Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Robert Buckland

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for the amendment, which I will speak to in a moment. The Government have agreed to undertake a review of both primary and secondary markets, and I will deal with those issues later in my remarks. [Interruption.] I hear from the shadow Front-Bench spokespeople, but I think that is something that Labour proposed in earlier amendments, so obviously they have changed their position on that issue—not for the first time.

Finally, the Government made a number of minor amendments to the Bill in the other place. The majority are tidying-up measures, or otherwise small tweaks to the Bill, to ensure that it achieves its policy intent as effectively as possible.

I will now set out the Government’s position on the 11 non-Government amendments that were made to the Bill in the other place. The majority of the amendments seek to reverse or alter amendments made to the digital markets part of the Bill on Report in this House. There were three aims behind the Government’s package of amendments on Report in the Commons: first, to provide greater clarity to parties interacting with the regime; secondly, to strengthen the regime’s safeguards for the extensive new regulatory powers; and thirdly, to enhance the accountability of the regulator. The Government tabled the amendments following careful consideration of the views expressed by hon. Members across the House. We remain convinced that our amendments struck the right balance between the accountability of the CMA’s regulatory decisions and the flexibility to allow for targeted and proportionate action that tackles the unique competition challenges in digital markets.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right that the amendments that were agreed on Report in this House struck the right balance, and I am afraid that on this occasion I wholly disagree with the way their lordships characterised the matter in their debate. We are not arguing for a wholesale replication of the telecoms regime; we are simply making sure that, particularly with regard to penalties, which will be pretty onerous—and rightly so—there is proper discretion to allow a reviewing tribunal and reviewing court to consider the matter carefully, in a way that balances out the need for rigour and for temper when it comes to the power of the regulator.

Post Office Horizon Scandal

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work; he has been a constant campaigner on behalf of his constituents, and has contributed to every debate I have seen on this issue. However, I think his challenge is a little unfair. As he knows, I worked on the issue as a Back Bencher, and as a Minister I have made it my No.1 priority for the past 15 months. This is not something that we have just picked up, and he can see how much we have done.

Of course, during this process we have learnt things, and things have happened that we did not expect. We did not expect it to be so difficult for people to overturn convictions after the overturning of the first convictions, and we did not expect it to be so difficult to assess the damages and losses. We have tried at every point to accelerate compensation. We introduced the fixed-sum award last November, long before the TV series was broadcast, and before then there were measures involving tax treatments. We also started to look at different ways of overturning convictions long before the TV series was aired. So it is not the case that the series, excellent though it is, has resulted in these changes.

I think it is fair to say that the whole House and the whole country were shocked by what they saw on television, and that has made it easier to push certain developments forward more quickly, but I believe that we would have arrived at this position in any event. Nevertheless, I am glad we are here today moving things forward at this pace.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the statements from the Prime Minister and from my hon. Friend. I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work, and I am also grateful for the work of other Ministers, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), in pursuing and dealing with this injustice.

The key point to bear in mind is that, owing to the number of people who have refused to come forward, Parliament has an obligation to act. In the case of existing appeals, the matter can be dealt with by the Court of Appeal in respect of the quashing of any convictions, pursuant to an Act of Parliament, but the key challenge lies in all the people who are not in the court system. Will my hon. Friend work with me and others to ensure that the system he envisages—I think he is talking about statutory declarations, which would perhaps come under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911—is got right in order to avoid further disincentives for innocent people to clear their names and, in the words of judges up and down the country, “walk from the court without a stain on their character”?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his work and for his advice over recent days. As he has said while we have been trying to resolve this issue, there is no perfect solution and there are going to be compromises. We are keen to reach out to the people he has identified who have not entered the system because they are deterred by the processes that they would have to go through in order to gain access to compensation. I am keen to continue to work with him on all the measures that we will need to put in place over the next few weeks to ensure that we get this right, and get it right first time.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Robert Buckland

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Well, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point about accountability. We have given Sir Wyn Williams the chance to look at all these issues and determine accountability and individual responsibility. I have dealt with a number of different scandals over the years, from the Back Benches as well as in my ministerial role. They happen at a corporate level too often for us to simply carry on in the way we have done in the past, so I am happy to take away the hon. Gentleman’s points about the potential penalty for the offence he describes, which I will discuss with officials and others.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Anybody who cares about the interests of justice in our country will be horrified not just at the nature of these miscarriages of justice, but at the sheer scale of them. Does that not beg a very important question? This is an unprecedented set of circumstances and, in my judgment, it requires an unprecedented approach: there should be legislation on the Floor of the House to deal with the convictions of this huge class of people who are not just not guilty, but victims. I urge the Minister and the Lord Chancellor to look urgently at the question of legislation—I know that it would be supported in this House—to create a presumption of innocence that will cut the Gordian knot and support the victims and their families who have been enduring this horror for too long.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question and for his work on this issue, and I appreciate the engagement that he has had with the Lord Chancellor. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, this situation is unprecedented. We certainly discussed legislation on the Floor of the House at length today in a meeting with the Lord Chancellor and officials. He will be aware that the Lord Chancellor is speaking to the judiciary about these matters. He may want to do the same and make his feelings known to ensure that there is no barrier to making sure that we can legislate in the way that he describes.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Robert Buckland

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is always a pleasure to speak with right hon. and hon. Members on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which they will know is close to my heart and contains many vital measures for which I have long campaigned. The Bill will give us the powers we need to crack down on those who abuse our open economy, while ensuring that the vast majority of law-abiding businesses can grow and flourish.

I am grateful that both Houses have reached agreement on several issues, including those relating to the register of overseas entities and on removing the extension of the failure to prevent offence to money laundering. However, we are here today as agreement is still outstanding on a handful of remaining issues. I urge this House to accept the Government amendments, to settle those remaining topics and ensure that we can proceed to Royal Assent and implementation of these important reforms without delay.

I will now speak to those remaining topics. In the other place, the Government tabled two amendments on nominee shareholders—amendments 23B and 23C, in lieu of Commons amendment 23A, and in response to Lord Vaux’s amendment 23 on this topic from Report stage in the other place.

The Government’s amendments will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to make further provision for the purpose of identifying persons with significant control in cases where shares are held by a nominee. This will allow the Government to work with relevant stakeholders to target the regulations in an effective and focused way that does not impose disproportionate burdens. Members of the other place agreed with the Government’s proposal and I trust that Members of this House will therefore agree with it today.

Lords amendments 151B and 151C would apply the exemption from the failure to prevent fraud offence to micro-entities only, rather than the Government’s position of excluding all small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government appreciate that Lord Garnier has moved closer to the Government’s position in agreeing to the principle of applying a threshold. However, our position remains that such an amendment would still incur significant costs to businesses. Reducing the exemption threshold to only micro-entities would increase one-off costs for businesses from around £500 million to £1.5 billion. The annual recurrent costs would increase from £60 million to over £192 million.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Where do those figures come from?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We used very similar analysis to that used for the failure to prevent bribery and failure to prevent tax evasion offences. We have used a common methodology. I have not seen any figures that contradict our figures here, but in my view—having run a business and dealt with some of the failure to prevent bribery provisions—there is no doubt that there are significant costs. There may be external consultants to bring in, for example. Even if one is compliant, one might not know whether one is compliant, so there are definite associated costs to ensuring that reasonable efforts are made to prevent fraud, as it would be in this case.

Those costs would still be disproportionately shared by small business owners, when law enforcement can attribute and prosecute fraud more easily in these smaller organisations; and, as I have set out before, we must be mindful of the cumulative impact on SMEs across multiple Government requirements and regulations. In all the work I have done in the past from the Back Benches on failure to prevent, it was invariably the case that all cases involved larger businesses, not SMEs.

Large companies have the resources and specialist expertise to cope with additional burdens, whereas small businesses often have to dedicate a significant amount of time and resource, often paying for external professional advice to assess what new rules would mean for them. That is the case even where they subsequently assess that they already have adequate controls in place. That is time and resource that could otherwise have been used to grow and generate wealth for their businesses and jobs for their staff. The Government are extremely mindful of the pressures on companies of all sizes, including SMEs, and therefore do not feel it is appropriate to place this new unnecessary burden on over 450,000 businesses. I therefore urge Members of this House to support the Government motion to disagree with the Lords amendments, to ensure that we take a proportionate approach and do not impose unnecessary measures that would curb economic growth.

Turning to Lords amendment 161B, made by Lord Faulks, on cost protection for law enforcement in civil recovery cases, the Government remain of the view that the amendment would be a significant departure from the loser pays principle and therefore should not be rushed into without careful consideration. There is no clear evidence that such changes would help to achieve their intended aim of increasing the capacity of law enforcement to take on more civil recovery cases. There have been no adverse cost rulings against an enforcement authority carrying out this type of civil recovery in the past six years.

Costs are just one of many factors that determine whether law enforcement will take on a case. For example, the evidence available to pursue a case, particularly where evidence is required from overseas, often proves more vital to an operational decision. There are already a number of ways in which an enforcement agency’s liability to legal costs can be protected under the civil procedure rules in England and Wales. For instance, rule 44.2 gives the court discretion as to the payment of costs by either party, including whether they are payable to another party, the amount, and when they are payable. In addition, a cost-capping order can be applied for under rule 3.19 to limit any future costs that a party may recover under a later costs order. If we are to introduce further legislation, we must consider what gap this is trying to fill. We should also consider civil liberties and property rights that underpin our economy. We will potentially be handing huge powers to the state, which could be held over an individual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend’s points. He said a few seconds ago that this would relate only to fraud that benefits the body concerned. Paragraph 1(b) of Lords amendment 151 also covers the body or an associate within that body providing services, so this is not just about the benefit to the organisation itself.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I will take that qualification. I was seeking a short cut because time is brief. My hon. Friend is right to mention the agency point, but it is still a much narrower ambit of the offence than fraud in general. That is the point I would ask him to take away, because I am not persuaded. I think the amendments should remain within the body of the Bill as amended, and I will be voting accordingly.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Robert Buckland

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend for all his work in this area. He makes the point very well. We need to ensure that when we bring forward these measures, they are properly considered and do not result in unintended consequences. He may want to raise those points as part of that consultation when we launch it.

The Government firmly believe that their own amendment and their commitment to consult better achieve the aim of improving trusts’ transparency, as intended by Lords amendment 117, while ensuring that we have time to analyse and stress test the risks in greater depth, including legal risks. We therefore do not support the amendment.

Lords amendment 151, in effect, removes the threshold, as right hon. and hon. Members have already raised, that the Government introduced as part of the failure to prevent offence, which exempts small and medium-sized entities. As I have set out, the Government are extremely mindful of the significant pressures that small companies are under, and do not want to place unnecessary and duplicative burdens on legitimate businesses.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I agree that we have made huge progress on the Bill, but why is the threshold on small businesses not present in the failure to prevent bribery and tax evasion offences? They are alike offences that have caused a regulatory burden to already exist. What difference will the Bill really make? Why are we not giving it the full fat treatment?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think there is a difference in the regulatory burden of failure to prevent fraud versus failure to prevent bribery and tax evasion. It is more complicated to do it, so it would have a much greater impact on SMEs than bribery and tax evasion. It is a balance of risk and benefits when making sure where those regulatory burdens sit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not accept that. It would be extraordinary if someone set up a business just for the purpose of keeping turnover below £36 million. Besides, it is already much easier to pinpoint fraud in small organisations than larger organisations. That is already the case. It is easier to take forward those kinds of prosecutions on that basis.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is being very generous. I have two points on that. First, I take the point that the Government amendments have already mitigated the issue about parent companies and the division into subsidiaries—that is welcome. But the threshold has been taken from modern day slavery legislation. What is the separate rationale for that threshold in the context of economic crimes? I have not heard any.

Secondly, money laundering is already a criminal offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, just like fraud, false accounting and theft. Why on earth are we conflating the regulations that are all about neglect, which are used by the FCA admittedly on some major cases, but not that often, with what is already a criminal offence? Why can we not just extend money laundering, which already is part of the regulatory burden of businesses in any event?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come to the point about money laundering and broadening the sectors that money laundering regulation applies to, but, on SMEs, in my experience, in the work I did as a Back Bencher and in the work others have done, every case of fraud or money laundering I have seen has been by larger companies, not small companies. A number of cases the Serious Fraud Office has tried to take forward have been against larger companies, which is where the failure to prevent requirement comes in. It is much easier to take forward—

[Sir Robert Buckland]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will just finish my point.

It is much easier to take that forward where the failure to prevent offence comes in, of course. The act of money laundering is a criminal offence—of course it is—and the act of fraud is a criminal offence. This is about a failure to prevent those activities and imposing that would, in our view, impose a significant regulatory burden on businesses.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am grateful. The Minister is right to cite the SFO, but he knows that the threshold the SFO applies is very high. It will only prosecute high-value, complex or novel cases. It does not deal with the warp and woof of fraud in this country. He is right to say that the majority of this fraud is committed by byzantine, large organisations, but I have to ask him again: what is the regulatory burden? We know that companies already have to face regulations anyway. We have failure to prevent offences. Why is it—I suspect it is the hand of the Treasury, with respect to him—that the Treasury is trying to hold things back on this offence?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My right hon. and learned Friend says it is the Treasury. Actually, I am responsible for the business framework and I am concerned about putting £4 billion of regulatory burdens on businesses. That burden has been calculated in the same way that we calculated the burden for bribery, so I think it is a figure we can rely on. Our natural position is that we do not regulate businesses that would find it more difficult to deal with that regulation. That tends to be SMEs. They might find it more difficult to deal with regulation, rather than larger companies, where it is easier to put those controls in place.

We have heard arguments that the threshold means 99% of companies will not be in scope, but we do not think the number of companies is the right metric by which to assess the effect of the new offence. We believe economic activity is more appropriate. I can assure the House that 50% of economic activity would be covered by the organisations in scope of this new offence with the threshold in place. It is, of course, already easier for law enforcement to prosecute fraud in smaller organisations that fall below the threshold. Given those factors, the Government cannot support the amendment.

Lords amendment 158 seeks to introduce a failure to prevent money laundering offence. The UK already has a strong anti-money laundering regime which requires the regulatory sector to implement a comprehensive set of measures to prevent money laundering. Corporations and individuals can face serious penalties, ranging from fines to cancellations of registration and criminal prosecution if they fail to take those measures. The money laundering regulations and the money laundering offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act are directly linked and can be seen as part of the same regime. A failure to prevent money laundering offence would be hugely duplicative of the existing regime. In our conversations with industry, it has been very clear that that duplication would create a serious level of confusion and unnecessary burdens on businesses. We should be supporting legitimate businesses, rather than hampering them with overlapping regimes. The Government therefore do not support the amendment.

Lords amendment 160 would prevent enforcement authorities from having to pay legal costs in unsuccessful civil recovery proceedings, subject to certain intended safeguards. This type of amendment would be a significant departure from the loser pays principle and therefore not something we should rush into without careful consideration. The risk of paying substantial legal costs is just one of a multitude of factors that inform an operational decision to pursue an asset recovery case.

Several hon. Members and noble Lords have pointed to the similar changes made to the unexplained wealth order regime by the first economic crime Act, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The key difference is that UWOs are an investigatory tool that do not directly result in the permanent deprivation of assets, whereas civil recovery cases covered by the amendment could do so. There could, therefore, be a host of serious unintended consequences of such a change to the wider civil recovery regime, so the Government cannot support the amendment. However, we recognise the strength of feeling on the issue and the potential merits of reform. We have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu which imposes a statutory commitment to review the payment of costs in civil recovery cases in England and Wales by enforcement authorities, and to publish a report on its findings before Parliament within 12 months.

I hope the House is assured that the amendments the Government have laid are minor but sensible tweaks to the Bill. As I have set out, the Government have listened and made substantial important amendments to the Bill throughout its passage, significantly improving and strengthening the package where we recognise improvements could be made and where it makes sense for businesses. We must now, however, stand firm where we believe the amendments will not work or will place disproportionate burdens on businesses. I very much hope Members will support our position today and that the other place will note the Government’s movement on cost protection and reconsider its position on the six amendments when the Bill returns there. We must get on with implementing the vital measures in the Bill without further delay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and would be interested to know more about the specific approach being taken. I assure him that south of the border the concept of supported accommodation and a supported approach is very much at the heart of what we are seeking to do, particularly with regard to young offenders. The development of the use of smaller units and diversionary work has been very much at the heart of what we have done over the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman will see that the number of children now incarcerated has fallen from 3,000 to just over 500 or so in the past year. That is a dramatic improvement, but I am certainly interested to know more about the Scottish Government’s initiative.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does not the collapse of the Serco fraud trial and the fact that the Serious Fraud Office was prosecuting only mid-level managers rather than the people responsible for defrauding the taxpayer, which they admitted, high- light the need to bring forward a “failure to prevent economic crime” offence at corporate level, and to make it a criminal offence?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous campaigning on this important issue. He knows that I have always placed heavy emphasis on the need to examine the law carefully in this area, because I accept that there are loopholes. I asked the Law Commission to undertake an in-depth review of economic crime law and, if necessary, to make recommendations on options for reform. It began its work last November and is aiming to publish an options paper later this year. We will work with the Law Commission to implement any next steps.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The introduction of a corporate offence of failing to prevent economic crime could well have prevented a succession of banking scandals: PPI, the rigging of LIBOR and forex and the scandalous mistreatment of thousands of small businesses. What plans does the Justice Secretary have to introduce such an offence?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend has raised this issue on many previous occasions, and he knows that I have engaged very closely on it. Now that we have the time and space with regard to the further development of policy, I want to work with him and, indeed, other parts of government to develop these proposals. There is still more work to be done. We have two failing-to-prevent offences in the realms of tax evasion and bribery. We need to understand the learning from those in order to apply those principles to any future further economic crime offence.