once again provided the Committee with an eminently reasonable and sensible answer to that question. Taken together, these amendments would require any fines paid to the registrar to be specifically designated and ring-fenced for the purposes of tackling economic crime.
The asset recovery incentivisation scheme, introduced by the previous Labour Government, provides a template of sorts, but given the scale of the threat that we now face from economic crime, we need to go further. It is surely a no-brainer that any fees paid to the registrar, together with penalties for those who break the rules, should be reinvested in broader cross-Government efforts to tackle economic crime. That would provide a stronger incentive for tougher enforcement and a more sustainable long-term funding model for Companies House and other enforcement bodies at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Opposition Front Benchers therefore fully support these amendments. We hope that Members on the Government Benches will do the same.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very sympathetic to the points raised by contributors to this debate, and I am fully signed up to making sure that our law enforcement agencies have a long-term funding solution. As the right hon. Member for Barking knows, I am very sympathetic to the need to properly resource enforcement agencies, and, indeed, to the need for clarity on what funding is in place, right across the piece. We could have various different debates about what level that should be and on whether it should be £30 million a year. It is an awful lot more than that, but I accept that there should be more clarity. Wherever we can, we should seek to raise the moneys that the enforcement agencies need to do their job properly.
We are developing a new funding model for Companies House, which demonstrates our commitment to tackling economic crime. The combination of last year’s spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the new economic crime levy will provide funding of £400 million over the spending review period. That applies to the AML regulated sector and will fund new or uplifted activity to tackle money laundering, starting from 2023-24. There will be a wide-ranging review three years later to provide transparency on how the levy is performing against its original purpose, including how the money is being spent.
In addition, as the right hon. Member for Barking set out, a proportion of assets recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are already reinvested in economic crime capability under the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. The figures that she quotes are interesting, because according to my note here, the receipts paid should be split 50:50 between the Home Office and the Treasury and operational partners, which should be the enforcement agencies. It should be an equal split. I do not know about the numbers that she gives regarding the situation in the US, but I am happy to look at that in further detail. I am very keen to make sure that resources are made available.
There is probably a difference here in relation to fines. The right hon. Lady acknowledges that POCA offences have been subject to the oversight of our courts. In terms of fines and civil penalties, however, there are strict guidelines on how that money can be spent. It is interesting to look at the examples she quotes, but I think that two of them concern reimbursement of victims rather than further resourcing of the relevant agencies. I also slightly worry about the unintended consequences of allowing the regulator to simply issue fines and keep them. Many of those fines may be issued not because of transgressions related to economic crime; they may be related to other offences and other things.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon, raised the issue of whether the level of £10,000 was appropriate. It is quite a lot of money, of course. The vast majority of businesses registered with Companies House are smaller companies. For a smaller company, £10,000 is an awful lot of money. It is, of course, an option. It is not that the registrar cannot refer this to law enforcement agencies. She can determine whether to impose a civil penalty or refer the matter to a law enforcement agency if it is serious enough. We felt that £10,000 was a reasonable compromise. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Member for Barking will withdraw the amendment.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I would like to press amendment 84 to a vote, but I do not intend to press amendment 80.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kevin Hollinrake
At present, most obligations relating to the functions of the registrar are enforced through the criminal justice system. Clause 96 inserts new section 1132A into the Companies Act 2006, which gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to enable
“the registrar to impose a financial penalty on a person if satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person has engaged in conduct amounting to a relevant offence under this Act.”
The registrar will have the discretion to choose to either pursue a financial penalty or pass a case on to law enforcement to consider criminal prosecution. Clause 96 contains a delegated power regarding the level of financial penalty. That is because in order to best support enforcement agencies in their fight against economic crime, there is likely to be a need to review and refine the enforcement procedures and processes.
Dame Margaret Hodge
Will the Minister confirm whether the action of Companies House under this clause should be part of the annual report to Parliament?
Kevin Hollinrake
I think that is a very sensible suggestion and I am happy to take that away. I would like to see a number of things in that report that are currently not there. If we look at the most recent report, we see a number of references to this particular legislation. It welcomes this legislation, and I think it is important that the body reports publicly and to Parliament, as would be the case with the measures that the right hon. Lady mentions.
Similarly, there may be reason to review the appropriate financial penalty amount, and interest or late payment amount, to deter misconduct against the register as effectively as possible. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will provide the appropriate amount of parliamentary scrutiny of any proposed further changes.
Clause 97 will strengthen the link between civil sanctions and director disqualification by amending section 3 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, which states that the court may make
“a disqualification order against a person where it appears to it that he has been persistently in default in relation to provisions of the companies legislation”,
and that
“the fact that a person has been persistently in default…may…be conclusively proved by showing that”,
in the previous five years,
“he has been adjudged guilty…of three or more defaults”.
Under proposed new section 1132A of the Companies Act 2006, the registrar will be able to impose a financial penalty on a person, if she is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has engaged in conduct amounting to an offence.
Section 3 of the CDDA will be amended so that the imposition of a financial penalty can count as a default. That will provide a greater deterrent to those who seek to circumvent legislative requirements. Not only will individuals face the risk of a financial penalty but the risk of being disqualified will become more likely when a financial penalty has been imposed. Clause 98 mirrors the provisions in clause 97 so that they apply in Northern Ireland, amending the current provision in article 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.
Stephen Kinnock
We are disappointed that clause 96 will go forward unamended, because we feel that there are real risks in not directly linking the moneys raised with reinvestment specifically into economic crime. It is important to put that disappointment on the record.
Kevin Hollinrake
Of course, there is a link in the average scheme. I think £1.3 billion has been raised from asset recovery for law enforcement agencies since 2007, so there is a link. The point that we disagree on is fines.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for that intervention. The amendments were trying to require any fines paid to the registrar to be specifically designated and ringfenced for the purposes of tackling economic crime. It is the lack of a specific designation and ringfencing that is disappointing, but we are where we are, and we move forward.
I will comment briefly on the final two clauses in the group. They are largely supplementary to the provisions that we have already discussed, but are nevertheless important. I particularly welcome the clarification in clause 97 that individuals subject to civil penalties under the preceding clauses will be treated in a similar way to those with a criminal conviction for the purposes of determining whether they meet the criteria for disqualification from serving as company directors. Making it clear that the same standards of conduct apply to those with a record of civil or criminal penalties should buttress the new system for civil enforcement fines, and will hopefully increase compliance.
The provisions of clause 97 that apply within Britain would be extended to Northern Ireland under clause 98. As I have said before, ensuring that a common set of rules and regulations is applied across the UK as a whole can only be a good thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 97 and 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99
Meaning of “limited partnership”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
This is a very simple measure. The Government are seeking to tackle the misuse of limited partnerships while modernising the law governing them. The clause clarifies the meaning of the term “limited partnership”. The revised wording removes ambiguity and sets out that it is possible to be a limited partnership only by virtue of being registered as a limited partnership under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. Furthermore, the Companies Act 2006 provision relating to the index of company names is amended to refer to limited partnerships registered under the Limited Partnerships Act. That allows the registrar to remove firms from the index of company names if they are dissolved, cease to be registered under the Limited Partnerships Act, or both.
Seema Malhotra
The clause inserts the definition of limited partnership into the Bill and makes clear that the registrar is obliged to maintain only those limited partnerships registered under the 1907 Act within the registrar’s index of names.
Limited partnerships are a specific type of business structure in UK law that confer limited liability on some partners and therefore have to be registered with Companies House in line with the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 and the Partnership Act 1890, but numerous reports and consultations by the Government have identified the risk of economic crime through limited partnerships and Scottish limited partnerships. As I know the Minister will be well aware, the consultation in 2018 also emphasised the apparent attractiveness of such partnerships as vehicles for organised crime, and I am sure we will come back to that when we consider amendments to this part of the Bill. The consultation noted specifically that the National Crime Agency reported a high volume of suspected criminal activity involving Scottish limited partnerships. It also referred to claims made in an investigation that 113 SLPs were involved in a much larger money laundering scheme that transferred more than $20 billion out of Russia between 2010 and 2014.
Limited partnerships and Scottish limited partnerships have been identified by the Government for some time as high-risk corporate structures when it comes to facilitating and enabling economic crime. It is positive that we have reached this point, but it is disappointing how long it has taken. The clause is important, as it ensures that the registrar is obliged to maintain those limited partnerships that are registered as such, thereby ensuring that the registrar is not under any obligation to maintain names of defunct limited partnerships.
Alison Thewliss
My views on the abuse of Scottish limited partnerships are on the record, and the Minister is well aware of them. Anything that will help to tighten up protection against that abuse is welcome, but again, a lot of this goes to enforcement. It is not good enough just to legislate. There has to be enforcement, and the current enforcement has been absolutely woeful, with just one fine for failing to register a person with significant control. When the legislation started in January 2018, 7,078 people were not registered as they should have been as persons with significant control. That now stands at 201, but 201 is still too many, and the Government are still not issuing any fines for not complying with the obligations under that law. As with all the measures within this part of the Bill, my concern is about enforcement and making sure that everything is absolutely watertight, because if there is no consequence—at the moment, there is no consequence for non-compliance—people will continue to abuse the systems.
I caution the Minister also that when the rules around Scottish limited partnerships were tightened, people just moved to the next structure, and the next structure was limited partnerships in Ireland. Ireland has seen a huge surge in people abusing its corporate structures, which are similar to ours for historical reasons, but nobody warned the Irish that this was coming. I would be interested to know how the Government intend to monitor the tightening up of this legislation so that we are not just pushing down the bubble in the wallpaper for it to come up somewhere else.
Kevin Hollinrake
As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central knows, the new provisions apply to Scottish limited partnerships, as well as limited partnerships. She is absolutely right to say that it is about not just the powers but the resources. I fully concur with that, as we have said previously. I will not reiterate those points.
The hon. Lady make her points on displacement—people will stop doing it here or in Scotland and go to Delaware, Ireland, or wherever else—well, of course. But we can do precious little about that, other than work on international co-operation through organisations such as the Financial Action Task Force, as we do internationally, to put pressure on all those jurisdictions. My view on the suggestion that has been raised many times that people will simply go somewhere else is that if all we can do is ensure they do not carry on their nefarious activities here, that is at least something. However, we certainly must work internationally with others on what happens globally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Required information about partners
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 101 stand part.
Clause 102 stand part.
New clause 56—Limited partnerships: registration of persons of significant control—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the registration of persons of significant control in relation to limited partnerships.
(2) For the purposes of regulations under this section, ‘persons of significant control’ may include persons with a right to—
(a) 25% or more of the surplus assets on winding up,
(b) a voting share of 25% or more,
(c) appoint or remove the majority of managers,
(d) exercise significant influence or control over the business, or
(e) exercise significant influence or control over a firm which would be a person of significant control if it were an individual.
(3) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether or not together with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 100 and schedule 4 significantly increase the amount of information that must be provided about a new limited partnership and its prospective partners, and, subsequently, when they make their annual confirmation statements or deliver notifications that report changes. Schedule 4 sets out what information must be provided, including date of birth, nationality and the usual residential address when the partner is an individual.
Clause 101 is intended to ensure that existing limited partnerships registered prior to the commencement of the Bill are equally required to deliver the relevant information set out in schedule 4. The general partners of limited partnerships will be required to provide the registrar with the required information of each person who is a partner in the limited partnership, or who became a partner on registration within a six-month transitional period.
Failure to comply with those requirements may give the registrar reasonable cause to consider that the limited partnership is no longer operating and is dissolved. That will mean that the registrar may exercise her confirmation of dissolution power, which we will debate later on. If the registrar goes through the confirmation of dissolution process, she may deregister the dissolved firm.
Clause 102 provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, designate a standard system for classifying the business of a limited partnership. That will make it easier to collate and sort information about a limited partnership’s activities and it aligns with the position for companies. I thank the right hon. Member for Barking for her new clause 56. Perhaps she should speak about that now, and I will respond to her points.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am grateful to the Minister and I agree with him that what we are all attempting to do here is trying to clean up the act in the UK. Some of our amendments are pragmatic, and I just hope that the Minister will listen and take them on board.
I want to go back to first principles, from when I started working in this area almost a decade ago. It was absolutely clear that transparency is a powerful tool in preventing and detecting economic crime. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. David Cameron used that phrase when he introduced the register of beneficial ownership, saying that we had a “gold standard”. It did not quite turn out that way, but that was what he wanted. To go back to the days of 2018, the Financial Action Task Force said that Britain was
“a global leader in promoting corporate transparency”.
We should hang on to that.
In 2014, the Cameron Government said it was “particularly important” that plans to force companies to name their ultimate owners should include English limited partnerships, in order to ensure that there were no loopholes or unintended consequences. That was completely right, yet two months later, in an inexplicable move, English limited partnerships were dropped. I do not know if the Minister has an explanation—I am happy to give way if he has—but that is what happened.
New clause 56 would introduce transparency into the system. I recognise that it is not a perfect answer, but it is a huge improvement on the status quo. We want to use the mechanism of the persons of significant control register. We propose that all limited partnerships, whether they are Northern Irish, English or Welsh, would have to register a person of significant control. All limited partnerships would therefore be treated in the same way.
As the Minister knows, limited partnerships have been used time and again by criminals to move and hide dirty money. I will give just one egregious example. In 2014, the US imposed sanctions on the Rotenberg brothers, Boris and Arkady, who are known as close friends of Putin, in response to the annexation of Crimea. A later investigation by the UK Senate found that the two brothers had used an English limited partnership, Sinara Company, to pay a front figure in the art industry, a man called Gregory Baltser, a huge amount of money to get around the sanctions, buying and selling paintings worth up to $18 million. Paintings by Magritte, Chagall and Braque were sold through this intermediary, Baltser. It was all done through an English limited partnership.
When the Government tightened up on Scottish limited partnerships, criminals moved to other forms, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said. I quote to the Minister a Russian-language newsletter that was circulated to clients by a formation agency called LAS, which said, after the UK tightened up on Scottish limited partnerships, that there is always a way out:
“As a substitute for Scottish partnerships, we offer the registration of English, Welsh and Irish LP partnerships, which have an identical legal form and similar benefits…At the moment, the privileges of this type of partnership are that they do not fall and will not fall under the laws on the disclosure of information about controlling persons.”
Transparency International’s report, which the Minister has quoted previously in our debates, shows how the structures are open to abuse by bad actors. It analysed 1,628 limited liability partnerships used in various corruption and money laundering schemes over a 12-year period between 2004 and 2016 for the nationality of the person of significant control. Russians were the most frequent nationality, at 17%; UK nationals were 16%; and Ukrainians, 15%. Nationals from the combined former Soviet states constituted half of those in the disclosures. That is a good red flag. The benefit of the persons of significant control register is that it would provide that red flag if it was extended elsewhere.
Limited partnerships are used by formation agencies, over whom there is also a red flag. Finance Uncovered and the BBC found that the five busiest formation agencies in 2017 created 28% of all English limited partnerships created that year.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Tuesday 15th November 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 November 2022 - (15 Nov 2022)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 101 stand part.
Clause 102 stand part.
New clause 56—Limited partnerships: registration of persons of significant control—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the registration of persons of significant control in relation to limited partnerships.
(2) For the purposes of regulations under this section, ‘persons of significant control’ may include persons with a right to—
(a) 25% or more of the surplus assets on winding up,
(b) a voting share of 25% or more,
(c) appoint or remove the majority of managers,
(d) exercise significant influence or control over the business, or
(e) exercise significant influence or control over a firm which would be a person of significant control if it were an individual.
(3) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether or not together with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I am not going to recap, because we want to make progress, but I hope the Minister is listening. We are talking about a way of improving transparency, accepting that the new clause is not the perfect answer.
English limited partnerships have no directors, but they do have individuals required to sign paperwork, and the formation agencies that help to establish such limited partnerships often hire proxies to do that. A great example of that is Ruth Neidhart, a 71-year-old Swiss national who lived in Cyprus. She is a ceramic artist, she sometimes arranges pottery painting sessions for children’s birthday parties, and she has been signing documents for a formation agency called IOS since at least early 2009. We see that see that she has signed 161 of these ELPs since 2016 and has links to IOS companies in Nevis, the British Virgin Islands, Belize and the Bahamas, all offshore firms that have been used to form UK shell companies.
Alexandru Terna, a 32-year-old Romanian who lives on a busy road junction in west London in what is described as “a modest house”, has signed 306 of these ELPs. He said in an email to Finance Uncovered, which covered the story:
“We worked only with [LAS],”
the formation agent. He added:
“We have never been involved in the management or control of any of these companies or any other company, where we were appointed as signatories.”
I thought that was interesting. Then we have the infamous Moldovan bank fraud, where $1 billion vanished from three Moldovan banks in just two days through limited partnerships—a series of Hong Kong and UK-registered companies. The new owners took over the bank in 2012, buying shares and using funds from UK limited companies.
The Government argue that these limited partnerships are not legally separate from their partners and so they cannot be beneficially owned. However, the person of significant control requirements require control—that is the issue—and not necessarily ownership. There does not have to be separate legal personality and ownership for there to be significant control, and if there is a corporate partner, there must be a human being controlling that corporate partner. The corporate partner cannot exist without somebody controlling it.
The PSC is defined as somebody with more than 25% of assets or more than 25% of voting share, or—this is another aspect of the definition—who exercises significant influence or control over the business. In practice, all the leaked documents we have seen from journalists show that formation agencies routinely create ELPs and issue clients with documents that declare them as beneficial owners, so they use that term anyway; they see them as beneficial owners. Indeed, ELPs also open bank accounts. There is somebody behind them, and we need to try to get to that person.
I accept that what we are proposing is not a perfect answer, but I think it is better than the status quo. We would get nominees putting themselves forward, and we would get company service providers declared as persons of significant control, but the same nominee appearing frequently would be a red flag, and company service providers reappearing in relation to lots of companies would also be a red flag. Remember: transparency is the best disinfectant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
I am very pleased to respond to the right hon. Lady’s speech. In relation to some of the issues we have with limited partnerships, she has set out her case very well and fairly.
Through the Bill, we are trying to make it easier for Companies House to spot exactly the kinds of red flags the right hon. Lady has referred to. She mentioned people such as Alexandru Terna. Under this legislation, for the first time, significant penalties will accrue to somebody who does not declare their partners accurately. As I have said on a number of occasions in recent days, I am sympathetic to a number of the right hon. Lady’s amendments, including new clause 56. I understand the reasons why she has tabled it.
The new clause would partially duplicate the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017. Scottish limited partnerships have legal personality, meaning that in the eyes of the law they are a separate legal entity and have distinct duties and liabilities to those of their partners. It is therefore possible to apply persons of significant control requirements to those entities. As the right hon. Lady said, the same is not true of English, Welsh or Northern Irish limited partnerships, which do not have legal personality. Unlike SLPs, those forms of limited partnership register with Companies House but are not a separate legal entity from their partners. The partners are the embodiment of the partnership; as such, legislating for the registration of people who have significant influence or control over an English, Welsh or Northern Irish LP is legislating for the registration of people who control other people. I will return to that point in a second.
Not having legal personality means that limited partnerships cannot own property or assets in their own name; any assets are held in the name of the partners themselves. They are a registrable legal relationship, and can be thought of a bit like a marriage: the act of registering gives the relationship legal force and bestows rights and duties on the partners, but it does not create something separate that can be owned. Like a marriage, a partnership ends on the death of a partner.
It is therefore not legally possible to apply the persons of significant control requirements currently applied to Scottish LPs to English, Welsh and Northern Irish LPs. It would be possible to draft legislation for a different regime applying a different definition of beneficial ownership, but given that the partnership only exists as a business relationship between partners and its body exists in the person of the partners, it is not apparent who, beyond the partners, should be registered. A likely outcome would therefore be all limited partnerships reporting that no person met the requirements, other than those already registered as partners.
Nevertheless, I understand that the intention of the right hon. Member for Barking is to increase transparency about who is managing and controlling a limited partnership. That is why the clauses that we are debating will increase the amount of information that is available concerning the partners of a limited partnership, and place a legal duty on partners to update those details with the registrar. In addition, the identities of all general partners must now be verified, and any corporate general partner must name an individual who may be contacted in relation to the limited partnership and whose identity must also be verified.
Although the right hon. Lady admits that her new clause is not a perfect solution, she has raised a good point. In consultation with her and officials, I will give further consideration to this matter, to ensure that there are no other means by which somebody may have undue control over a limited partnership. I am keen to work with her and discuss how we might do that.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to say a few words on this topic—we have had a very good and extensive debate on these clauses, so I will limit my remarks.
I think we are in violent agreement that more needs to be done. I made remarks earlier about the extent to which we have seen the misuse of partnerships grow. Research in the past eight to 10 years has shown the growth in the formation of limited partnerships and the extent to which they are used for economic crime. We have taken a long time to get here, but it is useful and important that we are now at this point.
Schedule 4, which is inserted into the Bill by clause 100, sets out information that must be provided to the registrar by partners who are individuals and corporate bodies in relation to limited partnerships. I think we all support the introduction of these measures as necessary for increasing the information and transparency around who actually owns and controls limited partnerships. As the Minister is responding to the points and questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, I think those points about transparency and how that works across these clauses and the framework of the legislation as a whole are extremely important.
There is a transitional period of six months for compliance after the Bill comes into force, and the Bill provides that non-compliance will be
“treated by the registrar as reasonable cause to believe that the limited partnership has been dissolved”.
We have raised related questions in the course of debate. Although we may recognise the need for a transitional period, why are we waiting six months? What reassurances can the Minister give us that there are adequate safeguards against limited partnerships that have been set up for criminal purposes simply taking no action during the six-month period in order to avoid scrutiny and transparency?
The Minister may refer us to other parts of the Bill where we have discussed what can happen when companies get dissolved. However, we do not want to strengthen the legislation on one hand but, on the other, provide a way for those who have been using these vehicles for years, given the scale of economic crime that the research suggests, to have a “get out of jail free” card because of the time allowed for compliance and the lack of scrutiny of what is happening.
On new clause 56, I am really pleased that the Minister recognises the arguments that have been made, and his openness about wanting to work together. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, the wording may not be perfect, but let us work together on the solution. That is important if the Committee is to make sure that the legislation is improved prior to its return to the whole House on Report.
I think it is worth saying that those who have given evidence to the Committee will also be looking for changes. There have been numerous reports by the Government themselves highlighting the use and abuse of the limited partnership model for the purpose of economic crime. To give one example, when giving evidence to the Committee, the legal professor Elspeth Berry said of limited partnerships:
“I dread explaining them to my students, because of the difficulty in trying to get at who owns limited partnerships and who is in control of what is going on”.––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2022; c. 103, Q194.]
Clearly, there is opinion among experts that mirrors the wider concerns that we have heard about the opaqueness of ownership and control information around limited partnerships.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is clear from the number of different things that we have discussed over recent days that we need to work on a number of points to improve the legislation. There is no question about that, and I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to that end. The shadow Minister raised the six-month transitional period. Clearly, we are trying to strike a balance between rooting out wrongdoing and ensuring that legitimate organisations have time to provide the information. I think it is a reasonable time period. It may be that something happens as she described, and some nefarious activities are—
Seema Malhotra
Will the Minister consider this a little further in the light of the fact that the Bill’s provisions will not come as a surprise? The Bill has been introduced, there has been Government documentation and consultation, and so on. Might the six months be looked at again in the light of that fact?
Kevin Hollinrake
I was going on to say that I think the period is fair. As the hon. Lady knows from the debate that we have had over recent days, the way the legislation works is that a number of different pressure points are applied to those who are potentially guilty of wrongdoing. The dissolution of a partnership may well be a red flag for Companies House in certain circumstances, together with other information that it may glean, including from the confirmation statements that general partners have to submit—those are combined with criminal sanctions, of course—and information sharing. All those things come together in this holy alliance to clamp down on the opportunities created by limited partnerships and other vehicles that we have discussed. I think it is a fair balance, but I am always happy to continue to debate these things.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Required information
Amendment made: 50, in schedule 4, page 164, line 1, leave out “registered or”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment would mean that, in relation to the registration of limited partnerships, the required information that must be provided about a partner that is a legal entity includes its principal office in all cases, rather than there being an option to provide its registered or principal office.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 101 and 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103
A limited partnership’s registered office
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Currently, limited partnerships must provide a proposed principal place of business only on registration. There is a requirement to notify the registrar if the principal place of business changes, but the penalty is just a fine of £1 per day, which does not effectively deter non-compliance. There are many cases where limited partnerships have not informed the registrar that their principal place of business has changed, meaning that she is unable to notify them of any changes or serve documents on them.
Clause 103 therefore introduces a requirement for general partners to maintain a registered office address that is in the original jurisdiction of registration in the United Kingdom and keep this up to date. This means where the principal place of business changes, including by moving abroad, the registrar still has a UK registered office address on record for the limited partnership. An important attraction of limited partnerships for legitimate businesses is the flexibility to move their principal place of business abroad. The clause therefore retains that flexibility while also ensuring the registrar has an appropriate address in the United Kingdom for contact and potential enforcement purposes.
The clause also sets certain conditions for the address to shore up the limited partnership’s connection to the UK and allow scrutiny of the limited partnership. For example, the address must be able to be used for communication purposes and it must be possible for the delivery of documents there to be recorded by an acknowledgement of delivery. The address must be either the limited partnership’s principal place of business, the usual residential or office address of a general partner, or the address of an authorised corporate service provider that is acting for the limited partnership.
The general partners of limited partnerships can change the registered office address, but they must inform the registrar of the change and confirm that the new registered office address is an appropriate address. This is a critical part of limited partnership reform. Failure to meet the address requirements will be an offence and may result in a substantial fine. The clause mirrors changes made by part 1 of the Bill to powers for the registrar to move registered office addresses, either on application or on the registrar’s own motion, where the address fails the “appropriate address” test.
Clause 104 extends the requirement to have a registered office address to limited partnerships that were registered before commencement of the Bill. It gives them a period of six months to comply with the new requirements. The end of the transition period will provide the registrar with a point at which to assess which limited partnerships have failed to comply and may therefore be inactive. The registrar can then treat the limited partnership as dissolved and update the register accordingly, which will assist enforcement and compliance activities.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. I have some brief comments to make about clauses 103 and 104 stand part. The Minister has outlined what the clauses do. Clause 103 inserts a new section into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 that establishes on general partners of limited partnerships a duty to ensure that the firm’s registered office is at all times an appropriate address at which to receive correspondence. The clause introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations giving the registrar the power to change a limited partnership’s registered office address. The appropriate address is supposed to be within the original jurisdiction.
While new regulations on the addresses of limited partnerships are needed, Elspeth Berry, a legal expert on limited partnerships, set out in her written evidence to the Committee concerns about this element of the Bill. She said:
“The requirements for an “appropriate” registered office address or email are an improvement but do not guarantee a genuine economic link to the UK…The “appropriate” address for the registered office, and email address, ensure that the address is used with consent, and someone will answer. However, the provisions still lend themselves to maildrops, with no real economic presence. None of the options intended to link an LP to the UK demonstrate a real economic link. Option 1 is apparently already complied with by most rogue LPs already, because they have no real place of business in the UK, so anywhere can be the “principal” place. Option 2, the usual residential address of a partner, can be redacted, so redaction must not apply if it is also chosen as the registered office. Option 3 is the address of a corporate general partner, with all the lack of transparency that entails. Option 4 is an ACSP address, which can be a maildrop.”
Will the Minister respond to those concerns? What assurances have the Government received that the provisions in the clause will genuinely guarantee the economic link to the UK that is intended? If not, will he look again at this part of the Bill? It would be a shame to get to the point of the Bill becoming an Act without it being able to do what is intended.
Clause 104 provides for a six-month transitional period during which the general partners of existing firms must submit a statement specifying the firm’s registered office, per the regulations set out in clause 103. Will it really take six months to specify an address? Is that not something that the Minister can look at? Other provisions of the Bill refer to 28 days, so why this six-month period? Perhaps six months emerged from a consultation as the most effective option, or it has simply been passported into the Bill because that is in alignment with some other regulation. Was it just cut and paste? If, however, not much thought has gone into this transition period, and if there are no downsides to doing so, we have an opportunity to amend,. Again, I will be grateful for the Minister’s response.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston. Without rehashing our previous arguments about addresses—checking whether they are real addresses and whether someone can pick up mail there, which requires people going to make such checks—I note the concerns of the Law Society of Scotland that “principal place of business” could still be a bit unclear. It points out in its briefing that a number of other concepts already exist in legislation, such as “head office”, “establishment” or “centres of main interest”. That makes things confusing and more easy to get around if people wish to do so.
The society believes that another issue has emerged, in part owing to covid: not everybody has a principal place of business as we used to understand it—a head office with a sign above the door. That is what we were used to seeing, but now that people work remotely, sourcing a principal place of business might become more difficult. Businesses have adapted, so it will be useful to understand from the Minister whether such things will be caught by the legislation. Someone might not have a traditional headquarters in the old way, and so might not be caught by the legislation. I seek his assurance about the intention of the Bill.
The Law Society of Scotland briefing also points out that members of a management team might not all be based in the same location; they might be working remotely or in different countries around the world. Again, sourcing that person who has responsibility at a principal place of business has become a little murkier as a result of changes in working practices. We need to ensure that legislation keeps pace with that and that there is not a workaround for those who want to avoid scrutiny.
Kevin Hollinrake
A few minor points have been made additional to the ones that have been discussed before. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, asked about the corporate general partner. Clearly, there is still a person behind a corporate general partner—an officer has to register their identity behind the corporate general partner, so there is an actual person behind it.
The shadow Minister also referred to the six months. As I said, I think that is a reasonable period, but she might think differently and seek to amend it on that basis. To me, it is not just about the time period, but about the other points—the foundations of the Bill, which are the sanctions, the red flags and the sharing of information. Those are the important things. The downside she mentioned is the impact on legitimate businesses, for which the time period may not be sufficient.
Clearly, there is a link to the UK in terms of how the entity is established. The limited partnership is established and has to maintain its registered address. I do not think that any of these measures contain a requirement to have an economic link to the UK, but I will discuss that with officials.
Dame Margaret Hodge
The Minister said earlier something that I did not think was the case. I thought that corporate general partners did not have to register the person behind the company. That is the problem: people register the company without registering the person.
Kevin Hollinrake
Absolutely, although I will clarify that with my officials. We discussed this issue before. I will confirm it later today, if I can, but I am sure that that is the case.
There is no requirement to have an economic link. The link is with the person, the general partner and the limited partners, and the UK-based address. That is the link to the UK that these measures seek to ensure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 103 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
A limited partnership’s registered email address
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
The two clauses mirror the provisions in clauses 30 and 31, which we debated previously. They apply to limited partnerships the registered email requirements introduced for companies. Clause 105 requires limited partnerships to have a registered email address. The email address must be “appropriate”, which means that
“in the ordinary course of events, emails sent to it by the registrar would be expected to come to the attention of a person acting on behalf of the limited partnership.”
Clause 106 provides for a transition period of six months for existing limited partnerships to provide an appropriate email address to the registrar. If, at the end of six months, a limited partnership has failed to supply an appropriate email address, the registrar will have reasonable cause to believe that the limited partnership is dissolved. That will mean that the confirmation of dissolution process, which we will debate later, is open to the registrar, who may consequently move to deregister the limited partnership.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to speak to clauses 105 and 106. As the Minister said, clause 105 inserts new provisions in the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. The new measures provide that all general partners must maintain an appropriate email address. The Minister has probably outlined this before, but it is helpful to consider what we mean by “appropriate”. Email addresses can be anything—for example, mylp@gmail.com—or they could be more robustly connected to an entity. Will the Minister say anything further about the definition of an appropriate email address? Is it just one that works and to which somebody responds in the end? A failure to comply would be an offence, and it is right that a general partner could face a fine.
Clause 106 gives the general partners of a limited partnership a six-month transition period in which to submit their email addresses to the registrar and comply with the provisions introduced by clause 105. I think the Minister knows exactly what my concerns are about how long it can take to register an email address with the registrar. The most honest businesses and those doing the best are probably more likely to comply more quickly. Again, I make the point that it feels as though six months is an extremely long time for limited partnerships to comply with these new measures.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady asked about the definition of an appropriate email address. As I said, it is an appropriate email address if emails sent to it would be
“expected to come to the attention of a person acting on behalf”
of a limited partnership. I think that is pretty clear—it has to be an address that can receive emails and to which somebody can respond.
On the question asked by the right hon. Member for Barking, where the partner is not an individual but a firm or body corporate, information is also required on the individuals involved in the management of those firms. That includes making sure that there is a named contact.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Restrictions on general partners
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 49—Requirement for all company directors to be natural persons—
“The Secretary of State must, on a date no later than 31 March 2023, make regulations to bring into force section 87 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Requirement for all company directors to be natural persons).”
This new clause would bring into effect provisions of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 enabling a ban on the designation of a company as the beneficial owner of another company, requiring all company directors to be “natural persons”.
New clause 57—Limited Partnerships required to have at least one partner who is a natural person—
“(1) A limited partnership must have at least one partner who is a natural person.
(2) This requirement is met if the office of partner is held by a natural person as a corporation sole or otherwise by virtue of an office.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “limited partnership” includes Scottish limited partnerships and limited partnerships in Northern Ireland.”
New clause 58—Limited Liability Partnerships required to have at least one member who is a natural person—
“(1) A limited liability partnership must have at least one member who is a natural person.
(2) This requirement is met if the office of member is held by a natural person as a corporation sole or otherwise by virtue of an office.”
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 107 requires a limited partnership to confirm on application for registration that none of its general partners are disqualified under directors disqualification legislation. It also introduces a duty on all general partners of a limited partnership to take any steps necessary to remove a disqualified general partner on pain of criminal sanction for failure to take those steps.
General partners are responsible for the management of limited partnerships, including the movement of funds. There is currently nothing in place to remove a general partner from a limited partnership once they become disqualified. The clause is needed to ensure that disqualified individuals are prevented from being general partners of a new limited partnership set up after the Bill and to ensure that existing general partners of extant firms who become disqualified, or already are when the Bill comes into force, cease to be a general partner.
New clause 49 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 87 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which amended the Companies Act 2006 to require all company directors to be natural persons, with the power to make exceptions in regulation. I have every sympathy with the intention of the amendment, which challenges the Government to act on something they have long promised. I am happy to commit to the Committee that such regulations will be made soon.
Kevin Hollinrake
Very similar. It is sooner than shortly. The ban on the appointment of corporate directors will not and should not be absolute. That is why the Companies Act provides for a delegated power to create exemptions by regulations. Those regulations will address the limited circumstances under which a company will be permitted to have a corporate director. It is important that those regulations are in force before we ban the appointment of any corporate directors and are aligned with the new reforms proposed in the Bill.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am grateful, thinking about my new clause, because it sounds like there might be movement on that. I want to ask the Minister a difficult question: what are the legitimate reasons for limited liability partnerships to have a corporate member? What on earth is a legitimate reason? I cannot think of one.
Kevin Hollinrake
It might be an investment fund. It might be an insurance company or a collective around investment funds that derive returns for our pensions for millions of people up and down the country. It may well be that a corporate body is part of that limited partnership. I think that is perfectly reasonable, and I imagine we would expect that to be the case.
Dame Margaret Hodge
Even in that case, why not have a natural person—a named individual? I just do not get it.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is exactly what we have. Does the right hon. Lady mean in terms of companies, or in terms of limited partnerships?
Dame Margaret Hodge
Yes, in companies; no, I mean in limited partnerships. Apologies.
The Chair
Order. We cannot have a general conversation. The person speaking is the person I call to speak—at the moment, that is the Minister.
Dame Margaret Hodge
Apologies to you, Mr Robertson. I got carried away. I am talking to limited liability partnerships. I cannot see the point of hiding behind a corporation rather than having a natural person.
Kevin Hollinrake
There is a bit of confusion generally about the difference between limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships. I think we are talking about limited partnerships here.
Kevin Hollinrake
A named individual will be required for corporate partners—namely, a registered officer. I made that commitment earlier in the debate. I hope the right hon. Lady will be reassured on that point.
Seema Malhotra
On a point of clarification, the Minister just talked about limited partnerships, where a named individual is required. I know this is confusing. Would the situation be the same in relation to limited liability partnerships?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, as I understand it, but I will get clarification on that.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am trying to think this through properly: I may be wrong. In the circumstances where the corporation is offshore—an offshore company owns it—would there have to be a natural person named?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes. There is no distinction between companies or corporate partners operating offshore to those that are operating onshore. There will be a registered officer in all circumstances.
The regulations will address the limited circumstances under which a company will be permitted to have a corporate director. It is important that the regulations are in force before we ban appointment of any corporate directors, that they are aligned with the new reforms proposed in the Bill and, most importantly, that identity verification of the officers of the corporate director can be carried out.
It is the Government’s intention that any corporate director be as transparent and accountable as a natural person and therefore we intend to make our corporate director regulations come into force alongside the regulations enabling identity verification. Introducing those regimes will be one of the implementation priorities post Royal Assent. I repeat my commitment to the Committee that the regulations will be brought forward.
I understand that the intention of new clause 57 is to ensure that limited partnerships should always have a partner who is a natural person, in order that the person might be contacted in relation to that limited partnership’s activities. Clause 108 inserts proposed new section 8K into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907: the new section places a duty on limited partnerships to have a registered officer who is a natural person for any general partner who is a legal entity and goes on to place strict duties for notifying any changes to that person to the registrar.
The duty in the proposed new section applies only to general partners and not all partners because limited partners are not permitted to engage in management activities. The objective of the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Barking would not be met if a limited partnership’s only natural person was a limited partner, because they would not be permitted to correspond with or act in relation to a notice from the registrar.
New clause 58 targets the misuse of limited liability partnerships in opaque corporate structures. While I sympathise with the intent, I cannot support the new clause. UK limited liability partnerships have been named in a number of international money laundering scandals. Many of those will have partners that are solely corporate structures. I am concerned about the abuse, but just as with companies, there can be legitimate reasons why a limited liability partnership might have all corporate partners. For instance, an investment company might a manage a pension fund for a limited partnership. The investment company would be the general partner and manage investments for the limited partners, which generate pension income. It is important for us to get the balance right.
Dame Margaret Hodge
That was a very useful contribution, and I thank the Minister. Through these new clauses we are simply trying to strengthen transparency so we know who is behind the corporates structures. Before the Minister was in his post, the Government themselves cited in their White Paper on corporate transparency three massive scandals: the Azeri scandal, Danske Bank and the Moldova bank fraud. All of those involved limited partnerships or limited liability partnerships, which have the features of a corporate entity acting as a partner and were located offshore in one of the secrecy jurisdictions. We are trying to get at that with these new clauses. If we have not got them quite right, I look forward to the Minister coming forward with other propositions.
It is the opaque corporate structures that hide the true identity of the individual who owns or controls a company. That is a classic way that bad people hide their dirty money. This is not an exception—I know that the Minister likes to sometimes say that, but the recent Transparency International analysis of limited liability partnerships found that one in 10 had the identical characteristics to entities that are involved in serious financial crime. That is quite high, and just another red flag. These companies were a newly formed identity, entered immediately into deals and laundered the money or were suspected of laundering the money. Very shortly after the wrongdoing, they closed the company. An awful lot of times I have come across companies with no financial history. They never submit any accounts to HMRC and claim that they have no assets in the accounts. A company might be using nominees and secret offshore jurisdictions, which we have talked about.
The other interesting thing in the Transparency International evidence, which the Minister might want to reflect on, is that out of the 1,532 companies that they looked at, 94% had at least one corporate partner with a registered address in one of 21 high-risk jurisdictions—the BVI, Belize and so on. I like to have these little stories to tell: there is the bottle laundromat that the Minister will know well, which ended up with £750 million being laundered out of Russia, stolen from the Russian people between 2014 and 2016. Some 130 companies were used. They falsified sales to Russia of bottle-making machines. They never really produced the machines, but in paying for them, they got the money out of Russia. There were three UK LLPs, all of which had two or more offshore corporate partners from one or more high-risk jurisdictions behind them.
This is not an insubstantial problem: it is a big problem. These are not just exceptional occurrences; they occur with too much frequency. What we are trying to do here is not a silver bullet, but we think it is part of the jigsaw that needs to be put together to improve transparency and therefore make things more difficult for people who engage in money laundering and other crime and for people to hide who they are. We are just saying that one natural person should be listed on the board. I am a bit unclear as to whether our proposal would actually achieve that or whether there are other ways of getting to the same objective, one that I think we probably share. I do not know why—I find it a bit odd—we in the UK are offering UK legal protection and privileges, things like limited liability or the rule of law, and sort of by accident we are offering anonymity to people offshore who are not in the least bit troubled by UK law, because they are completely beyond its reach. It seems to me that the current structure enables that to happen.
The new clauses would ensure that partners or members could no longer hide behind offshore corporate partners and members without a named individual being on the line for—held to account for—any wrongdoing. We will still, I know, get nominee directors. Trust and company service providers will still put themselves forward as the named people, or people working in TCSPs will still do it. But I think that this proposal would help with raising red flags and enabling Companies House to focus its activity on those areas where there is the greatest danger.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to speak to these measures. We have had quite an extensive debate, so I will make just some limited remarks on clause 107 and new clauses 57 and 58. Clause 107 is a very important clause, inserting a requirement on registration for confirmation that a limited partnership’s proposed general partners are not disqualified under the director’s disqualification regime. It also inserts, under proposed new section 8J, a new duty to take steps to remove a general partner who is disqualified. If general partners fail to do that, they will be liable to an offence.
Those requirements are extremely important. I think that some of the debate is just on where some measures perhaps do not go far enough. In summary, we support the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking on new clauses 57 and 58.
I want to read out another contribution from Professor Berry. I think it is important to keep these contributions on the record in our discussions—recognising as well some of what the Minister has said. As Professor Berry set out in her written evidence to the Committee about the issue of corporate directors, ascertaining an individual acting as a director through a body corporate is certainly more opaque than if the director is just a natural person. The situation is very confusing, but I will read out what the professor said. She stated that
“the concept is demonstrably open to abuse, a ban”
on corporate directors
“was originally proposed in the interests of accountability and transparency, and a legal entity is incapable itself of carrying out the functions or duties of a director…Not only are corporate partners/LLP members a significant feature of wrongdoing…the attempts in the Bill to trace an individual somewhere behind them are so complex as to be unworkable in practice…impossible in practice for CH to check, and an obvious route for obfuscation by wrongdoers. E.g the concept of a named officer or of a managing officer of a corporate partner (and presumably of an LLP member), compounded by the fact that a named officer’s residential address can be redacted and they need not supply a service address.”
As the Minister reflects on our discussions and how we move forward, he should bear in mind the concerns raised by Professor Berry. Whatever is brought forward by the Government—however they have reconsidered it, and tested what it will do and mean in practice—does it pass the Professor Berry test, and meet the challenges that have been put to us regarding the legislation and what could otherwise slip through the net?
Kevin Hollinrake
I think it passes that test; it certainly seems to pass the test of the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking. In her remarks, she said that we are just looking at one person behind that corporate entity: that is exactly what we are achieving through the regulations, making sure that there is an actual person—a registered officer, a managing officer—who sits behind any corporate entity. That person will be verified, with a UK address. The TCSPs within those organisations, to which the right hon. Lady referred, will also have their identify verified, and anyone who is found guilty of false filing could face significant fines and jail sentences. I think the Bill achieves what she has set out, but as I said in my earlier remarks, I am happy to consider what further restrictions on those corporate entities might be appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 108
Officers of general partners
Kevin Hollinrake
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 108, page 86, line 32, at end insert
“, and
(b) confirming that the proposed registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the proposed registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).”
This amendment would require each general partner that is a legal entity to state, in an application for registration of a limited partnership, whether its registered officer is identify verified or exempt.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 19 to 24, 26 to 28, 37 and 41.
Government new clause 9—National security exemption from identity verification.
Kevin Hollinrake
Amendments 18 to 24 and 26 to 28 make changes to clauses 108 and 111 of the Bill to extend identity verification requirements to registered officers of corporate general partners of limited partnerships. General partners will be required to confirm whether their registered officer is identity-verified or exempt when registering a limited partnership, becoming a general partner, changing a general partner, or changing the registered officer. A failure to do so will result in those general partners committing an offence. Each proposed registered officer will also be required to confirm whether they are identity-verified or exempt. The corporate general partner will be required to maintain a registered officer, who will have to be verified at all times unless exempted from those requirements.
The other amendments in the group mirror the changes made by clauses 64 and 65, the principles of which we have already debated. They include allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out exemptions to the ID verification requirement. Exemptions may be warranted: for example, where it would not be appropriate to require a registered officer who has already undergone sufficient checks as part of their appointment process to verify their identity. Similarly, the amendments also mirror the regulations requiring statements about identity verification to be accompanied by other statements or other information; making statements relating to ID verification unavailable for public inspection; and introducing an identity verification exemption on the grounds of national security, or to prevent serious crime.
Seema Malhotra
We will keep our comments on this first group of amendments very brief. Broadly, we support these amendments. I would like clarification on a couple of points about amendments 22 and 37 and new clause 9.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady is quite right. Exemptions might be applied where somebody’s identity can be confirmed without verification. An example could be a director appointed by the community interest companies regulator under section 45 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004. The CIC regulator and its office is part of a Government Department that is co-located within the registrar. That is simply to ease the burden of bureaucracy where unnecessary.
We expect the powers to be used very rarely. We discussed the matter at length earlier in our proceedings and we do not think there is any reason to go further than that at this point in time. I am sure it is a matter for further debate as we progress.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendments made: 19, in clause 108, page 87, line 11, at end insert
“, and
(ii) confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).”
This amendment would require each proposed registered officer to confirm, in an application for registration of a limited partnership, whether they are identify verified or exempt.
Amendment 20, in clause 108, page 87, line 24, leave out “and”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 21.
Amendment 21, in clause 108, page 87, line 26, at end insert
“, and
(c) either—
(i) is an individual whose identity is verified (within the meaning of section 1110A of the Companies Act 2006), or
(ii) falls within any exemption that may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.”
This amendment would require a general partner’s registered officer to be identity verified or exempt.
Amendment 22, in clause 108, page 88, line 22, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations under subsection (1)(c)(ii) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This amendment makes regulations providing for exemptions from identity verification requirements subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 23, in clause 108, page 88, line 33, leave out from “partner” to end of line 35 and insert—
“(i) confirming that the new registered officer meets the requirements in section 8K(1)(a) and (b), and
(ii) confirming that the new registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the new registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii), and”.
This amendment would require a general partner, when changing its registered officer, to specify whether its new registered officer is identify verified or exempt.
Amendment 24, in clause 108, page 88, line 38, at end insert
“, and
(ii) confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment would require a new registered officer to confirm whether they are identify verified or exempt.
Kevin Hollinrake
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 108, page 91, line 6, at end insert—
“8PA Regulations about change of registered officers’ addresses by registrar
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision authorising or requiring the registrar to change a registered service address of a registered officer of a general partner if satisfied that the address does not meet the requirements of section 1141(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2006.
(2) In this section—
‘registered officer’ has the meaning given by section 8K(3);
‘registered service address’, in relation to a registered officer, means the address for the time being shown in the register as the registered officer’s current service address.
(3) The regulations may authorise or require the address to be changed on the registrar’s own motion or on an application by another person.
(4) The regulations—
(a) may include provision corresponding or similar to any provision that may be included in regulations under section 1097B of the Companies Act 2006;
(b) must include—
(i) provision about appeals corresponding to the provision that must be included in regulations under section 1097B by virtue of subsections (7) and (8) of that section;
(ii) provision corresponding to subsection (9) of that section.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This amendment confers a regulation-making power to enable the registrar to change the registered service address of a registered officer of a general partner in a limited partnership.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 29.
Clause 114 stand part.
Government amendments 31, 35 and 36.
Kevin Hollinrake
Amendments 25, 29, 31, 35 and 36 aim to bring about alignment between companies and limited partnerships legislation. Amendments 25 and 29 enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that empower the registrar to take action to move a service address of a general partner, or a registered officer of a general partner, where it does not meet the requirements as set out in legislation, or where it is not the service address of the individual. Those two secondary legislation powers are sufficiently broad that the provisions in clause 114, which provide the registrar with a more narrowly drawn power to move service addresses, are no longer needed. Clause 114 should therefore not stand part of the Bill.
Amendments 31 and 36 are consequential on the fact that proposed new section 10A of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 is no longer needed, and they remove cross-references to it. Amendment 35 ensures that when the registrar receives an application to change the service address, she will be prevented from making that information available for public inspection. The registrar will, however, have to make available for public inspection any court order or direction to change a service address.
Seema Malhotra
We broadly support the amendments. Clause 114 inserts a proposed new section into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 that would give the registrar the power to change the service address of a relevant individual. Amendments 25 and 29 confer a regulation-making power to enable the registrar to change the registered service address or principal office address of a general partner in a limited partnership. Although we do not oppose the amendments, I would be grateful to understand why they are regulation-making powers. If there is a basis for legislating for the regulations, why are they not in the Bill? Is it just a case of creating the provisions now? It would be helpful to understand that.
Amendment 35 would mean that
“any application or other document delivered to the registrar under section 8PA, 8G or 8V (changes of addresses by registrar) other than an order or direction of the court”
would be unavailable for public inspection. What information will that cover? In the light of the transparency arguments being made, would any relevant information not be publicly available? As the Government have tabled a lot of amendments, it would be helpful to slightly disentangle some of their implications.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her points. On why the amendments confer regulation-making powers, as she knows, regulations give us flexibility to change things more easily. The provisions of the regulations are probably moveable feasts. It is sensible not to have them in the Bill, but to be able to learn and change areas as we go along.
Amendment 35 would prevent documents relating to changes of address by the registrar under new powers from being made available for public inspection. If I can, I will get back to the hon. Lady later in the debate about the particular circumstances she described.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Amendment made: 26, in clause 108, page 91, line 6, at end insert —
“8PB Registered officers: statements about exemption from identity verification
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a relevant statement delivered to the registrar to be accompanied by additional statements or additional information in connection with the subject-matter of the relevant statement.
(2) In this section “relevant statement” means a statement under any of the following provisions that confirms that a general partner’s registered officer falls within an exemption from identity verification—
(a) section 8A(1C)(b) or (1F)(c)(ii);
(b) section 8L(3)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii);
(c) section 8Q(4)(b) or (7)(c)(ii);
(d) section109(2)(a) or113(2)(a) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2022.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring statements about identify verification to be accompanied by other statements or information. It mirrors the amendment to the Companies Act 2006 made by clause 64 of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
When registering a limited partnership, the names of the general partners are currently required. Not all general partners are individuals; they can instead be a business entity. That means there is often no named individual associated with that general partner or indeed the partnership. Clause 108 introduces a requirement for general partners that are legal entities to provide a registered officer for that entity. As I set out earlier, general partners must ensure that their registered officers are individuals and have had their identity verified. The clause also requires general partners that are legal entities with one or more corporate managing officers to have a named natural person contact for each of those corporate managing officers.
The measures will increase transparency of the partnership activity by further identifying who is involved in the chain of management. They also ensure that the registrar has a point of contact for the general partner for compliance and enforcement purposes. General partners who are legal entities are responsible for keeping that information up to date. If they fail to comply, they are liable for an offence and a substantial fine. That could also fall on any managing officers who are in default.
Clause 109 introduces a six-month transition period within which existing partnerships’ general partners that are legal entities must bring themselves into compliance by submitting a statement to the registrar setting out those details. That allows the register to be brought up to date while giving sufficient time for general partners to submit the required information without being immediately liable to an offence.
Seema Malhotra
Clause 108 amends the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 by inserting provisions, as outlined by the Minister, that set out that general partners that are legal entities must specify the name or names of a proposed registered officer. That will make it possible to contact an individual person in general partners that are legal entities.
We have had some broad debate on the matter, but we have no objection to clause 108, which is welcome. Obviously, questions about transparency go further, but we welcome and support the clause.
Clause 109 relates to the transitional provisions. We understand the need for that, but the Minister will know my views on the six months.
Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110
Removal of option to authenticate application by signature
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Clause 110 removes the option to authenticate limited partnerships registration applications, as well as applications for designation as a private fund limited partnership, by signature. A signature, which is something readily forged, is no longer a necessary requirement as the Bill introduces other means of electronic authentication to ensure the correct delivery of documents to the registrar by authorised persons. Those means will be robust, secure and effective. Furthermore, other similar provisions that require general partners to deliver documents to the registrar, such as confirmation statements, do not require a signature. The clause therefore creates alignment across the Limited Partnerships Act.
Seema Malhotra
This clause amends the Limited Partnerships Act by removing the need for a signature when applying for registration of a limited partnership, as the Minister outlined along with the reasons for that. It aligns with new provisions set out in the Bill that impose obligations on general partners to deliver statements and other documents that do not require a signature. I will welcome assurances from the Minister that the Government have carried out some analysis of whether the removal of the option to authenticate an application by signature will have any impact on the effectiveness of the registrar in detecting or preventing economic crime. I will be grateful for that, for the background and for the possible impacts of the measure.
Kevin Hollinrake
As I said, a wet signature is not the key to preventing inappropriate filing documents or inappropriate use of any kind of entity, be it a limited partnership or a company. We are in the modern age now, when many of us approve documents through electronic means. The key to ensuring that we have a register that has integrity and is correct is in the other measures, as we have set out many times.
Seema Malhotra
I understand what the Minister is saying about a wet signature depending on the circumstance, but a lot of documents can be signed electronically but still with a signature. I want to clarify, given the total removal of a wet signature, whether something can be signed electronically and in what circumstances. I know of a situation in which some signatures were put on documentation fraudulently, and that is now being uncovered as evidence of a fraud that took place.
Kevin Hollinrake
The clause does remove the option of a wet signature. It means that electronic means are fine, which already applies to companies. The key to uncovering an undoing, with a wet signature or not, is the other measures in the Bill: sharing of information, sanctions for false filing of documents, criminal sanctions and all those other measures that we discussed by which we can identify wrongdoing and take action against those who are culpable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 110 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 111
Notification of information about partners
Amendments made: 27, in clause 111, page 92, line 34, at end insert—
“, and
(b) confirming that the proposed registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the proposed registered officer meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).”
This amendment would require a new general partner which is a legal entity to confirm whether its proposed registered officer is identify verified or exempt.
Amendment 28, in clause 111, page 93, line 17, at end insert—
“, and
(ii) confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(i) or confirming that the individual meets the requirement in section 8K(1)(c)(ii).”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment would require the proposed registered officer for a new general partner which is a legal entity to confirm whether they are identify verified or exempt.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 162, in clause 111, page 95, leave out lines 22 to 24.
This amendment would remove the provision for it to be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they reasonably believed that notice had been given under proposed section 8Q of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907.
It is a pleasure to move the amendment, which I tabled with the hon. Member for Aberavon. The clause inserts new sections into the Limited Partnerships Act requiring general partners to notify the registrar of changes to a limited partnership’s partners and information about partners, and changes occurring between an application and the limited partnership’s registration. It also inserts offences for failing to notify information about partners. If the limited partnership does not notify Companies House of notifiable changes within 14 days of a change occurring, the limited partnership will have committed an offence. We have concerns about certain provisions in the clause, which is why we tabled the amendment.
As Professor Berry, a legal professor, set out in her written evidence submitted to the Committee:
“The Bill should not provide a defence if a general partner reasonably believed notice of their appointments had been given to the Registrar… General partners are personally liable for the acts of one another…and are jointly responsible for registering/filing notice of appointment. If they themselves fail to register/file, they should be required to wait to see a change on register. Reasonable belief would provide a loophole.”
That is a significant point. If the Minister is unable to support this amendment or to commit to looking at this more closely and coming back to the Committee, I ask him to identify whether and where Professor Berry is wrong in her written evidence or in the concerns she raised. What assurances has he received, what questions has he asked of officials, and what advice has he taken that this defence does not merely create an unnecessary loophole through which regulations can continue to be abused?
In the interests of ensuring that the legislation is as robust as possible, I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. I look forward to his response.
Kevin Hollinrake
On the hon. Lady’s point relating to amendment 35 regarding an address that might be removed from public view, a person could apply to the registrar because their address has been fraudulently registered as that of a general partner. Amendment 35 would mean that the person’s application was not visible to the public, therefore protecting the applicant. That is the sort of circumstance in which the registrar would use that power.
Clause 111 makes it an offence for a person to act as a general partner of a limited partnership if the registrar has not been notified that the person has become a general partner with 14 days of their appointment. A general partner who manages the firm without that notification having been given on time but in the reasonable belief that notification was given has a defence to prosecution. Amendment 162 would remove that defence, making the person strictly liable despite their reasonably held belief. General partners who deliberately fail to comply with the requirement to notify the registrar of their appointment should of course be punished for that offence. In the example that the hon. Lady raises, it may well be that if other general partners were guilty of not properly submitting information, they may be guilty of that offence too. The registrar would make a decision accordingly.
Notwithstanding that the Bill creates these offences, in our view the general partner should not be liable for the offence if they have acted on the basis of an objectively reasonable belief. Examples of circumstances in which a general partner might reasonably, but mistakenly, believe that notification of their appointment had been given might include where a general partner has asked its authorised corporate service provider to submit the application, which has been delayed in circumstances beyond the general partner’s control and without their knowledge, or where there has been a technical hitch of which they were unaware—for example, if the information was being supplied electronically. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his response. There might be a question about whether confirmation is received or one can go online and check. The Minister’s response does not seem as robust as I was expecting or hoping in relation to this as a potential loophole.
Kevin Hollinrake
Sometimes in life, things happen and it may well be that they are not drawn to the attention of the general partner. The hon. Lady may think there should be a requirement on the general partner to check that the record has been properly made. It is a reasonableness defence. We expect the registrar to use her judgment in the exercise of any decision about whether an offence has been committed. We may need to agree to disagree on this particular point.
Seema Malhotra
I am not going to press the amendment to a vote, but I do think this is something we should come back to. If the risk is a serious one, we need to take it seriously. I will look to how we might progress this issue through the future stages of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 29, in clause 111, page 95, line 45, at end insert—
“8V Regulations about change of general partner’s addresses by registrar
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision authorising or requiring the registrar to—
(a) change a registered service address of a general partner in a limited partnership if satisfied that the address does not meet the requirements of section 1141(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 2006;
(b) change the address registered as the principal office of a general partner in a limited partnership if satisfied that the address is not in fact their principal office.
(2) In this section—
‘address registered as the principal office’, in relation to a general partner, means the address for the time being shown in the register as the address of the general partner’s current principal office;
‘registered service address’, in relation to a general partner, means the address for the time being shown in the register as the general partner’s current service address.
(3) The regulations may authorise or require the address to be changed on the registrar’s own motion or on an application by another person.
(4) The regulations—
(a) may include provision corresponding or similar to any provision that may be included in regulations under section 1097B of the Companies Act 2006;
(b) must include—
(i) provision about appeals corresponding to the provision that must be included in regulations under section 1097B by virtue of subsections (7) and (8) of that section;
(ii) provision corresponding to subsection (9) of that section.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment confers a regulation-making power to enable the registrar to change the registered service address or principal office address of a general partner in a limited partnership.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 112, 113 and 115 stand part.
Kevin Hollinrake
Under current legislation, general partners are required to notify the registrar of changes to partners or partner information. Clause 111 clearly sets out what information must be kept up to date on the register and places responsibility on general partners to notify the registrar of changes. They will commit an offence and be liable for a substantial fine in instances of non-compliance. Clause 111 goes further, stating that general partners who join limited partnerships after registration must notify the registrar within 14 working days of their appointment. Otherwise, they are prohibited from managing the business.
Clause 112 requires that general partners of limited partnerships registered prior to the commencement of this Bill provide the information set out in clause 111 within a six-month transition period. If the required information is not submitted within this period, the Registrar may reasonably conclude the limited partnership is dissolved and consider taking steps towards deregistering it. Clause 113 requires that new general partners of limited partnerships that were registered prior to the commencement of this Bill must inform the Registrar who their managing officers or named contacts are, or to confirm that they do not have any managing officers. Again, there is a six-month transition period during which this information must be provided.
Clause 115 creates a more robust offence for failing to provide requested information to the registrar, replacing the existing offence with a stiffer penalty. The current penalty of a £1 daily fine on each of the general partners, set back in 1907 when the original legislation was passed, is an insufficient deterrent. The new penalty may be applied if the general partners fail to inform the registrar of changes to a limited partnership’s name, place of business, nature and character of business, or capital contributions by partners occurring after application but before registration.
Dame Margaret Hodge
This batch of clauses we are considering introduces a range of penalties. Does the Minister agree that the use of those penalties should be part of the annual report to Parliament?
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Lady makes a fair point. As I said earlier, that is the kind of information I would like to see reported, so that Parliament and the public can see activities surrounding the legislation and the regulations clearly and ensure that Companies House is doing its job. There should be a proper conversation with members of the Committee, the wider House, officials and indeed Companies House to determine what the appropriate measures should be, but the key thing is not the measures, but the outcomes. I think the right hon. Lady, like me, would be very happy if no penalties were applied, as long as our system was 100% clean. That is what we are aiming for, and ideally it is what our measures will achieve; to me, that is the most important thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 111, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 112 and 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114 disagreed to.
Clause 115
Notification of other changes
Amendment made: 31, in clause 115, page 99, line 1, leave out
“10A (inserted by section 114 of this Act)”
and insert “10”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Clause 115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Confirmation statements
Kevin Hollinrake
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 116, page 102, leave out lines 6 and 7.
This amendment means that new section 10E of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 (confirmation statements) will apply to Scottish limited partnerships. As a consequence, Amendment 33 leaves out the power in clause 117 to amend existing provision about confirmation statements for Scottish limited partnerships.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 33.
Clauses 116 and 117 stand part.
Kevin Hollinrake
To aid understanding of the amendments, I will first explain clauses 116 and 117, which they amend. It is essential that the registrar and the public can be assured that the information held on the register concerning limited partnerships is accurate and up to date. Scottish limited partnerships already supply some of that information through a confirmation statement.
Clause 116 introduces a similar requirement for all limited partnerships, irrespective of the jurisdiction of their registration, to confirm that the information held about them on the register is current. It will also ensure that limited partnerships that are registered prior to commencement of the Bill provide a confirmation statement within six months. Limited partnerships that wish to update the registrar on a more frequent basis will be permitted to do so by notifying the registrar. Given that it is critical for the register to be up to date, general partners of limited partnerships that fail to deliver their confirmation statement will commit an offence. SLPs already submit confirmation statements to the registrar concerning the information held about them and their beneficial owners. That is a requirement under the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017.
Seema Malhotra
I may not have indicated clearly that I wished to speak earlier, Mr Robertson, and that may be why I was not called to speak in the clause stand part debate for clauses 111 to 115. Nevertheless, my speeches were not going to be long ones, so we will move forward.
We are generally supportive of clauses 116 and 117. Clause 116 inserts new sections into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 to assist in keeping the register up to date and places a requirement on limited partnerships to deliver statements to the registrar specifying what changes have been made to the partnerships that must be delivered to the registrar within 14 days of every review period, which is every year from the date the limited partnership was registered. We welcome the clause as a necessary provision to maintain the accuracy of the register in relation to limited partners.
Amendment 32 means that new section 10E of the Limited Partnerships Act, on confirmation statements, will apply to Scottish limited partnerships. As a consequence, amendment 33 leaves out the power in clause 117 to amend existing provision about confirmation statements for Scottish limited partnerships. We support clauses 116 and 117 and the Government amendments.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Confirmation statements: Scottish partnerships
Amendment made: 33, in clause 117, page 103, line 2, leave out from beginning to “(review” in line 17 and insert—
“In regulation 37 of the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/694)”.—(Kevin Hollinrake).
See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 32.
Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Power for HMRC to obtain accounts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Limited partnerships are tax transparent, meaning that the individuals that are part of the limited partnership pay tax, rather than the limited partnership itself. In many cases, the partners of a limited partnership will pay tax in the UK, either because they are individuals who pay income tax or because they are corporate entities that pay corporation tax. Where the partners are UK corporate entities, they will also provide accounting information to the registrar. However, there are some limited partnerships whose partners do not pay tax in the UK or which are not legally required to provide accounting information to the UK Government.
The clause will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require the general partners of UK-registered limited partnerships to provide accounting information to HMRC, closing the current gap. General partners who do not comply with that requirement will commit an offence and be liable to a fine or imprisonment.
Dame Margaret Hodge
That sounds like a good idea, but HMRC is absolutely hopeless at using such powers. Time and again with these limited partnerships where scandals have emerged, it appears companies have told HMRC that they are dormant. They have not submitted accounts, and HMRC never checks up on them. What steps will the Minister take to make sure that those useful powers are used?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks. The clause is extremely important for HMRC, providing clarity around accounts and accounting information and what tax should be due. It gives HMRC powers to request information and inserts a new section into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 to create a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that require general partners to prepare accounts and, on request, make accounting information available to HMRC.
We very much support the measure. We want enhanced powers for HMRC to help with the detection and prevention of economic crime, and indeed the paying of rightful tax through better accounting information and submission of tax returns. I support the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking asked about how we can ensure that HMRC uses the powers in a useful way.
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Member for Barking went to a very tough school. She is not an easy person to please. Quite rightly, she is very demanding of more action in various areas; I support that, as she knows. HMRC is not directly answerable to BEIS. It reports to the Treasury, of course.
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Gentleman knows that very well. I agree about enforcement, but I question the right hon. Lady’s language a little bit. She implied that HMRC is useless in certain contexts. I have met Jim Harra and other people from HMRC and found them to be diligent, decent people seeking to do the right job. The vast majority of people in any agency—officials, or whoever—do not go to work to do a bad job, so I think the language she used is not helpful.
We do need to beef up enforcement in all sectors, whether we are talking about tax avoidance, evasion or economic crime, and I absolutely support that. We see time and again that the return on investment from the extra enforcement capability is more than worth while for the taxpayer. I appreciate the spirit of the right hon. Lady’s remarks but not some of the language around them. Certainly, enforcement in all areas is something we need to look at carefully.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 118 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)