Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady is making very important points. However, the “failure to prevent” offence, as drafted, would not cover that situation, because it covers only situations where the benefit is to the corporation concerned or an officer within it. A situation in which a third party hijacked systems would not be covered, whatever the threshold.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That is an interesting point. The simple response is that, obviously, the drafting of the “failure to prevent” offence needs further improvement to ensure that it covers that sort of instance.

There were similar arguments about the burden on SMEs when we introduced the Bribery Act 2010. In 2015, a survey of SMEs found that nine out of 10 had no concerns or problems with the Act, and 90% also said that it did not affect their ability to export. Although fears are expressed before legislation is introduced, once it is on the statute book people find that it actually helps them. Under the terms of the Bill, SMEs already have an appropriate defence, as the Minister well knows: that they should only take actions that are reasonable in all circumstances. That test of reasonableness would protect microbusinesses and SMEs from having to engage in overly bureaucratic procedures.

Although the argument is overwhelming, the Minister does not agree. We had hoped that the Government would support and accept our amendment. If they were to do so, we would not put all these amendments to the vote. This means that the next Government—a Labour Government, we all hope—will seize the opportunity that the Minister has missed and grasp the issue. Labour will become the anti-corruption champions, saving our country and our economy.

This Bill arrived in a sorry state and we have improved it—I accept that—with the identification doctrine, clauses on strategic lawsuits against public participation, the improvement of accountability with an annual report to Parliament, and the reluctant acceptance that there may be an increase in fees for Companies House. But there are still large gaps. Trusts have not been covered, as they should be, and authorised corporate services providers could end up with a future dud register. Cost caps, which other hon. Members have alluded to, are not in there, the whistleblower regime is not in place, and asset seizure still has to be tackled.

We hear whispers that there is a third economic crime Bill. I am pleased about that, but if we had achieved more with this Bill, we might not have needed another one. After all the work that all of us have done to achieve cross-party consensus, and given the values that we all share, I would hope that the Minister would be bold enough to accept our tiny little compromise and put this Bill to bed so that the proposed legislation could be passed by the time we prorogue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Perhaps the Minister can tell me what he means when he says that he will keep this matter under review. What precisely does that mean?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The way that we have legislated here, and the reason for doing so in that way, have always been informed by information that has come from third parties—from Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International and others—that have been interested in the Bill. The right hon. Lady and I have worked together on this issue in the past in various all-party groups. Those are the kind of bodies that will inform progress as we implement this legislation, which again I say is world leading.

The shadow Minister talked about a level playing field and said that these measures move away from that. I could not disagree more. The key thing is that we do not have a level playing field now. In small companies, it is much easier to identify who is responsible for a fraud. That is why it is more difficult in large companies, which is why we are applying this to large companies. Fraud is fraud whatever the size of the company. This legislation does not allow smaller or medium-sized companies to facilitate fraud—if they are guilty of fraud, they are guilty of fraud and it is far easier to identify the people concerned.

Let me address the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and thank him for all the work that he has done on this legislation and on the Justice Committee. I ask him not to doubt my motives; I have not been influenced by the Treasury at all. I am influenced by wanting to do the right thing in terms of both tackling economic crime and making sure that we do not put undue burdens on businesses. I can assure him that, for as long as I am in this role, we will keep this under review and make sure that the threshold is fit for purpose.

My hon. Friend talks about good business, but it is good business to make sure that we do not put undue burdens on business. I can promise him that, from my experience—while I was chief executive of my company—we implemented the rules on bribery and tax evasion, which were significant in our business. These would be significant measures for businesses. I say to him and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) that they will have a real impact on businesses and significant costs of implementation. I do not think that they would be proportionate or needed within smaller enterprises, because of the ease of identifying the people responsible if fraud were facilitated in an organisation.

I appreciate the kind words of my right hon. and learned Friend and the work that he has done. I remember lobbying him on this issue when he was the Secretary of State for Justice—and a fine job he did. We have got much further this time than we did at that time, which shows our collegiate way of working all the way through the Bill’s passage.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has also done fantastic work in this area, and I appreciate all her efforts. She says that we do not agree. We have a right to disagree where we disagree, and we honestly disagree about whether this proposal is required. We do not want to put unnecessary burdens on businesses.

I completely understand the strength of feeling of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on this matter. I, too, feel strongly about implementing the right measures to tackle economic crime while not putting undue burdens on businesses, so I say to her again, in the spirit of good will that we have operated under for many years, we will keep this under review. If the threshold needs to be changed, we can do that under secondary legislation.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on his election as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. I know that he will do a fine job. He is right that, in that spirit of good will, we have achieved much in the manifesto that we launched just over the road. Again, I hope that he does not doubt my motives in what we are doing to tackle economic crime without putting undue burdens on business.

I urge everyone to support the measures that we have in place already, and I ask those in the other place to respect the clear will of this House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes the other point, and these measures are about the delicate balance that we want to strike, ensuring that the right provisions are in place to prevent fraud without putting undue burdens on business. I am pleased that those interventions reflected both those positions so that we can see the legislation holistically rather than just through the lens of failing to prevent fraud.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If I may, I will make a little progress on that point.

We believe that the six non-Government amendments for debate would pose significant and disproportionate burdens on business, penalising reasonable companies and businesspeople with limited evidence that the burdens would be outweighed by any meaningful benefits. I will go into each amendment in detail, but I will begin by emphasising the Government’s position. We must insist that the balance achieved in the Bill through Government amendments made in the other place is maintained.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, because it was on that point that I wanted him to give way. Does he not think that any honest, upright business, whether large, small or micro, would aim within its own procedures to avoid fraud or money laundering?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The vast majority of the business community is honest and upstanding—that is the point. What we are trying to ensure is that those businesses are not disproportionately affected by putting in controls, checks and balances. I speak as a businessperson who did have to implement failure to prevent bribery and tax evasion measures in our business, and I tell the right hon. Member that there were significant administrative burdens around that legislation, and I believe they would be more so for fraud. I will come to that point in more detail.

I turn to Lords amendment 23. The inclusion of lines 84 to 96 would require all UK companies to declare whether they are holding shares on behalf of or subject to the direction of another person or persons as a nominee, and if so to provide details of the person or persons. Fundamentally, that is not necessary. Provisions in the person with significant control framework, as strengthened through the Bill, already require the disclosure of a person of significant control behind a nominee on pain of criminal sanction for non-reporting. That achieves the same intent. A combination of measures already in the Bill, the material discrepancy reporting regime in the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Regulations 2022 and Companies House’s new intelligence hub will more effectively flush out undeclared PSCs and deter the provision of false information.

I am afraid that the proposed approach is something of a blunt instrument. It would apply to all shareholders, when we should be focusing on the transparency of individuals exerting significant influence as already provided for under the PSC framework. As such, we would risk burdening millions of companies and their shareholders with new information requirements for no useful purpose. The proposition may sound sensible, but nominee arrangements can be complex, including having multiple layers of nominees and large numbers of beneficiaries for entirely legitimate reasons. For example, pension funds that own shares in a company would be caught. Listed companies would be particularly impacted as their shares are often held by nominee arrangements for legitimate administrative reasons—for example, in stocks and shares individual savings accounts, by custodian banks and by corporate sponsored nominees.

Listed companies report similar information about those owning 3% or more of their shares to the Financial Conduct Authority, so the Lords amendment would partly duplicate existing arrangements. In summary, lines 84 to 96 of the amendment risk disproportionate burdens on legitimate actors and would most likely be ignored by illegitimate actors. Those acting as nominees on behalf of shady individuals behind the scenes are already adequately on the hook if found to have provided false information, as is the company itself.

The effect of inserting those lines into part 8 of the Companies Act 2006 would be to cut across a tenet of UK company law: those running a company—usually the directors—must know its legal owners and act in the interests of the legal owners of the company. Those legal owners are recorded on the register of members. Companies shall have regard to their members record and not, for example, to anyone holding any underlying beneficial interest in their shares.

Lords amendment 115 would introduce two new duties for overseas entities. It would first require event-driven updates on beneficial ownership information and, secondly, require overseas entities to update their record no more than 14 days before the completion of a land transaction rather than the existing requirement to do so annually. Although the amendments are well intentioned, they would significantly increase burdens on both overseas entities and third parties transacting with them, as well as introduce an element of risk in land transactions that the annual update prevents.

As my ministerial colleague Lord Johnson of Lainston explained in the other place, in the case of an overseas entity that owns large commercial premises split into units, the amendment could result in the entity needing to provide updates twice a month, which is a disproportionate burden. There are a number of other technical challenges and impracticalities with setting such a duty on these entities. The Government are not alone in those views. The Law Society of Scotland, the Law Society of England and Wales and the British Property Federation have all expressed their concerns. The Government therefore cannot support the amendment.

Lords amendment 117 would make information about trusts submitted to the register of overseas entities publicly available by removing it from the list of material listed as unavailable for public inspection. It is important to note that the information on trusts is already provided to the registrar when an overseas entity registers on the register. Furthermore, the registrar already discloses trust information to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, law enforcement and other persons with functions of a public nature if and when necessary and appropriate. This is not a loophole.

In the other place and in this House, including from the right hon. Member for Barking, the Government have heard and acknowledged that there is a case for broader transparency over trust arrangements beyond law enforcement agencies. The Government therefore added a regulation-making power in the law to allow third-party access to trust data in certain circumstances. That will enable individuals such as civil society organisations and investigative journalists to access such information under certain circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I hear the Minister’s plea on behalf of SMEs, and I have sympathy that we do not want to overburden them with regulation, particularly small businesses. However, the threshold that the Government have chosen to set for exclusion from the failure to prevent fraud is extremely high. If I take just one example, law firms—he will know as well as I do that lawyers are among the key enablers of many schemes that lead to both fraud and money laundering—out of the 10,400 law firms in the UK, only 100 will be caught by the legislation as it is currently framed. Is he willing to negotiate with us on the Back Benches and members of the House of Lords to look again at the level at which he defines an SME in this legislation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The threshold is set at one of these three: 250 employees, £36 million turnover or £8 million in gross assets. We think that is the right level. We always listen to what the right hon. Lady has to say. The legal sector is covered by current money laundering regulations, as is the estate agent sector, for example. It is not right to say that they are not covered by money laundering regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I shall start where that brilliant speech by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) ended. I would also say to the Minister, and also to the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) were he still in his place, that they have shown from their time as Back Benchers a real understanding of all the issues around economic crime. They knew what needed to be done. They helped to develop the agenda that would work through smart regulation, transparency, tough enforcement and proper accountability. When the Bill arrived in the House, it was, I hope the Minister will agree, a bit half-baked. I am not blaming the civil servants in the box, but it was a bit half-baked. It was full of loopholes and serious omissions. But in this year that we have been considering the legislation, it has gone through tremendous transformations, so I salute the Minister for what he has done, but urge him to go that step further. I thank the Labour Front-Bench team for their assiduous and detailed work on this, but I particularly salute the Back Benchers—Back Benchers from all parts of this House who have joined together to bring forward a set of pragmatic, practical amendments that really will make this Bill fit for purpose. I also thank those in the House of Lords who have worked across parties, with the Cross Benchers, to ensure that we have some serious amendments that will give us a good framework to start the eradication of the malignant infection that we have with dirty money.

I say to the Minister: do not undo that good work; do not emasculate what has happened and where we have got to; and do not give into the voices of enablers who want to make a fortune on the back of dirty money. I wonder, as the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon has wondered, why on earth is the Minister not listening to what we are saying. Everybody in Parliament wants this. Everybody in the country wants this. Nobody supports dirty money. As I have said time and again, the country will not sustain economic prosperity and wealth on the back of dirty money. There is no future in that. I give the Minister another commitment, which I really regret having to say. I will not be here, but I want a future Labour Government to commit to never having a system that allows any political party to exist on the back of donations of dirty money. I say: do not let this opportunity go. Do not betray the principles and do not cave into the lobbying. The Government should look at the excellent amendments and please go forward.

I wish to focus on some new points. Lord Agnew’s excellent amendment in relation to trusts needs to be considered. The Minister said that he did not accept the research that was published today by really respected academics. These are people I have worked with over the years in whose work I have total and utter confidence. I challenge the Minister to bring them in and talk to them and then see if he comes to the view that what they are saying is not true. What they are saying is that we do not know the beneficial owner of 70% of the properties identified as owned by an overseas entity. And we do not know the beneficial owner of two thirds of that 70% because there is a trust that hides the real beneficial ownership. The Minister should have regard to what they say, as they are distinguished. I urge him to talk to them. I am happy to join in a meeting with them. In 87% of cases where information is either missing or inaccessible, it is because of Government choices in the design of the scheme. It is not because people are not obeying the law. It is because the Government have chosen to design the scheme in that way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am conscious of time, but I will give way to the Minister.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

When the LSE looked at beneficial ownership, I think that it included tenants of properties rather than the ownership of properties, and the register of overseas entities only deals with the ownership of those properties. There is definitely some disconnect between the Government’s position on this and the legislation and the interpretation that has been taken with this research from LSE.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I have met the key academics involved in this on a number of occasions, and I urge the Minister to do so as well. I think the differences are between the entities and the properties. We started asking for a register of properties that were owned by overseas entities in 2012, 2014 and 2016. It was absolutely ages ago. It was when David Cameron was Prime Minister. It was finally enacted last year, but it has been enacted badly. I have to say that it is the secrecy that matters. We can have transparency and we can protect vulnerable people. Transparency will enable all eyes—many, many more eyes—to interrogate the data and the Minister knows that to be true.

Let me put in this basic point. He and I own properties. We are not ashamed of showing the ownership of those properties. Why should we reveal the ownership of the properties in which we live, when rich people—often kleptocrats, often criminals, often money launderers—are able to use trusts as a mechanism to hide their ownership? That is a basic unfairness that the Minister should deal with. May I quote to him the words of one of the firms of lawyers that is exploiting the loophole? It is Payne Hicks Beach—Baroness Fiona Shackleton is a member of that firm. The firm says:

“On the face of it, the lacuna would seem to defeat the purpose of the legislation”—

this is lawyers saying this—

“so may be tightened up”—

hopefully tonight—

“in the future, but for the time being, using a nominee to hold UK property will continue to provide privacy as far as the ROE is concerned.”

Lawyers are exploiting that loophole, and we should stop it because—I hope that the Minster will agree with this—it is damaging our sanctions policy. Usmanov has been able to hide a lot of his wealth in property through trusts. Abramovich has done it, Fedotov has done it, and it is time that we brought it to a stop.

The other key issue is the failure to prevent. I will quote to the Minister what he said time and again. This is not about additional burdens on SMEs, or filling the courts with criminal cases; this is about trying to change the behaviour in our society, so that preventing fraud and money laundering becomes embedded in our culture, in the same way that preventing bribery has become embedded in business culture. The example that the Minister used when he was on the Back Benches is very potent. When we used to have a lot of accidents and deaths on construction sites, we reformed the health and safety at work legislation. We did not suddenly fill the courts with builders and construction people being taken to court, but overnight the number of accidents went down by over 90%. That is the principle that we are working on. That is the evidence that we want to use, and it is vital that we do it here.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Report stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make a little progress, if I may. I appreciate that there are a large number of Government amendments, hence the need to make some progress. I would like to reassure the House that they are intended to ensure that the measures in the Bill will work as intended, and in most cases they reflect issues raised in Committee.

I will briefly summarise our amendments relating to parts 1 to 3 of the Bill. First, and importantly, our new clause 15 requires the Government to publish an annual report on the implementation and operation of parts 1 to 3, which includes reforms to Companies House.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will give way to the right hon. Member on that point, because her many speeches in Parliament have led to some of the changes we have made.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am very grateful that the Government have listened to our representations on accountability. I would simply say to the Minister that there is also a new clause down on this issue—new clause 16, put together by Back Benchers from across the House and members of the all-party parliamentary groups—which has more detail. Would he be willing to incorporate the detail of that amendment into his new clause? At the moment, his new clause 15 seems a little vague, and we would just like to button it down a bit better.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Again, we discussed this at length in Committee. The right hon. Member’s perspective is that we should be very prescriptive about how the registrar—Companies House—should operate and set out specific things it should do. We would prefer those at Companies House to do what they think is right. They are the experts at making sure the register is accurate, and we have given them the resources to do it, which is crucial. I think it is wrong to specify exactly how the registrar should do its job. We are parliamentarians, not experts in registers and Companies House.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way again. This is not telling Companies House what to do; it is the information that Parliament would want to hear. I think that, in discussions with him, he actually suggested we set out in greater detail the sorts of areas we wanted to cover, and that is what we have attempted to do in our new clause. It is not a question of instructing Companies House; it is a question of enabling Parliament to really hold Companies House to account on the breadth of issues for which it will be responsible.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to respond to the right hon. Member’s new clause later when we have debated it. I have read it, and it sets out some interesting ways of doing this. I absolutely agree with the principle of Parliament holding Companies House to account, which is why we want it to report annually on the implementation and operation of this legislation. That is how I think we should do it. I think we want the same thing, and I am happy to have an ongoing discussion with her. Many of the things she has listed in her new clause are already reported on by Companies House, so I think it is important that we do not overly prescribe how Companies House should operate, in my view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I welcome the Minister to his place. I enjoyed working with him for a number of years on the Back Benches. We have co-operated well, and I look forward to that co-operation continuing now that he is a Minister. I am pleased to be working closely with his successor at the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who has tabled a number of the amendments put forward by the APPG.

I join others in welcoming the Bill. I welcome the fact that we are having this debate. This could be legislation that fundamentally transforms the landscape that has enabled economic crime to flourish in the UK. It could be the moment when we, in Britain, through the decisions that we make here in Parliament, give a message loud and clear to the world that there will be zero tolerance of money laundering fraud and other economic crime in our country. It could be the moment when, by acting against economic crime, we lay the foundations that would enable our financial sector, and with it our economy, to flourish and grow. As I have often said, we will never achieve sustained economic growth on the back of dirty money, but we could achieve it as a trusted jurisdiction that openly and firmly rejects illicit finance. It could be all of those things.

The Bill before us is welcome; it enables us to have these debates and to legislate, but in its current form it fails in too many ways. First, as it currently stands, I fear that it cannot achieve its stated purpose. Omissions and loopholes mean that there is a real danger that we could be setting up a new Companies House that will fail. One library filled with dud information will simply replace another. Secondly, in my view and that of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which we will certainly make clear in tomorrow’s debates on new clauses, the Bill is too cautious and unambitious in its scope. It fails seriously to tackle the challenge that we in Britain face because of the exponential growth of economic crime. It is worth the House remembering what that is. Every year, economic crime costs this country somewhere in the region of £300 billion. That is a conservative estimate—in fact, I think it is a gross underestimate. That is 14.5% of GDP.

To look at just the fraud element of that, reported fraud affects one in 11 adults. I have been a victim of fraud that I have never reported, and we all know that there are victims of fraud who do not report it. One in 11 adults are affected, so this is a massive issue. That figure of £300 billion is double what we spend on the NHS. We are talking about mega sums that get lost in the UK economy every year and impact on all sorts of things: the quality of our public services, the raising of taxes, the economy as a whole and the reputation of the UK. There is an endless impact, and we have to tackle it.

I ask the Minister, as we did in Committee, to put aside the natural instinct to resist amendments tabled by Back Benchers. Our purpose is simply to strengthen the Bill, so that when it is passed, it can support our shared mission across the House to eradicate money laundering, fraud and other economic crime. I urge him and the Government to support our amendments, and I hope that Members in the other place will reflect on our debates today and in Committee when they consider the Bill in detail over the coming weeks.

I welcome the new clause that the Minister has tabled in relation to the accountability of Companies House. However, if he were to accept new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), it would improve what he wants to do and the information that we in Parliament expect to receive about the performance of Companies House.

I warmly support all the new clauses tabled by members of the all-party group. As the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) said, those measures would strengthen the duties of Companies House, which is really important; giving powers is one thing, but duties really matter. Those duties would ensure that we can validate the information contained in Companies House and that it has the integrity it needs to fulfil the purpose for which it is intended.

I look forward to tomorrow’s debate on important issues such as the reforms to corporate criminal liability, the strengthening of support for whistleblowers, tackling the growing problems associated with SLAPPs and introducing new powers that could help us to seize as well as freeze the assets that the Government control from people they have sanctioned.

I will focus my comments today on two sets of amendments that we in the all-party group are convinced are necessary to ensure that the reforms work and that the appropriate resources are in place to properly fund the reforms. Otherwise, our legislation is in danger of simply gathering dust on the shelves of the Library.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am always interested in what the right hon. Lady has to say. We have shown that we are willing to engage with her suggested amendments, although we perhaps draft them in a different way, and the debate we had in Committee has been useful and fruitful for both sides.

On the question of duties, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) also referred to, I point Members to clause 1. It is very clear that the registrar

“must… seek to promote the following objectives.”

The first is to ensure that documents are delivered to the registrar. The second is to ensure that the documents delivered are accurate. The third is to ensure that those documents do not create a “false or misleading impression”, and the fourth is to minimise the extent to which companies and others carry out unlawful activities. That is a duty—the registrar must do those things—so Members’ concerns should be assuaged by that clause.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

It is an important clause—I agree with the Minister on that—but equally, if we introduce a duty to ensure that persons with significant control of companies are who they say they are, it will strengthen the Bill. It will not undermine or contradict any of its clauses; it will simply strengthen it. With all my experience in this House as both a Minister and a Back Bencher, I know that if we are not very specific about what we place in legislation, we come back to it in subsequent years and regret that lack of determination. We see that particularly in our attempts to fight economic crime; so many times we think we have achieved something, then we come back and find it has not worked.

I turn to the first set of amendments that we in the all-party parliamentary group think are necessary, many of which have been tabled by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. We have tabled several amendments to create new duties on Companies House, rather than giving it powers, the most critical of which is about corporate service providers. If the Minister does not accept that, I predict that we will end up creating another database that is infected with falsehoods and errors, and will simply reinforce in people’s minds across the globe the growing acceptance that the UK is the best place to hide and launder dirty money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because we legislated last year to create a register of properties that are owned through corporations in foreign jurisdictions, but I understand that Companies House is having real difficulty in establishing it, because it is very difficult for it to assess the real beneficial owners of trusts and companies incorporated somewhere such as the British Virgin Islands. That is why the amendments tabled by the Labour Front Bench to ensure that company service providers are located here so that we have better control and supervision are hugely important.

Last week, as I am sure the Minister saw, Danske Bank agreed to forfeit $2 billion in the US courts as part of an agreement to resolve the criminal liabilities facing it. On top of that, civil litigation has led to a fine of more than $400 million and individual employees could yet be charged by the US courts. That is massive. It is worth reflecting on the words used in that court verdict, including that

“Danske Bank, the largest bank in Denmark, deliberately disregarded U.S. law of which it is well aware, facilitated the laundering of criminal and suspicious proceeds through the United States, and placed the U.S. financial network at risk, all in the name of its bottom line.”

The judgment also says that it

“lied and deceived U.S. banks to pump billions of dollars of suspicious and criminal funds through the U.S. financial system… If you want to use the U.S. financial system, you must play by the rules. If you don’t, we will hold you accountable.”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Member is raising a very important case, which she rightly says I have referred to on many occasions, and I welcome that fine. One of the things I know she will be debating tomorrow is corporate criminal liability, which I think would have a profound effect on companies willing to turn a blind eye to that, as Danske Bank did.

May I raise a couple of points about what the right hon. Member said earlier? It is always the Government’s position on this Bill that any overseas company service provider needs a UK branch and needs to be regulated by a money laundering supervisor. That is not something we were asked to do, but something we very much wanted to do.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), which the right hon. Member mentioned, about the register of overseas entities, the onus is on the entity itself to register the person who is the enterprise’s beneficial owner. If it does not do so—and it has to be done by the end of this month—it cannot sell or lease the property, and there are sanctions available such as fines, or potentially criminal prosecutions can be taken forward. That is the method of making sure we have such information.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

On the last point, the Minister is right that such companies cannot sell or lease the property, but I think it is probably almost impossible to verify whether the data they provide is accurate, because it is based on the incorporation of an entity in a foreign jurisdiction. That is the problem, and as I understand it from discussions I have had with those at Companies House, it is a problem it is currently facing.

I think the Minister and I would both wholeheartedly endorse the words of the court in the United States—I hope he would; I am sure he would—but let us start by recognising the truth. UK limited liability partnerships and companies were the preferred vehicle for all those clients, most of whom were not Latvian at all but were called non-resident clients—the Russian kleptocrats, drug smugglers, people smugglers and all those sorts of people—who used the Latvian branch of Danske Bank. It was UK company formation agents who worked closely with that Danske Bank branch in setting up those shell British registered companies.

To give one example in today’s context, it was a UK registered company, registered by a UK company service provider that set up Lantana Trade with an address in Harrow, and that company then set up a bank account in the Latvian branch of Danske Bank. According to the whistleblower in the Danske Bank case, the real beneficial owner of that company, which of course has now been dissolved—surprise, surprise—was Igor Putin, Putin’s cousin. The real purpose of setting up that company was to launder money stolen from Russian citizens out of Russia, and our company service providers facilitated that.

We know from an analysis of the FinCEN files submitted to various Committees by the people we have mentioned before—Simon Bowers and Richard Brooks, two very good investigative journalists—that the UK stood out in the FinCEN files as the jurisdiction where there was the largest concentration of companies about which suspicious activity reports had been filed. Over 3,000—3,267—shell companies revealed in the FinCEN files were UK companies. We know that just four of the largest company formation agents in the UK were associated with over half of those 3,267 companies, and they were named in those leaks. We also know that an address in Potters Bar was used by over 1,000 companies featured in that body of leaks. So again, company service providers facilitated the creation of companies that then appeared in that massive FinCEN leak.

My final example comes from a story last week in The Guardian and concerns the infamous Mr Usmanov, the Putin ally whose wealth is said to amount to £14 billion—I have seen different figures in different publications. He claims to have divested himself of most of his UK assets before he was sanctioned on 3 March last year, seven days after Russia invaded Ukraine, but ever more evidence is emerging suggesting that while he has created companies and trusts, using our company service providers to do so, with nominee owners, nominee trustees, nominee shareholders, nominee directors, he remains the real beneficial owner and controller of his assets.

This concerns not just his homes—Beechwood house in Highgate, said to be worth over £80 million, or the 16th century Sutton Place estate in Surrey—but his investment in Everton football club, now bottom of the league. He claims to have sold his interest in the club to his friend and long-time colleague Farhad Moshiri. Our professionals helped to structure these transfers of assets; our company service providers were involved. Yet when Everton was interviewing potential managers after 2016—after he claims to have sold his interests, but before he was sanctioned—Usmanov was always there. According to The Guardian, one candidate to become Everton manager said Usmanov stated during the interview that he owned the club, and another candidate said Usmanov left him with the impression the club belonged to the tycoon. Even Frank Lampard said that when he attended his interview

“Mr Usmanov was on Zoom call with Mr Moshiri”.

I have chosen just three examples, but there are too many bad apples among our company service providers, the people we are proposing to entrust with providing verified, reliable data for the new Companies House register.

We also know that, as colleagues have mentioned, the current system for supervision is broken. The Treasury commissioned a report that found that 81% of the bodies responsible for the legal and accountancy sectors were not supervising their members effectively on anti money-laundering regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and then I will give way to the Minister.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

If that has been proposed, it has not been proposed in the Bill. I am not hostile to that; it is a perfectly good suggestion. At the moment, all we have is a fee which we are trying to tie to inflation so it does not get caught up in annual arguments over priorities in the Budget. However, if there is a proposal, it would have been nice to see it. If there is a proposal to fund it in a different way, that would be great.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) has made absolutely the right point: as I said earlier, there are annual fees as well as incorporation fees, and we should look at both elements.

On the question of specifying a fee in the Bill, as the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) says, we do not even know yet what duties will be required of the registrar, because the Bill has not yet passed through both Houses. The registrar may end up having more duties that will cost more to perform, so it is impossible to say right now what resources she will need. As the right hon. Lady says, we may discover further down the line that more will be required, so why would we set out the fee in the Bill rather than in regulations, where we can vary it more easily?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My simple response to the Minister is to invite him to share with us the current budget estimate for Companies House, if the Bill is enacted in its present form, and to tell us what that will mean. I just cannot believe that the information is not in the mix somewhere, but the Minister is not choosing to share it with us Back Benchers at this point.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated dissent.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Well, an estimate must be available, because we know where we are in the cycle. We know that somewhere or other this is being discussed. If the estimate changes, there is nothing to stop us changing the new clause at a later date.

More importantly, if 100 quid is too much, if the registrar does not need that much, or if the Minister wants to change the law and move from charging a fee on incorporation to charging an annual fee, I can see the logic of that, but presumably he would still have to come back to the House to put that in legislation—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In regulations.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Okay. But if the fee is too much, I still suggest that the Minister looks at subsections (5), (6) and (7) of new clause 20. We hope that he will set up an economic crime fund. Any surplus that results from raising the fee to 100 quid could then be well used by the NCA, the Serious Fraud Office or another agency with access to the fund. Our new clause would ensure that the money is ringfenced for use against economic crime, rather than being taken away by the Treasury and used for other purposes.

We also suggest that the Minister comes back to us on the issue of penalties to fund the fight against economic crime. Since 1984, all forfeiture proceeds in the USA have gone to an assets forfeiture fund. Just think what it will do with the $2 billion it has got out of the Danske Bank criminal settlement! We do not have that system in the UK: at the moment, something like 40% of the current fines and penalties go towards fighting economic crime. That is too little: it should be 100%.

There are precedents. The Information Commissioner has announced a new arrangement with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport whereby it can retain the money that it accesses through penalties to support its arguments and its work against the big tech companies. The Gambling Commission accepts contributions to compensate victims or payments to charity, rather than imposing a fine: that is another ringfencing hypothecation. Ofwat’s penalties levied against Southern Water were used to reimburse customers.

I have spoken for too long, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have focused on two of the issues that I consider most critical among today’s group of amendments. That is not to say that the others do not matter—they do—but these are practical, common-sense proposals that are supported by the all-party group, and I know from conversations with Members that they command wide support across the Chamber. There is no badge of honour for Ministers in the Government if they fail to listen to their Back Benchers.

More importantly, we have to make this reform work. If we ignore these proposals, we will risk consigning much of the reform to the dustbin. The fight against economic crime is utterly vital. We all know that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We know what the problems are, and we know that the solutions are multifaceted and complex. For heaven’s sake, let us work together and do what we can to make these reforms effective, efficient and fit for purpose. In that spirit, I will wait for the Minister to cheer me up by saying that he will accept these amendments from by Back Benchers of all political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is an operational matter for Companies House; it is not for me as the Minister. The registrar clearly has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the database, and how she seeks to do that will be up to her.

Amendment 101 is clearly key. The Government are committed to ensuring that the checks carried out by ACSPs are robust. ACSPs will be required to carry out checks to at least the same standard as the registrar, who will be able to query any suspicious information. The registrar will establish a robust scrutiny process with AML supervisors for onboarding ACSPs. If necessary, she can suspend or de-authorise an ACSP to exclude it from forming companies. The vast majority of accountants, lawyers and other agents who make filings on behalf of companies operate to high standards. It would be disproportionate to block them all from making such filings while the Treasury works through the reform of the supervisory regime—something that we all clearly want it to get right.

New clause 34 requires the Government to report on the number of foreign corporate service providers that have been registered at Companies House. Clause 63 gives the Secretary of State the power to permit the authorisation of foreign corporate service providers subject to equivalent AML regimes abroad. That is obviously in the context of a potential trade deal that is not currently on the table.

On amendment 104, tabled by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, I cannot agree with this fifth objective for the registrar. The Bill already places a legal duty on the registrar to seek to promote the objectives, which inherently demands proactivity. Tentative use of her powers would result in the registrar being in danger of failing to satisfy the duty.

On the accuracy of existing data, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), whose new clause 36 would have the registrar ensure the accuracy and veracity of all register information prior to the commencement of the Bill’s reforms. Clearly, that constitutes many millions of pieces of information, with many thousands being added every day—the analogy of painting the Forth bridge springs to mind. If we were to do what she asks and the registrar were to fulfil the requirements of the new clause, it is unlikely that the beneficial reforms of the Bill would ever be realised, because of the duty it would place on the registrar.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have been told that I need to make progress, but I thank the right hon. Lady—my former partner in fighting economic crime—for her amendment on Companies House fees, which is clearly key. It is critical that the registrar is sufficiently funded to carry out her duties.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) is wrong to say that the Bill does not provide extra resources to Companies House to implement the measures, because clause 90 sets out exactly what areas will be taken into account when fees are set. The Bill gives the Government more flexibility to increase the fees and charges by broadening the range of functions that can be funded through those fees. The Government are reviewing funding arrangements in the context of the reforms and are committed to ensuring that Companies House is fully resourced to perform its new role and functions. As I said earlier, Companies House levies a range of fees, not just the up-front charge on incorporation, and I confirm that we are exploring a range of options about how fees will evolve.

New clause 22, on the national minimum wage, tabled by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, seeks to ban those convicted under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 from being appointed as directors. The national minimum wage enforcement team at HMRC, whose resources have been doubled over the last six years, as have the penalties for non-compliance, already refers appropriate cases to the Insolvency Service, which, as part of its normal remit, considers director disqualifications where appropriate. Indeed, three people were disqualified in 2021 for such transgressions.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) for his new clause 18, which would require a person who controls more than 5% of the shares in a public company to disclose that information to the registrar. I very much note his concerns about shareholder transparency. However, we must balance transparency concerns and the benefits of having additional information against imposing undue burdens on businesses.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Very briefly, and just to the right hon. Lady.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister accept any of the amendments or new clauses brought forward by Back Benchers today?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the right hon. Lady knows, new clause 15, which we tabled today, is based on some of the debate we had and the ideas she brought forward in Committee. So I say to her that she should keep bringing forward the ideas, and we will certainly consider them.

The Companies Act already requires traded companies to maintain up-to-date lists of their shareholders and report any changes in shareholders above 5% on an annual basis.

New clause 37—and indeed amendment 112—on phoenixing, which was debated by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), requires the registrar to block the registration of companies that share common characteristics with more than three companies wound up in the preceding five-year period. Successive companies being wound up in this manner is known as phoenixing. We feel there are provisions that will be implemented through this Bill that will provide safeguards against such behaviour. Suitable coverage is already provided by the existing rules, and there are new powers in the Bill that give the registrar of companies a power to compel people to provide information in the context of the examination of information on the register, and to interrogate and share that data with other authorities.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Nineteenth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will speak for a little longer on new clause 73, but hopefully we will get through the others more quickly. It is probably one of the most important new clauses that we have tabled. It sits with new clause 79, which we will come to a little later. If we can make progress on this issue, we will be putting some better meat on the bones of what is still quite timid legislation.

We all want to do all we can to prevent economic crime from occurring in the first place. Prevention and early intervention is obviously the best, cheapest and most effective way of tackling the problem of dirty money. We want to stop it happening in the first place. We also all know that much economic crime takes place because lawyers, company service providers, accountants, bankers or estate agents either enable or collude with bad actors, helping them or turning a blind eye to the things that they do, thus enabling money to be laundered, crime to be committed, and our systems to be used to commit financial crimes.

There is currently too little in our laws and regulations that will stop the enablers—accountants and all the others—supporting and enabling economic crime. Companies and individuals are not held to account for what they do. The new clause aims to put a halt to that. We need to reform our outdated corporate liability laws so that not only companies but senior managers can be prosecuted if they fail to prevent fraud, false accounting and money laundering. It is not because we want to have endless prosecutions, or to fill prisons with these enablers, but because the threat of criminal prosecution will act as the best and most vital deterrent in preventing professionals from helping criminals to launder and manage their dirty money.

As we have said time and again in Committee, most professionals act with integrity. Those professionals with integrity have absolutely nothing to fear from the new clause. Indeed, the majority, who act responsibly, should welcome the change, because it will help us to clean up their profession, get rid of the bad apples and restore our reputation as a trusted jurisdiction. The Minister knows very well—I am trying to find the right Minister—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I know as well.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Both Ministers know that reform has been promised, and delayed, for a long time. The 2015 Conservative manifesto committed to making it illegal for companies to fail to put in place measures to prevent economic crime. The 2017 Ministry of Justice consultation on corporate liability reform sat for three and a half years. Inexplicably, it found that there was not enough evidence to pursue reform. I can only imagine that the Ministry was strongly lobbied. It said there was not enough evidence despite the fact that 76%, or three out of four respondents, said that the identification doctrine, which we will come to, inhibits the holding of companies to account for economic crime, and that two out of three respondents thought that corporate liability reform would result in improved corporate conduct. Despite all that, the Ministry chose not to pursue reform.

We then got the Law Commission’s review in 2022. It found that the current situation was “highly unsatisfactory” and that, on the status quo on corporate liability, “the identification doctrine”—for fraud and money laundering, the way in which we determine whether the people involved represent the “directing mind and will” of the company and can therefore be held responsible—

“is an obstacle to holding large companies criminally responsible for offences committed in their interests by their employees.”

The commission said that the status quo is “unfair” and that if the law remains unchanged it

“will continue to enable large companies to be acquitted for conduct which would see small businesses convicted.”

It also stated that that

“could diminish confidence in the criminal law”

and, finally, that the status quo incentivises poor corporate governance and

“rewards companies whose boards do not pay close attention.”

Given all that, I cannot think of a stronger indictment of the status quo.

There are endless examples of where our failure to modernise our criminal liability law has led to failure in the courts. The Barclays bank action is probably the most infamous, or famous, of them all. In 2008, during the financial crisis, Barclays wanted to avoid nationalisation and entered into a deal with Qatar, from which it received more than £11 billion and a loan of £3 billion. The bank, however, also set up what was called an advisory service agreement—in a sense, as I can say under parliamentary privilege, it was a bribe—and, under it, £322 million was given to those who facilitated the deal between Qatar and Barclays bank.

The Serious Fraud Office tried to prosecute the bank and its chief operating officer with charges of conspiracy to commit fraud and charges involving “disguised commissions”—in my interpretation, bribes. The court threw out all the charges, saying that the alleged criminal dishonesty of senior officers “could not be attributed” to Barclays. So the chief executive could not be held responsible for what the bank did, because the chief executive was not the bank, but reported to the bank. It was a crazy judgment. The court also dismissed cases against other individuals, as they could not be defined as the “directing mind and will” of Barclays.

There was, then, a Barclays fiasco, but there were other examples, such as the LIBOR rate-rigging scandal. No criminal prosecutions were brought, although the individuals prosecuted gave evidence that their managers knew what they were doing, so the company itself was liable. If the Minister for Security will allow this comparison, the US brought criminal enforcement action against 12 of the banks in the LIBOR scandal—British banks—and extracted $3.4 billion in criminal fines. Other examples include HBOS—to which the Under-Secretary often refers—Serco and the tagging contract, London Capital & Finance, and so on and so forth.

In 2022, four parliamentary Committees called for the reform of corporate criminal liability legislation. In February 2022, the Treasury Committee urged the Government to

“act quickly in bringing forward any legislation flowing from the Law Commission’s review. In the meantime, corporate criminals will continue to be able to escape prosecution for economic crimes.”

I probably do not have to quote this one, as the Minister might remember it, but the Foreign Affairs Committee called for

“reform of outdated and ineffective corporate criminal liability laws which mean that it is difficult to hold large companies to account for economic crimes.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I remember it very well.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Anyway, I thought it was a speech in favour of the intent of this new clause.

Failure to prevent offences have proved effective elsewhere, as the Minister himself has said. We use them to tackle bribery and tax evasion, and the Minister always raises the best example when he refers to what used to go on in the construction industry. In my youth, people would regularly have terrible accidents on construction sites, some of which were fatal. It was only when a duty was introduced for those who ran construction companies to ensure the health and safety of their workers in the workplace, meaning it would be a criminal offence if they failed to do so, that miraculously, overnight, deaths on building sites came almost to a 100% halt. We have lots of examples of where a failure to prevent does not end up with people being locked up but does change behaviour. That is what we are trying to do.

I have lots of examples of areas where the Bribery Act 2010 has been successful and this is not one. This is the last legislative opportunity we will have in this Parliament to put into effect something that Members across the House think is important. There is so much evidence from so many bodies emphasising the importance of this bit of legislation. I cannot see any argument for delay. Before they reached their great, really important roles on the Front Bench, both Ministers argued passionately, frequently and loudly for this reform. I hope they will accept the new clauses, together with new clause 79, on the identification principle. With the inclusion of those three new clauses, we can hold our heads up high and say that we have done good work in Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady makes a very important point about vested interests. We have previously discussed the influence of people who may not be keen on these kinds of clauses. I would say to anybody in the financial services sector who is making these claims that there are potentially huge benefits from preventing fraud across the board, because 70% of online fraud, which costs banks a lot of money, comes from platforms, and this kind of legislation could make the platforms responsible for removing content. So the sector could see benefits as well as potential new obligations.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister for reinforcing my argument. I would add simply that the same is true of the online harms Bill. If we had director liability there, I think we would see a lot of the online harms disappearing, but that is for next week.

On how the new clause would work, we can mirror processes that take place in other bits of legislation. To say that it is already covered is a nonsense, because we would not have had the failure of the Barclays case and all the other cases that I cited to the Minister had we already put in place legislation that was appropriate for ensuring that companies and their directors are held to account. I will not put the matter to a vote, but this is a hugely important issue. I look forward to our debating it further at other stages during the course of the Bill. I wish Ministers well in their attempts to get it past the Government, but if they do not, Parliament will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 75

The Economic Crime Committee of Parliament

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a body to be known as the Economic Crime Committee of Parliament (in this section referred to as “the ECC”).

(2) The ECC will consist of nine members who are to be drawn both from the members of the House of Commons and from the members of the House of Lords.

(3) Each member of the ECC is to be appointed by the House of Parliament from which the member is to be drawn.

(4) The ECC will have the power to meet confidentially.

(5) The ECC may examine or otherwise oversee any regulatory, enforcement or supervision agencies involved in work related, but not limited to—

(a) tax avoidance and evasion by corporations;

(b) illicit finance;

(c) anti-money laundering supervision;

(d) tackling fraud;

(e) kleptocracy and corruption; and

(f) whistleblower protection.”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

This new clause relates to another issue on which there is cross-party support: reform of whistleblowing. It has been put together for me, although it is in my name, by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), who leads the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing. I must put it on the record that she has been a fantastic campaigner in this area and an outspoken champion for the countless courageous individuals who have dared to speak out. As she rightly says, for most of those individuals whistleblowing has shattered their lives, with many losing their health and livelihood. What we are talking about here is really important.

Our new clause would introduce an office for whistleblowers, which would protect the whistleblowers and ensure that their disclosures are investigated and information provided is passed to the relevant authorities. In clause 4, we set out ways in which whistleblowers would provide that service. I think that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is the Minister replying to this debate; I know that he is passionate about this topic, because he has said so on lots of occasions—most recently on Second Reading on 13 October, when he said:

“We do not protect or compensate whistleblowers, and that is wrong. Those people do the right thing and come forward but—not to put too fine a point on it —we hang them out to dry.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 309.]

He went on to say:

“It is pointless having lots of law enforcement people charging around not knowing where to look. Whistleblowers tell us where to look. Some 43% of all financial crimes are identified through whistleblowers, yet it is something we do not talk about. We do not just need more regulators; we need somebody to point us in the right direction. Regulators will always be watchdogs, never bloodhounds. We need the bloodhounds in the organisations who are willing to speak up if things are going wrong.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 121.]

Hear, hear to that, but let us have some action arising out of those passionate words.

Whistleblowing plays an absolutely key role in addressing economic crime, whether it is for money laundering or other crimes. Think of the Panama papers 2016—we would never have had them—or the Paradise papers, the Russian and Troika laundromats, the Azerbaijan laundromat, the FinCEN files and the Pandora papers. Let us look at just one of those—the Panama papers—which were 11.5 million legal documents held by the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. It basically made its money by creating offshore companies and bank accounts to launder and hide the money. The story was given to a German paper, then 370 journalists got involved in investigating the data, working in 80 countries.

Just think what came out of that. Twelve current and former world leaders were named in those papers. There was a $2 billion trail to Putin through his close friend Sergei Roldugin, known as Putin’s wallet. The money went all over the world, including into an upmarket ski resort in Leningrad owned by a company funded by this dirty money and where Putin gave his daughter a sumptuous wedding. The Icelandic Prime Minister resigned off the back of the papers. The Pakistani Prime Minister was removed from office due to allegations of corruption and fraud.

Through the leak, some £1.2 billion of tax revenue was restored to 23 national Governments. In the UK, there was an extraordinary list of the rich and powerful, from Kevin Keegan to Nick Faldo, Lewis Hamilton, Tiger Woods, Gary Lineker, Madonna, Keira Knightley, Simon Cowell, Nicole Kidman, the Barclay brothers, Stuart Gulliver of HBSC, and political figures like Arron Banks, Michael Ashcroft and the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). They were all named and exposed.

Going back to my Public Accounts Committee days, the work we did all came from whistleblowers in the area of economic crime. I referred earlier to the Goldman Sachs sweetheart deal. That emerged from a whistleblower—a lawyer working in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We had a very frustrating session. We knew something was going on, and we interviewed the head of tax at HMRC, but he would tell us absolutely nothing. I then got a bundle of papers from a lawyer who was working there, and in that bundle was a sheet of paper that had on it two things. It said that a meeting was held by the head of law, and he had said that the head of tax had shaken hands on the deal, which the head of tax had denied at the Treasury Committee. He also said that the deal was unconscionable.

We called back the head of tax and head of law and interrogated them. They still said nothing. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) said to me, “Put the guy on oath. He might tell you something.” That had never happened in a Select Committee. I turned to the clerk, who told me that I could put him on oath, and said, “Go and find a Bible.” It took them 20 minutes to find a Bible. But the point is that all that from a whistleblower led to the trail that I think has certainly ended up with me being on this Committee considering the Bill today.

What is so terrible about that story is that the then head of tax left public service, and I asked the person who became the permanent secretary in HMRC every time she appeared before the Committee, “Are you looking after that whistleblower? Is he okay?” She always gave me assurances that he was, but actually they raided his computer and telephone. His marriage broke up, and in the end life became so intolerable that he had to leave public office. It is one of the things I feel great shame about really—that I was not able even in that position to protect him, even though it was his revelations that enabled us to start discovering what was going on.

Whistleblowing helps everywhere. It is a vital way of revealing wrongdoing in all sorts of sectors. It was a child sex abuse whistleblower who helped reveal the child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. The NHS is full of workers who blew the whistle on things such as the lack of personal protective equipment. The Public Accounts Committee saw another example, relating to Serco, where a GP contract was done in Cornwall but they were lying about their performance. A whistleblower came to us, but Serco’s response was simply to rifle through everybody’s lockers to try to find out who the whistleblowers were. Serco was not interested at all in the fact that the information it provided was inaccurate, or in trying to improve the quality of the service.

Interestingly, whistleblowers in America are treated very differently, particularly on the issue of compensation. To give one example, in the JPMorgan case, there was a $45 million settlement after two whistleblower employees at a Georgia mortgage broker alleged that the bank had scammed a programme that was intended to make it easier for veterans to qualify for loans, and had submitted fraudulent claims to the Government. The whistleblowers were awarded $11 million. Facing the same charges, Wells Fargo later settled for $108 million. A whistleblower revealed massive robo-signing at the four banks that were the country’s largest mortgage providers. The companies had allegedly relied on a company called Docx to forge signatures on thousands of mortgage documents. The suit was settled for $95 million, and the whistleblowers received $18 million for helping to expose the fraud.

The Minister well knows the facts that I will give him now. In 2018, 40% of whistleblowers reported going on sick leave—that is the pressure in the workplace. Only 4% of whistleblowers who bring claims under the current legal structure succeed. Of the 1,041 whistleblower reports submitted to the FCA in 2021-22, only three have resulted in any significant action. The Minister must agree that enough is enough. We in this country cannot go on failing to treat whistleblowers with the respect, support and advice that they deserve. Our new clause starts the process of reform. It does not do everything—for example, it does not do financial compensation—but it is a start.

Finally, please do not just say, “We are looking at this.” Do not tell us you will come back. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady makes an interesting point about how compensation works in the USA. She will be aware that Protect, the most high-profile whistleblower organisation in the UK, is against a compensation scheme similar to that in the USA. There is good reason for that: very few whistleblowers in the USA actually get compensation, which is one of the flaws in the scheme. Does she agree that we must think carefully about how we introduce whistleblower reform? It needs to be well thought through, rather than simply rushed.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I agree that we have to think carefully, but setting up an office for whistleblowing, which is what our new clause would do, could be the start. We might get some proper expertise in there, so as to think through some of the more complex issues.

Minister, grasp the opportunity and agree with our proposal. It would set up a new office—a central place for any would-be whistleblower to come for advice. It would support regulation in organisations. It would be a central place for setting standards, monitoring, evaluating and reporting. It would ensure that those who inflict or suffer detriment will be properly held to account or properly compensated. An office for whistleblowers would drive up standards across both the private and public sectors, increase transparency and restore public confidence. Whistleblower discrimination is a global problem, and the new office would set a global standard here in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think this is the last occasion I have to address the Committee, so I thank all Members for their contributions. We have had very constructive debates throughout the days that we have looked at the Bill. I thank the officials for all their work in these areas.

Not for the first time, I am very sympathetic to the new clause and to the previous one on failure to prevent. Nothing I have seen or heard since I started as a Minister only a few weeks ago has changed my mind on the things I have said in the House and other places about the need for whistleblower reform and failure to prevent reform. There is no conspiracy behind the scenes here. There is a difference between arguing against the principle of something and arguing against the provisions of something. That is where we probably differ a little.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said, I have said before that 43% is the stat for the discovery of financial crime. In my experience, it is much higher than that—about 100%. Everything I have dealt with has been brought to the attention of authorities through whistleblowers, not least Ian Foxley, my constituent who was very important to the case on GPT Special Project Management Ltd that the right hon. Member for Barking referenced. He was the bloodhound in that case. We need those bloodhounds.

Since taking over as Minister with whistleblowing in my portfolio, I have asked officials to prioritise this review and to get it moving properly, and that is what we have committed to do. There are differences in where we go with it: do we do something to address the cases like Ian Foxley’s and the others the right hon. Lady references? Sally Masterton addressed those cases. Do we do something longer term and more complex? It is either low-hanging fruit or something more radical.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has done fantastic work in this area. I am keen to engage with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) to make as much progress as we can as quickly as we can. Ian Foxley’s case is interesting because he was prevented from getting compensation. He was very successful in getting that case highlighted and the authorities successfully prosecuted it, but he was denied compensation because the PIDA rules on what it describes as an employee did not cover his particular category. That is a relatively easy issue to fix and something I want to look at.

The other part of the current legislation is around prescribed persons. There are 80 prescribed persons at the moment: people to whom others can make a protected disclosure. We are extending that this week when I introduce a statutory instrument on extending the number of prescribed persons to whom whistleblowers can go to seek assistance. Indeed, some of those prescribed persons are in this room. Members of Parliament are prescribed persons, as are some Ministers, but so too are our agencies. That is probably my biggest concern.

I took the case of Sally Masterton, who was key to highlighting the HBOS Reading scandal, which I have referred to many times in Parliament, to the Financial Conduct Authority. When I asked Andrew Bailey, who was then the chief executive of the FCA, whether he had followed his own whistleblowing procedures in relation to Sally Masterton, who was terribly mistreated by Lloyds Banking Group, he refused to answer the question because I was not a relevant person, under the relevant legislation. That is quite astounding, when it was Parliament that legislated to introduce the whistleblowing protections in the first place.

There are things that we need to do quickly that would address many of the problems, but we have done much. We have improved the guidance on what a prescribed person needs to do. We have a requirement on people to make public annual reports on what they have done in terms of whistleblowers, but I am keen to hold regulators’ feet to the fire in this area. I ask the right hon. Member for Barking not to pre-empt the review that I am urgently undertaking, because she knows how serious I am. I would like to bring forward effective reform very quickly, and to effect change more quickly. I fear that the new clause would delay the reform, when we can make progress by other means.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I hear what the Minister says. I simply say to him that finding legislative time will be a battle, so I hope that he has some mechanism to get the reform through.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are things that we can do without primary legislation that could move much more quickly.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I hear that. This matter will be debated by others on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 79

Identification doctrine

“(1) A body corporate commits an offence listed in Schedule 8 where the offence is committed with the consent, connivance or neglect of a senior manager or senior managers.

(2) An individual is a ‘senior manager’ of an entity if the individual—

(a) plays a significant role in—

(i) the making of decisions about how the entity’s relevant activities are to be managed or organised, or

(ii) the managing or organising of the entity’s relevant activities, or

(b) is the Chief Executive or Chief Financial Officer of the body corporate.

(3) A body corporate also commits an offence if, acting within the scope of their authority—

(a) one or more senior managers engage in conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that representative would have been a party to the offence; and

(b) the senior manager who is responsible for the aspect of the organization’s activities that is relevant to the offence — or the senior managers collectively — fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent that offence being committed.”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am certainly not arguing against the spirit of the new clause. I add my thanks to the right hon. Member for Barking and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who took great action on this matter way before I became interested in the whole subject—although it is true to say that I took an active interest from the Back Benches on ensuring that we address this issue.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of our approach as being hands off. I do not consider 250 pages of legislation as being hands off at all. There is much we want to do and agree on, and I have to agree with what I said previously. The hon. Member for Aberavon may regard me as poacher turned gamekeeper, but I do not see that at all. I still want to ensure these measures are in place. In fact, we should go further than his new clause, and I will explain that in a second.

When amendments were tabled to the Bill that became the 2018 Act several years ago, we were clearly in a very different place. All inhabited overseas territories have now committed to introducing publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership, and the UK Government expect them to be in place by the end of 2023, so there is a deadline on which the order could be placed. As well as overseas territories, we have committed to asking the Crown dependencies to also do that, and that does not feature in the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, so it is important that this goes further than he set out.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister is correct in what he says, but could he deny the rumour I have heard, which is that they are trying to get around ensuring public accountability by charging anybody who wishes to look at the register by entry? If a charge is levied for entry to everything that appears on the register, that would diminish the intended public accountability.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not aware of that. Clearly, it is important that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies respect the will of Parliament and the spirit of the will of Parliament, so we would be very concerned if that is the case.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I have raised this issue with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who now sits in the Foreign Office, but I do not think it is entirely within his portfolio. Will the Minister agree to pursue the issue? If that is the way they have tried to avoid or play down the intent of Parliament, it is a very serious matter.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not think we should operate on the basis of rumours, but I hope that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies will be following this debate with interest. We want them to follow both the spirit and the letter of the legislation that is implemented. The information should be publicly available—that is the clear intention.

This is a major commitment that will put the overseas territories and Crown dependencies ahead of most jurisdictions, and it will be a vital element of promoting greater transparency around the control and ownership of companies. I have sought assurances that it is not a hollow commitment. The FCDO is providing support to the overseas territories through Open Ownership, a respected and expert NGO, to ensure that each territory can progress its publicly accessible registers, and significant progress has been made. For example, Gibraltar’s register is already live, so it will be interesting to hear about the right hon. Lady’s experiences of that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister has jogged my memory. It was actually from the implementation of the Gibraltar register that I heard that, although it is live, there is a charge for accessing information.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That may be something that the right hon. Lady will investigate. I am happy to make the commitment that we will do so as well.

The Cayman Islands has completed a consultation on the approach to its register, and the technical work to hit the target date is under way. The BVI recently passed primary legislation to enable the framework for regulations to be made for its register in preparation for the end of 2023. Smaller overseas territories are also working with the FCDO to update their systems to allow public access to this important information. Notably, in Anguilla the FCDO financed a completely new register, which is designed to allow public access.

The effect of new clause 53 would be to move the timeline forward by only six months for the overseas territories. All the territories are now willingly implementing publicly accessible registers and putting significant effort into the policy, despite the fact that most jurisdictions around the world are not doing so. To move forward an agreed timeline would not show good faith in our partnership with the territories. I can commit to keep the House regularly up to date on progress with the territories, and the UK Government will continue to work collaboratively, and as equal partners, with the overseas territories on their commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The word “trust” in this context sends shivers down all our spines. I understand the rationale behind the new clause, but the right hon. Member for Barking is right in that I will state my position.

There is a key matter here. The right hon. Lady cited a couple of examples, one a trust and one a company, where she implied a disguised ownership of certain assets. The current requirements of legislation are that information about a registrable beneficial owner of a trust is displayed publicly. If someone is a beneficial owner, their name is revealed publicly. She might argue that that person could be lying, but they can lie about ownership of anything—“I don’t own any of this and do not exert control”—as we have discussed before.

The amendment makes all trust information available, even if that sits below the 25% or whatever ownership there might be of the trust or its benefit.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Usmanov is the better example, although I could have talked about Gutseriev or Fedotov, or about Azerbaijan—I had a debate in the House on the leading family of Azerbaijan. The reason all those things hang together is that the beneficial ownership is passed to a daughter or sister, or the shareholding is below 5%, and we are creating all these legal loopholes that enable the Usmanovs, Gutserievs, Fedotovs and all those people to hide their real control of an asset. That is really the point. That is what we are trying to get at—having it out in the open. What we have said constantly with our amendments is that if there are minor flaws with the way we have put them together, we are happy to listen, but I am absolutely certain that the principle behind them is correct.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I just do not think that is right. The right hon. Lady might not have meant this exactly, but even if ownership is reduced—this goes for a company more than a trust—to below 5%, the amendment would not even solve that issue, would it? The legislation requires the beneficial ownership to be registrable and for there to be openly available information. Of course the person who is entering that information could lie. A lawyer or accountant could lie. But now they are subject to a criminal sanction for doing that if it is proven. As has been mentioned, information around trusts is a concern. It should raise red flags with Companies House. That information can of course be shared.

The other thing I would say is that trusts are used for legitimate purposes, including to protect the privacy and safety of children, for example, and other vulnerable individuals. The ECTE Act allows the registrar to disclose protected trust information to HMRC, and regulations will soon be made to allow the registrar to disclose the information to other persons with functions of a public nature, such as tackling crime.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister often says this, but there are two issues here. If the trust or any of these entities are for legitimate purposes, the people involved should have absolutely no fear of transparency. That is the fallacy in the argument. If nobody is doing anything wrong, they should not worry about the information being public. If there are really good reasons, as there occasionally may be, for keeping confidential the name of a particular individual in a particular trust, we can and we are putting in legislation that covers those exceptional circumstances, but using the exceptional circumstance to justify the general rule is simply not good enough.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We may have to agree to disagree. The requirement to register somebody of beneficial ownership is quite clear. If there is a beneficial owner, that person will have to be publicly named. That is what we seek to achieve through this legislation, and that is what we think it does. There are some points in the amendment that we think are relevant, including potentially widening access to information in certain circumstances with certain authorities. We will consider that, but we cannot accept the totality of the amendment at this time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I rise to make the simple point that the new clause is not a technical amendment; it is about an issue of principle. It is about transparency and accountability. It is not a provision that improves things at the margin; it is about making the legislation fit for purpose. Without it, the legislation will not be fit for purpose.

Throughout my history of learning about dirty money and money laundering, it has been absolutely clear to me that we have a range of tools already in legislation. As we do not have any accountability to Parliament as to how and whether those tools are employed, we do not know how effective we are in the battle against dirty money. Let me give three examples. There is now a new bit of legislation on unexplained wealth orders; it is the first time that I have known Ministers to agree to an annual report to Parliament. They agreed to it when we did the emergency legislation. I have been arguing for that for years, so I was pleased to see it, but until that moment we did not know, and we have not seen the report yet.

A better example is golden visas. We are still waiting for the report on golden visas, how they were abused, misused and used during that period, and who was let into the country on one. Another example is the amount of money that has been frozen from people who have been sanctioned by this Government. We do not have a clue how much that is. The Government put out a figure the other day for how much Russian state money had been frozen—£18 billion—but we do not have a clue how much money we have managed to get off some of the characters we know are sitting on billions.

If there is going to be effective legislation, we need clear transparency and proper accountability. That is something that the Opposition feel incredibly strongly about. We will be pressing the new clause to a Division, because it is a sensible, pragmatic and practical provision that should be in the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberavon for tabling their new clause. I also thank the right hon. Member for Barking and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central for their contributions. I agree with much of what they said. As they know, I fully agree that Parliament should be regularly updated on the implementation and impact of this legislation. What gets measured gets done, and it is vital that we know what is being done with this legislation.

I will speak to new clauses 26 and 28 first, because I think there may be a duplication of things that exist already. Much of the information suggested by new clause 26, such as Companies House expenditure and the numbers of companies incorporated and struck off, is already published in the Companies House annual report. Companies House already reports publicly on its activities and its regular statistical releases on gov.uk. On new clause 28, through dissolution a company is brought to a point at which it ceases to exist and ceases to appear on the register. A company can seek its own voluntary strike-off, or it can be struck of compulsorily by the registrar. In principle, that process takes place when there is reason to believe that the company is no longer in operation or carrying on business. In both cases, statutory processes ensue whereby the public generally are informed that the dissolution is in train by publications in the Gazette. There are opportunities for third parties to intervene and object to a company being dissolved.

Concerns have been expressed that unscrupulous companies choose to give the impression that they are defunct in order to precipitate their dissolution and evade creditors. That concern is ultimately misplaced, as any assets left in a company following its dissolution will not be held by the company any more, and will be passed to the Crown, bona vacantia—as ownerless property. It is also important to note the effects of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021, which amended the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 by introducing a mechanism for disqualifying directors of dissolved companies.

It is also worth noting that the 1986 Act includes provision not only for disqualifying directors but for ordering disqualified directors to pay compensation. That provision is in section 15A of the Act and, as amended by the 2021 Act, covers directors of both insolvent companies and dissolved companies. If a director is disqualified and the conduct for which they were disqualified caused loss to the creditors of an insolvent or dissolved company, the director can be ordered to pay compensation either for the benefit of specified creditors or by way of a contribution to the assets of the company.

The Bill introduces a new circumstance under which the registrar might seek to strike off a company that persistently fails to provide an appropriate registered office address. I assure Members that the registrar will initiate dissolution in those particular circumstances only after having assessed the risks of doing so. The normal notification procedures, by way of the Gazette and Companies House webpages, will apply.

As noted, Companies House already makes data on company dissolutions regularly available. I question what benefit the reporting proposed by the new clause would add, as it is not clear to me that the information it covers would necessarily be available to the Secretary of State. However, I acknowledge the concern about the manner in which compulsory strike-off operates. I have asked my officials to advise me on the extent to which the Bill’s new information-sharing provisions might improve safeguards and transparency in this area. I am of course happy to engage further with Members on this topic in due course.

Most of the comments related to new clause 63. I absolutely agree that there needs to be a mechanism by which progress made on the implementation of the provisions in the Bill is reported to Parliament. There should be regular reporting on the registrar’s use of the new powers. I also accept that it is important to give Parliament an early opportunity to scrutinise how quickly Companies House implements the reforms.

I believe, however, that the new clause requires further consideration. As drafted, it has the potential to place unintended obligations on the registrar. For example, it will require the registrar to report on the imposition of financial penalties before the commencement date of the regulations. It also requires the registrar to indefinitely report on the implementation of the legislation, even if it is completed in the near future.

With the agreement of the Committee, I would like to ask my officials to consider the new clause further. I hope Members are reassured that we will give it consideration. If the new clause is withdrawn, we will have further discussions about what we might put in its place.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his comments about the new clauses. I appreciate his response on new clause 63 and very much look forward to hearing from his officials about the proposed reports, but will he tell us when we will hear from them? None of us wants the measure to be lost in the course of proceedings, and we do not want it to be left to the Lords, so I would be grateful if he can tell us when he expects us to hear a response. Assuming that it will be positive, I am happy not to press new clause 63 to a vote.

On new clause 26, the Minister did not respond with the detail that I was expecting. I understand that some data is already published. We can have an argument about whether it is there, but it is easy for there to be a summary. If Parliament is looking at one document, it will want that data. It will want to review the later data in the context of the more procedural data that Companies House already publishes. I cannot see that it is onerous to publish a summary of data that already exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Can I just say something from my own business experience? We had two very thorough inquiries from HMRC, which spent days in our office looking at our money laundering procedures. I am pleased to say that we passed the test, but HMRC really does take its job seriously.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I do not know whether I have the quote here from the previous HMRC permanent secretary—I will dig it up and send it to the Minister—but he actually said, in evidence to the Treasury Committee I think, that he did not quite understand why it was part of his job to do the supervision. I am not quoting him accurately, but the purport of what he said was that they see it as marginal and a sort of add-on—I think he used the word “add-on”—to their main function, which is to get the money in.

The position and reputation that professionals enjoy through membership of professional bodies is really important. Therefore, the professional bodies themselves should be taking steps to minimise and attack suspicious activity where it takes place, and they should be calling it out. It is in everybody’s interest to get the bad apples.

Let me give some evidence of the current failings as we see them. The 2021 review of OPBAS—the body responsible for all the professional bodies—found that 81%, or eight out of 10, were not supervising their members effectively. This review was done only on the legal and accountancy professions. Half the supervisors did not ensure that their members were taking timely action to improve their money laundering procedures where they were found wanting. A third of the supervisors did not have effective separation between the advocacy role and the supervision role, which I think is an important aspect. For a proper review, one would separate bodies undertaking supervision and bodies undertaking advocacy to ensure there is no conflict of interest.

Some 60% of the firms visited by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2021 were failing to comply fully with their duties to have adequate AML controls in place. OPBAS found that nine supervisory bodies of MLR are engaging in what it calls “low levels of enforcement”. The way in which those bodies respond when they find something going on is to have a quiet chat rather than issue fines and publicly censure lawyers for breaching the MLR rules. The highest ever AML fine for a law firm by the SRA was £232,500, and it was for Mishcon. If that fine had been levied by the FCA under similar powers, it would have been £5.4 million.

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers, another group of professionals who are active in this area, imposed zero fines, despite finding that two out of three of the firms it is responsible for supervising were non-compliant with AML regulations in 2019-20. To use another example, the Law Society of Northern Ireland imposed just one fine—of £1,750—in the year 2019-2020, despite it finding 228 cases of non-compliance. That is a considerable body of evidence, if I may say so, that shows that the current system is broken and not fit for purpose.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation, a group I work with a lot, found that a third of the firms visited were non-compliant, but only four firms were disciplined for failure to provide renewal forms by the required deadline and fined for failure to submit appropriate criminality check certificates or to deal with the action points that had been raised with them in the review by CIOT of their AML procedures. In three of the four disciplinary cases by CIOT, a financial penalty was imposed, and only in the fourth was the member suspended.

I know that the Government are looking at the supervisory framework but, as is the way with Governments, that could take forever. We want to implement these reforms swiftly, so we must have some assurance and confidence, particularly because of the outsourcing of the checks on individual companies, that the professionals will seek out the miscreants in their profession. We cannot wait for the review, to put it bluntly. With these measures, we have taken the least of all the options the Government have put forward and proposed it for legislation. If the Government, on reflection, want to come back with a tougher regime, that is fine, but at least we would have the minimum in place as we enact the legislation and the reform of Companies House. Our new clause says, “Action now. Toughen up the powers and duties of OPBAS—introduce greater transparency into the system, and comeback if that is needed.” We are suggesting new powers and duties for OPBAS. The power is

“to impose…financial penalties on Professional Body Supervisors that fail to…adopt an effective risk-based approach to anti-money laundering supervision…impose proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance…and…separate their advocacy and regulatory functions.”

This is minimal, sensible and desperately needed now if we are to go ahead, with the speed that we all want, with the implementation of the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I wish I had brought some of my previous notes with me. What evidence does the Minister have of that, apart from HMRC telling us that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It visited my business!

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am amazed that it did. Is there evidence of the number of visits or assessments carried out? I can remember a quote from the previous permanent secretary, who said, “It is not our core business.”

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

All the new clauses relate to the register of overseas entities. New clause 12 will mean that the required information that must be provided about an overseas entity, a corporate registrable beneficial owner or a managing officer will always include its principal office, rather than there merely being an option to provide its registered or principal office. The new clause will improve the quality of the information provided and align with the information required about other types of legal entities.

New clause 14 will ensure that overseas entities that provide the details of a managing officer who is under the age of 16, or who is a legal entity, must also provide details of a person who is more than 16 years old. This is to ensure that there is a person who can be contacted about the overseas entity, in addition to the relevant person who verified the information. It is possible that in jurisdictions outside the UK, individuals younger than 16 may be allowed to act as company directors, secretaries or equivalents. Directors of UK companies are required to be at least 16 years of age, so the new clause provides consistency by requiring the contact details of someone who is at least 16 years of age.

New clause 21 will update the language about penalties for non-compliance in section 34 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to reflect changes made by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. It will ensure consistency with the wording used in other clauses in the Bill.

New clause 13 will require overseas entities to include the title number for relevant interests in land that they hold in their application for registration, both when providing an update and when applying to be removed from the register. Overseas entities that are already registered will be required to provide this information when they next provide an update or, if sooner, when they apply to be removed from the register. The collection of this information will improve the effectiveness of the register and will help law enforcement agencies with their investigations. The information will not be made publicly available because the Government do not consider that to be appropriate, given privacy concerns.

Let me turn new clause 15. In advance of the launch of the register, the Register of Overseas Entities (Delivery, Protection and Trust Services) Regulations 2022 were made. Regulation 14 specified the circumstances in which a legal entity trustee is deemed to be

“subject to its own disclosure requirements”.

By virtue of a legal entity trustee being a registrable beneficial owner, the overseas entity must provide the required information about the trust and persons connected to it, such as beneficiaries, settlors and interested persons.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

This is an issue for clarification, because it impacts on whether we move our new clause 59. Will the information that we are now going to get about trustees and beneficiaries be made public? Will it be open to the public in the same way as other information about beneficial owners is open to the public? I ask because that is what our new clause would achieve.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will deal with that, if I can, as I go through. Essentially, trusts are often there to protect the identity of vulnerable persons, so I am not sure that the provision will do what the right hon. Member wants to do in her new clause, but we can probably discuss that when we discuss her new clause.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

So it does not do it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Without regulation 14, if the corporate trustee were not subject to its own disclosure requirements, the overseas entity would have to “look through” the legal entity trustee to find a registrable beneficial owner higher up the chain of ownership. But in the situations we are talking about it is information about the trust that is wanted, rather than information about the ownership or control of the legal entity trustee. Currently, regulation 14 therefore ensures that Companies House, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and law enforcement agencies receive the information about the trust and persons connected to it, which I think may be the point that the right hon. Member raises and which is much more useful to meet the aims of the register.

New clause 15 goes further by ensuring that a legal entity acting as a trustee is always a registrable beneficial owner whether or not it is “subject to its own disclosure requirements” and even if there is another registrable beneficial owner further down a chain of ownership. This maximises the transparency in respect of the involvement of a legal entity trust in a chain of ownership.

The provisions also provide a power to expand the description of persons who are registrable beneficial owners where the overseas entity is part of a chain of entities that includes a trustee. It is appropriate to have a power to expand the description, given that there may be complex arrangements that attempt to circumvent the requirements. The provisions revoke regulation 14 because it is no longer needed.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

No, that is not the case.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Are you sure?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to give way, for clarification.

[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.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is £400 million over the spending period.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Where is the parliamentary oversight of that?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Under negative or affirmative resolution?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

In terms of the financial penalties imposed?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not sure that what we are trying to do here is relevant to the matter that the hon. Lady raised. Amendment 114 would prevent regulations being made to allow the registrar to make information unavailable for public inspection under new section 1088 unless there are compelling reasons for the information to be withheld, which this amendment outlines.

Of course, there are instances where disclosure of information on the public register is inappropriate—I think we have all agreed that through the course of this debate—for instance, where it could lead to an increased risk of fraud and identity theft, or put individuals at risk for some reason, such as in cases of domestic abuse. There are limitations in the extent to which existing provisions in the Companies Act 2006 allow personal information to be withheld from the public register. We want to expand that to ensure that personal information is properly protected.

Clause 87 amends the Companies Act to allow individuals to apply to the registrar to suppress information relating to an individual or address and prevent it from being disclosed or made available for public inspection. That will include their residential address, signature, business occupation, and date of birth in old documents.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This is another opportunity to raise the issue, to which I have not had an answer, of Fedotov. That is how he kept his name off the—[Interruption.] It is. We just need an answer.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The answer is that any person applying under the exemption will have to prove to the registrar that there is sufficient evidence of a serious risk of violence or intimidation to protect their names or information. If necessary, the registrar will refer cases to an appropriate law enforcement agency and will have the power to revoke protection if information comes to light to suggest that false evidence has been provided.

Does the right hon. Lady honestly think that a registrar, who has a duty and responsibility to protect the integrity of the register, would assist an oligarch, for example, in trying to hide information? I think we are into conspiracy theory territory here, which I do not think will get us very far.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

In general, I would agree with the Minister. However, the truth is that Fedotov did manage that. If the Minister could provide an explanation of why and how that happened, then we might get greater comfort in this Committee that those circumstances will not arise again.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I committed earlier to look into that case, and I will, but the Usmanov case, as I said, was a completely different case. The whole reason why we are bringing forward this legislation is to improve transparency and fight economic crime. The right hon. Lady’s indication that perhaps the registrar might be complicit with Russian oligarchs, who may be guilty of economic crime, is not really plausible.

These are reasonable provisions for people whom we suggest might be at risk of harm if we publish that information, and they have to demonstrate that that harm is a salient risk. They are reasonable provisions that would be used fairly sparingly in the main, but nevertheless there have to be those kinds of provisions where somebody is at risk of harm. That does not exempt the applicant from providing the information to the registrar, where it is still required by legislation, but it will no longer be displayed publicly. Critically—and this should answer the right hon. Lady’s point—information would still be available to law enforcement agencies and other public bodies. It would not be appropriate to limit the registrar’s ability to protect personal information in the way proposed by the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I just want to reiterate that all protected information, whether suppressed or not, is available to law enforcement agencies. That is the critical point. Individuals who seek to use these exemptions have to provide sufficient evidence of a serious risk of violence or intimidation, and that protection can be revoked if new information comes to the registrar’s attention that she feels casts doubt on the original assertions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Analysis of information for the purposes of crime prevention or detection

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I beg to move amendment 119, in clause 88, page 68, line 15, leave out from “must” to the end of line 17 and insert

“analyse information within its possession with a view to preventing or detecting crime.”

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am hoping I can see, because the light is so bad—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

What a shame!

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister is delighted. All the provisions are grouped together, so he will have to listen to me forever. The lighting is not much better, but we will see how we go—I know we are saving energy.

The provisions that we are discussing all sit together. I will start with amendments 119 and 120, with which we are trying to strengthen the duties, rather than the powers, of Companies House. During the course of the Committee’s discussion of the Bill, we have considered how UK corporate structures and vehicles are used to move, hide and launder money. When the Bill is enacted, although I hope that it will be amended to strengthen the nature of the information we get by strengthening the supervision of company service providers, Companies House will hold a wealth of data.

Amendment 119 seeks to make it compulsory for Companies House to analyse that data to prevent and detect crime. By removing some words, it would be tougher than the current wording of the clause, according to which Companies House could analyse that data, but does not necessarily have to. The clause says

“as the registrar considers appropriate”,

and, without the amendment, Companies House could and will argue that it does not consider analysis “appropriate”. We would remove that provision and say that the registrar must use the data that has been made available to her to see whether or not it can support us in our efforts to avoid crime.

I have one other thing to say about this issue. We have talked a lot in the debate about corruption and the way in which it has impacted the UK economy. As we discuss the Bill further, we have to remember the impact it will also have much more widely. According to the ONE Campaign’s latest estimate, around $1 trillion is lost every year to corruption in developing countries. A lot of that comes through the abuse of corporate structures that we have in the UK. That is just one example that demonstrates how UK corporate structures facilitate theft and corrupt activity.

I know that that is under the current regime and that much of this should go when we get to our new regime. However, I will give another example of how the abuse of UK corporate structures led to money, again, coming out of Russia, which is the bottle laundromat—another of these laundromats—that was uncovered by Transparency International. British companies were, again, at the centre. It was a money laundering operation from 2014 to 2016 where $820 million came out of Russia. Again, it involved—classically—a network of shell companies, many of them UK firms, that apparently sold bottle-moulding machines to Russia.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady raises some important cases, and she is right to do so. Is that not exactly why we are trying to do this in this way? There are 4.5 million companies registered in England. Around 700,000 companies are registered every year, or 2,000 a day, and 400,000 are dissolved every year. If she is asking Companies House to analyse every single company—that is exactly what her amendment says—to determine risk, she is asking too much of Companies House and she will miss the important needles in the haystack that she refers to.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Were I asking that, that would be unreasonable but if the Minister takes all my amendments together, he will see that they and others talk about a risk-based assessment of the available data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The amendment does not say that. It says that

“the registrar must carry out a risk assessment”,

not a risk-based approach. There is a big difference in terms of what the right hon. Lady is asking for.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

But when we come to the new clauses, which we will discuss later, they say “risk-based”. It is a risk-based assessment. Perhaps the Minister could explain what the difference is.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The amendment says

“a risk assessment to identify where the information it holds might give rise to a matter of concern.”

That certainly says to me that a risk assessment would be required for every company. To me, a risk-based approach would identify various pieces of information, and Companies House would act on that information and determine whether the risk is from companies, directors or persons of significant control and act on that. That is our approach; the right hon. Lady’s approach is moving away from that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister is misinterpreting our approach. I am sorry if he reads it that way, but I agree that we are not asking for 100%. He calls it a risk-based assessment; I call it a risk assessment. Apologies for the difference in language.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

And presumably the policeman does not knock on every door.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Precisely.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

At the moment, the Bill says—I can’t read it because there is no bloody light! It is a thing that as you get old, your eyes aren’t brilliant:

“The registrar must carry out such analysis of information within the registrar’s possession as the registrar considers appropriate”.

We are attempting to take that wording out of the Bill to make it a duty, because otherwise we know from the other enforcement agencies and the work of other Government agencies that unless clearly directed, the real work would not be done. There would be an excuse. They would be busy doing something else. This is their key proactive role. We can go on and on about it during the course of the Bill, but I assure the Minister that the registrar should do it in a risk-based way. She should not do it, as the Bill says, as is appropriate; she should just do it. That is really the first thing.

I will quickly describe the bottle laundromat. The Minister and I are very familiar with all the stories, but other members of the Committee are not, and the stories are pretty shocking. Every time we hear another one, it is shocking. The stories reinforce the justification for the sort of interventions that Labour Members want to include in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I think this is about a different interpretation of words.

The amendment would require Companies House to conduct risk assessments of the information and data it holds on the register for the purposes of the prevention and detection of economic crime. The amendment also creates a basis for new clauses 37 and 38, to introduce an obligation on Companies House to use all the data it collects to identify where economic crime risks lie.

I genuinely think we are quarrelling about words, not about what we want to do. On the basis of that risk assessment, or whatever word the Minister wants to use, Companies House would then decide when to use its powers proactively.

Interestingly enough, my wonderful staff have looked it up, and everybody else uses these terms. We are not alone in this. The Financial Action Task Force standards talk about risk assessments. It talks about a “risk-based approach”. Is that language better for the Minister?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Much better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

It means the same to us—I think the Minister is really being a little bit pedantic here. If we bring the amendments back on Report with the words “risk-based”, perhaps we will have a better chance of getting them through.

The risk-based approach is central to the implementation of FATF’s recommendations. The UK’s AML regime and the Council of Europe use a risk-based approach, as does the private sector. I want to use a risk-based approach, and so does the Minister, so why do we not just get on with it?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We do, and it is exactly what the clause states:

“The registrar must carry out such analysis of information within the registrar’s possession as the registrar considers appropriate for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime.”

In other words, the registrar identifies a red flag and then does an investigation. The right hon. Lady’s amendment 116 says:

“the registrar must carry out a risk assessment to identify where the information it holds might give rise to a matter of concern.”

That is a non-risk-based assessment.

[The Chair]

Order. Minister, may I intervene for a second? You will have time to respond to all this in the debate, but that is a very long intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I remember very clearly my speech in Westminster Abbey that night. He might remember that I talked about corporate criminal liability and whistleblower reform, which are absolutely essential. Indeed, at least one of those falls under my portfolio, so I am certainly committed to bringing forward those reforms when I can.

The only difference between hon. Members of the Opposition and ourselves is the means by which we would achieve the same end. On amendments 119 and 120, I am always happy to look at sensible amendments that take us forward. When Opposition Members talk about those cases, they are talking primarily about cases in the past where we did not have the powers that this Bill provides, and where we did not have the level of enforcement; we both agree that that needs improvement.

Where we differ is on how we go about this. I have serious concerns about the provisions in amendment 116, tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking, which seem to require the registrar to look at every single company on the record. That is exactly what it says. It says that the registrar

“must carry out a risk assessment to identify where the information it holds might give rise to a matter of concern.”

The registrar can do that only by looking at every single record.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will just develop my arguments. I listened to hers at length, and I heard them very clearly. Our approach is a more workable one. I do not think her approach is workable. I think that if we listen to each other’s arguments, we are probably saying the same thing. We are trying to overlay the information that sits with the registrar herself in Companies House with information from others, such as banks, lawyers, accountants—we discussed that in earlier debates—and law enforcement agencies in order to identify where the information she holds identifies risks, so that she can then carry out an investigation.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will develop my point a little further, and then I will let the right hon. Lady intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the right hon. Member knows, objective 4 establishes exactly that: an obligation

“to minimise the extent to which companies and others carry out unlawful activities, or…facilitate the carrying out by others of unlawful activities.”

That is quite clearly in the Bill.

New clauses 37 and 38 would require the status of a person with significant control and the accounts of dissolved companies to be checked by the registrar. The registrar would be required to carry out a risk assessment of all those companies—roughly 1,000 companies per day. Members might be thinking that every person with significant control has some connection to Russian dirty money or Russian oligarchs, but the vast majority of state-owned enterprises have a person with significant control, because they own more than 25% of those companies. For the registrar to look at 1,000 companies every single day to determine whether there is a risk, and then investigate further—that is exactly what the right hon. Lady’s new clauses would require—would not be practical.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This is becoming a rather absurd psephological debate. I have just asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill whether I have got the wording wrong—whether there is a great difference between risk assessment and risk-based assessment. Perhaps Government Members will tell me differently, but those two things are the same, and we should not try to locate a difference between them.

The last thing any of us wants to do is micromanage any of our organisations through legislation, but we have to look at the experience and the record of all the enforcement agencies and bodies in the financial services sector over the years. If we have colleagues of ours in the House doing that, they will meet with massive criticism. One way to tighten and toughen this up without having to get involved in the minutiae is to move from powers to duties, which is the purpose of a lot of the amendments we are debating today. If the Minister does not take seriously some of these practical suggestions, he is in danger of setting up a new system that is as open to abuse as the current system, and we will be back here in a couple of years putting it right.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

All legislation needs improvement, but we must not put the registrar under a duty that makes her job impossible. That is what the right hon. Lady’s amendment would do. That is what I am pointing out to her; not that I do not think—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I cannot let the right hon. Lady intervene again. We are pressed for time. We just do not agree on this point. I think that we agree on the broad sentiment that there should be a risk-based analysis, but that is not what her amendment says.

With 1,000 companies resolved every day, it would be impractical to have a risk assessment of every single one of those companies and to then do the risk-based analysis. I think that the amendments are too directive, and I ask Members not to press them. I am happy to consider whether there is a less prescriptive formulation that we could add to the clause to have that effect. I completely understand and concur with Members’ broad objective. Of course we want a proactive regulator who determines where the risks are and acts on information, be it from journalists, private sector companies or enforcement agencies, to inform her work and to make sure that she pursues those who are most likely to be guilty of wrongdoing.

A couple of Members referred to the Russian sanctions regime. In the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 13) Regulations 2022, we broadened the designation criteria to include specified immediate family members and those with links to Russian state-owned businesses. There are, of course, things like the combating kleptocracy cell at the National Crime Agency.

New clauses 41, 42 and 43 seek to address concerns about nominee shareholders. New clauses 41 and 42 would require people who control, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of the shares in a public company to declare themselves. New clause 43 would require any person holding shares in a public company as a nominee for another person to disclose that fact to the registrar. The new clauses would put additional obligations to disclose information to the registrar on to the person who holds the shares, rather than the company to which the shares relate.

New clauses 41 and 42 would create a burden in relation to public companies that would not exist for private companies. It would not be proportionate to impose such a burden on public companies that are low risk and that have additional requirements placed on them. It is already the case in the law on nominee shareholders or proxies that a share held by a person as a nominee for another is to be treated as though the share is held by the true owner and not by the nominee. Failure to declare a shareholder is a criminal offence and if the court were to find that a person should have been registered, the person and their company would be at risk of prosecution. I hope that provides the assurance that right hon. and hon. Members need.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I know that we share the objectives, but I feel very frustrated by the inability to decide whether a risk assessment and a risk-based assessment are the same. For the life of me, I cannot see the difference. We will put it to the vote and see whether those in favour of risk-based assessments are happy to go with “risk assessments”.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is not what the right hon. Lady has put in her amendment. It says not “risk-based assessment” but “risk assessment”.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I would say that there is no difference. In amendment 116, we have “risk assessments”. For those of us who think this is the way forward, I have to say that the Minister’s argument seems constructed rather than real.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think that we are trying to achieve the same thing, just in different ways. We discussed this issue at length in previous sittings. Companies House is already actively working on unique identifiers. It is not credible to think that, having legislated for them, we will not implement them. A basic principle of the Bill is to be able properly to link individuals on the Companies House register, so that company directors have a better experience and so that it is easier for the public to identify the connection between directors, including persons of significant control, and companies.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I accept that great progress has been made in the Bill, but addresses and personal details are also important. We know the way in which addresses are exploited: people put 3,000 companies into one address. That is relevant information that Companies House needs to have.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Addresses are not covered by the amendment, although we discussed the verification of addresses at length the other day. We think we have struck a fair balance in terms of a company address. The shadow Minister seems to be saying that she wants the unique identifier to be searchable; we think that the person’s name should be public and searchable. I did not quite understand her point about people hiding their email addresses or names, and searching by unique identifier, rather than the other way around. We think that the searchable entity should be the person’s name, and the Bill would then make it easier to see the connections between a director’s name and the different companies with which that person is connected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think I have understood the hon. Lady’s question. Clearly, all directors and company service providers need to have their identity verified too. If that is what the hon. Lady is referring to, that is absolutely contained in the provisions of the Bill.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I was very interested in what the Minister said about ensuring that the authorised company service providers should be checked and supervised properly. It is really important to ensure that all the details of the individuals on the register can be found with certainty. However, we are all struggling with how to do that in quickest, most cost-efficient and effective way. Does the Minister agree that a suitable mechanism should be presented on Report—unless he would like to suggest one now—that does not waste time, keeps within the timeframe, does not require massive additional resources and enables swift action to be taken? I love the Treasury, but we should do this without having to wait for a Treasury review or reorganisation. Does he accept that that might be a way forward? We all want the same thing, and if we do not get this right there could be a huge flaw in the system we are establishing.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are on the same page about ensuring that the system is fit for purpose. It is difficult for me to do a review when the Treasury itself is doing one and is probably better placed than I am to do it, given its wider understanding of the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clauses 76 to 79 support the Bill’s overarching ambition to broaden the powers of the registrar to maintain the integrity of the register. Clause 76 provides a new power to reject documents for discrepancies. Currently, the registrar must accept documents if they have been properly delivered—that is, they meet the requirements as to their contents, form, authentication and manner of delivery, and the other requirements listed in section 1072 of the Companies Act 2006.

Documents containing information that is at odds with information that the registrar holds may none the less meet “proper delivery” requirements in their own right. If so, they must be placed on the register despite the apparent inconsistency. This clause cures that problem by enabling the registrar to reject a document if it appears to be inconsistent with other information that is held by or available to the registrar. The power is available if, due to the inconsistency, the registrar has reasonable grounds to doubt whether the document complies with the requirements as to its contents.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This is a question to aid understanding. This provision sets out the duties of the registrar in relation to documents, but the documents will actually be checked by the company service providers, will they not? That will be outsourced to those providers. I might be wrong—the Minister is looking puzzled—but that is the case if I read the situation correctly. Therefore, is this provision suggesting that there will be a check at Companies House on the work that the company service providers do? Perhaps the Minister can say a little about how that will be implemented. I thought that all that was to be pushed out to the company service providers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Not at all—quite the opposite. Companies House has a requirement to oversee the integrity of the register, and the clause states exactly that. If the registrar feels there is an error that she is not happy with in the document, or it is inconsistent, she can reject the document whether it is filed by a company service provider or by a director of the company.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

For complete clarity, there will be a risk-based system of checks on documents provided as a mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of the documents that are submitted.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Absolutely. That is exactly how we expect it to operate.

Once the registrar refuses the document, it will be treated as not having been delivered. Under clause 77, the Companies Act 2006 allows the registrar, upon receipt of an instruction from someone else and only with the relevant company’s or other body’s consent, to correct a document at the pre-registration stage if it appears to be incomplete or internally inconsistent. That power was useful when more companies filed on paper, as informally correcting material was easier than rejecting a document and waiting for it to be refiled. However, in the digital world, filings can now be rejected, returned to the filer and then refiled within minutes. There is no longer a need to informally correct a document pre-registration. Clause 77 therefore removes that power, which also encourages accuracy in filing by removing the expectation that a document can be informally corrected.

Clause 78 reduces the period of time for which the registrar must keep originals of documents that have been delivered in hard copy from three years to two years. Once that period has passed, the original documents can be destroyed as long as the information they contain has been recorded. The retention period that was previously reviewed was reduced from 10 years to three years when the Companies Act 2006 replaced the 1989 Act. The number of requests for the retrieval of filings has decreased further and steadily since then due to declining paper filings, improved image capture processes and increased confidence in digital records. It is therefore right to reduce the retention period again. The information in the documents will still of course be available electronically to users as appropriate.

Clause 79 amends the period for which the registrars in each UK jurisdiction must maintain certain records available for public inspection. The records in view are those concerning dissolved companies, including certain information regarding PSCs of dissolved companies, overseas companies that have ceased to have any UK connection, and overseas credit and financial institutions that have ceased to be required to file accounts with the registrar. The clause provides that those records can be moved to the Public Record Office two years after the relevant date of dissolution or cessation.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

May I ask a question on that? It is relevant to later amendments. I do not know whether the Minister or his officials can help, but can Companies House stop a request for dissolution?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In what circumstances?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I think it can. I have tried to find its powers and cannot find them. The great example is the Savaro one. It was the UK-based company that owned the warehouse where the fire took place in Lebanon. It tried to dissolve the company, but I think the Minister intervened. I have looked up Savaro and it does still exist. It is quite important if we have a dirty company that wants to rush away. Do we have powers to dissolve it?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to raise that with officials and come back to the right hon. Lady. [Interruption.] There is some flapping about right there, as I speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Very kind.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The answer is yes, is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

These amendments relate to the register of overseas entities introduced by virtue of part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The new clauses mirror equivalent sections in the Companies Act 2006 as amended by part 1 of the Bill, which we have already debated. They will ensure consistency between the two Acts.

The amendments will ensure that the public register contains only information that it is necessary to display, and that certain information including email addresses is not made publicly available, because of the risk that that could facilitate identity theft or other fraud. New clause 16 will ensure that personal information supplied in connection with the verification process for the register of overseas entities can be appropriately protected from public inspection. It is right to ensure that certain personal information, including email addresses, is not made publicly available because of the risk that that could facilitate identity theft or other fraud.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Again, I am really asking for information. It would be interesting to learn whether the Minister knows how many overseas entities have been registered since the enactment of the 2022 Act. It could still end up being unclear who the real beneficial owner was of an overseas entity. If someone went to an overseas entity to find out who owns One Hyde Park, and it said that the owner was a British Virgin Islands company, would the owner of that company be shown?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That does not directly relate to this amendment, but I will get back to the right hon. Lady on that point in a separate conversation. Details such as the name and company of the person verifying the information submitted by an overseas entity to the register will continue to be publicly visible; it is not our intention to change that.

New clause 17 replaces sections 22 to 24 of the ECTE Act with proposed new sections 22 and 23. As with new clause 16, new clause 17 adds to the list of information that the registrar must not make available for public inspection, to help prevent the abuse of such information. That includes categories of information that were never intended to be made available for public inspection, but were missed during the expedited passage of the ECTE Act through Parliament, such as the email address of an overseas entity. New clause 17 also includes new categories of information that an overseas entity will be required to provide as a result of other amendments that are being introduced by the Bill, including the title number of land that an overseas entity owns, and documents provided to the registrar under her new power to require further information. New clause 17’s insertion of new section 23 also means that the registrar can disclose protected information about trusts, date of birth and residential address only in two scenarios.

Amendments 12, 39, 40 and 49 are consequential on new clause 17. Under the amendments, the registrar need not retain material that must not be made available for public inspection longer than appears reasonably necessary to her for the purposes for which the material was delivered to her.

I will say to the right hon. Member for Barking that there have been over 3,000 registrations on the register of overseas entities since it was established on 1 August 2022. It is right to ensure that the public register of material concerning overseas entities contains only information that is necessary to display, and that certain information, including email addresses, is not made publicly available for the reasons that I have stated. It is also right to amend the Companies Act 2006 in a way that mirrors amendments made in the Bill, so that there is consistency between the two Acts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

There was a report in The Guardian yesterday on an organisation called Wealth Chain Project. Its analysis showed that 138,000 residential and commercial properties in England and Wales are owned by offshore companies. We have managed to get 3,000 so far, so there is a heck of a lot—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is not a direct correlation between the two, because one overseas entity might own many UK properties.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Ah, that is a valid point, and I think the article deals with it. Some entities will own more than a few properties, but—sorry, I am just looking to see whether the article does make that point. The article demonstrates the enormous importance of Executive action. That is why the Opposition feel strongly that action should take place; there is no point in just putting legislation in place. There is a desire to monitor that action, and toughen up the provision to ensure that the action happens. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind. No matter how many entities own more than one property, 3,000 is still a long way from the 138,000, assuming that figure is accurate.

I am getting muddled by all these amendments. Will the Minister or his officials provide us with a list of what information will be on the register? What will we see? If we had that, we could take a view on whether that information is sufficient for all our purposes.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

What happens if it is a false statement? Who will uncover that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Who will uncover—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

If a false statement is put in. I mean, I was just—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I ask the question for a reason. I did not intervene during the previous debate, but the Minister might know—I certainly do—that thousands and thousands of microbusinesses are supposed to put their annual accounts in to HMRC, but do not do so, and nobody ever goes after them. There therefore may be thousands and thousands of businesses that put in false statements. Given the anti-regulatory stance that the Minister has displayed today, I am just interested in knowing who will actually check the statements and what will happen then.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very disappointed that the right hon. Lady regards me as anti-regulatory. I want a system that allows good, bona fide businesses to go about their daily business without unnecessary checks and balances. We cannot control everything that goes on in our society but, in the main, businesses are lawful, and undertake lawful and legitimate commercial activity.

If the right hon. Lady expects a world in which we check every single filing, nobody will be doing any commercial work in our society. The only people we will have will then be box-checkers, and where would the tax revenue come from to pay for all the things that both she and I want in our society?

We must have a proportionate balance between regulation, the cost of resourcing regulators and the needs of law enforcement agencies. That is why our belief, which I know is not entirely hers, is that we need to take an intelligence-based approach to regulation. That is the most effective way to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As an overriding point, we all know how important the integrity of the ID verification system is. I completely agree with that and we need there to be confidence in it.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, it is not right that a tender has gone out already. A request for information has been put out to determine some of the characteristics of the suppliers to learn what services they provide, but a tender has not gone out. Once determined, the ID verification system will be brought to the House to be approved by affirmative resolution. There will be opportunities for debate at that time to make sure it is fit for purpose, both in the framework and how it will be operated.

On the comments the hon. Member for Aberavon made about persons of significant control, first, I think he makes the exact case that we would make. A 25% threshold is pretty much the global standard, but even if it were lowered, people could find ways around it—even if there were a 0% threshold, as was suggested by Professor Elspeth Berry. That is why the definition of a person of significant control is not solely about the percentage of the shareholding of a company. There are five definitions, including one I that believe will interest the hon. Gentleman, which is somebody who, other than by shareholding,

“has the right to exercise or actually exercises significant influence or control”

over a company. Therefore, there could be zero shareholding and they would still be a person of significant control. How is that enforced? If directors allow that to happen and do not declare that they have a person of significant control, they are liable for a fine and a custodial sentence of up to two years. We do deal with that in a reasonable way.

Some valid concerns have been expressed about company formation agents. I am happy to write to the National Crime Agency to ask what it has done about them. However, not all company service providers are company formation agents; there is a distinction. A company service provider may well be a large accountancy practice, such as Deloitte, PwC or KPMG. The hon. Member for Aberavon stated that such organisations know very little about their clients and offer a blanket service, but I do not think that is fair. My accountants can verify my ID and they know a great deal about me, I can promise the hon. Gentleman.

Of course we must make sure that the system is robust, and I acknowledge that there are some concerns about the supervision of those registered as supervised for money-laundering purposes. Of course we must be sure that the system is right. As hon. Members are aware, I think, the Treasury is looking at means of improving the regime to ensure that the supervision is much better, and it needs to be. The difficulty is—we will have more debate about the issue in forthcoming sittings—whether we want to get everything perfect in the system before we start ID verification, or whether we start ID verification. In my view, it is essential that we get that ID verification done as quickly as possible. Waiting until the AML supervision regime is absolutely perfect would be a mistake, in my view. The two things should happen concurrently.

I understand the reasoning behind new clause 27. I completely agree with the idea of giving confidence to Parliament that the matters are being taken forward. I am happy to commit to return to Parliament to communicate by whatever means is preferable—written ministerial statement or oral statement—what progress has been made to ensure that Parliament has the information that it needs to hold Companies House and other agencies to account.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will speak very briefly. It would be nice if the Minister could agree to the amendments, which are simply there to tighten up the oversight of the bodies. Amendments 81 and 82 are connected, and would force HMRC to do what it is not currently doing and carry out proper checks on the TCSPs and monitor them properly. Amendment 79 gives the registrar the power to require information. At the moment, as I read the Bill, there is no power for the registrar to challenge any of the information provided to her by any corporate service provider.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her contribution. Clause 63 introduces a requirement for third party agents who wish to provide corporate services to clients, such as incorporating companies and filing documents on their behalf, to be registered with Companies House as authorised corporate service providers. ACSPs will be required to be supervised for the purposes of the money laundering requirements at all times and to notify the registrar of any changes to supervision.

I understand and am sympathetic to the intention behind amendments 81 and 82. They are driven by concern that the UK’s AML supervisory regime is not as robust as it could be. The Government recognise that, as do I. It is being addressed by my colleagues at the Treasury, who are responsible for the supervisory regime. I am afraid, however, that the amendments would duplicate some of the regulatory obligations of HMRC, the default supervisor for corporate service providers, by adding to the role of the registrar of companies. Their effect would be to make an agency of my Department responsible for overseeing activities of another Department. Not only is that duplicative, but it is wrong for one branch of Government to mark the homework of another branch. The most efficient means to address any issues with the quality of supervision is to tackle them at source, which is work that HM Treasury is undertaking on supervisory reform. I hope I have provided clarity on why the amendments are not needed.

On amendment 79, I understand the right hon. Lady’s concerns, but I consider the amendment to be unnecessary. As I have set out, under the measures in the Bill corporate service providers will need to confirm they are supervised for the purposes of the money laundering regulations, register with the registrar and, in the case of an individual, have their identity verified before they are allowed to form companies or registerable partnerships or to file on their behalf. The ID verification checks undertaken by those providers will achieve the same level of assurance of the claimed identity as those undertaken through the direct verification route.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Yes or no: will Companies House be able to challenge at any point information given to it by a TCSP—an authorised provider?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I understand it, yes, Companies House will have the rights and powers to do that, though we do not at this point know to what extent it will do so. The right hon. Lady spoke in a previous debate about spot checks. It would seem sensible to take that kind of risk-based approach. Certainly, an AML supervisor would have that ability as well.

Providers will be required to declare that they have completed all the necessary identification checks when they interact with the registrar. Under money laundering regulations, all agents are required to retain records, and the registrar can request further information and ID verification checks if necessary, which I think answers the question that the right hon. Lady just asked. The agent will be committing an offence if they fail to carry out the ID checks to the required standards, or at all.

Under the Bill, proposed new sections 1098F and 1098G of the Companies Act 2006, as introduced by clause 63, will enable the registrar to suspended and deauthorise an authorised corporate service provider. The Bill will allow the registrar to maintain an audit trail of agent activity and to share it with supervisors. That will serve as a prompt to supervisors to up their game. I hope that that explanation has further clarified why the amendments are not needed.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will go on to describe the categories. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an assets freeze is a type of financial sanction. Only those sanctions are relevant to someone’s ability to manage, form or promote a company. Non-asset freeze financial sanctions, such as securities and money market instrument prohibitions, can apply to a broader category of person beyond designated persons, for example, all persons connected to a particular country. To subject entire populations of countries to the directorship ban is grossly disproportionate. It would also be operationally unenforceable, as only designated people appear in published sanctions lists.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I do not understand that. I do not know whether the Minister can explain it in ordinary language. It sounds to me like people with other financial interests will not be subject to this measure. I am sorry if I am being clueless, but I just do not understand what is being excluded at this point, and therefore what is included in this very welcome amendment.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said in my explanation, for sanctions such as securities and money sanctions, those market instruments can affect entire populations; they do not just affect an individual. Those kinds of broad actions affect whole populations.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady can intervene again if she wants further clarification.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

If someone has some ownership in the securities market—I am not a financial expert, so I do not know whether I am understanding this right—and one took action on the assets, that would have an impact beyond the individual. Is that what we are being told?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, that is not what the right hon. Lady is being told. If someone has ownership, they have an asset, and therefore if that asset is frozen they are a designated person. It is just that the instruments themselves can affect the broad category of people who may or may not own assets. What we are trying to do is target people who actually own the assets.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am very grateful. This is really to understand it. If somebody is sanctioned, are they the sort of individual we would want to be a director of a company?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is not a person who is sanctioned. What we are trying to say is that everybody who is subject to an asset freeze is a designated person—exactly the kind of person the right hon. Lady would want to see sanctioned. Rather than getting into a to-and-fro debate, perhaps we can write to her and explain the situation in layman’s terms.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes, please.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Furthermore, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office does not currently designate people in relation to non-asset freeze financial sanctions. Although that may change in the future, a directorship ban may not necessarily be the most appropriate measure to impose on those designated for non-asset freeze financial sanctions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

What we are talking about here is financial sanctions. These matters relate to companies and financial sanctions, not to travel sanctions.

Let me explain these points further. Not automatically imposing these measures on potential future scenarios will give the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office the flexibility it needs to impose the most appropriate and meaningful conditions on people designated for financial sanctions beyond asset freezes. Without these amendments, director disqualification measures introduced by the Bill would automatically apply to anyone against whom the designation power under section 9 of SAMLA 2018 is utilised—for example, transport or immigration sanctions, or any future measures that His Majesty’s Government choose to design. Although those are extremely serious matters, such sanctions ought not by necessity impact on the person’s ability to act as a company director. Furthermore, should there be a future need to extend director disqualification measures to people subject to those broader sanctions, that can be done via future legislation as and when the need arises.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am genuinely sorry to interrupt, and I am looking at the Minister for Security as well. It seems to me that if we consider the behaviour that somebody has done to be so bad that we want to sanction them in whatever way—through a travel ban, asset freeze or other mechanism—surely in those conditions we do not think they are a fit and proper person to start a business? I cannot see the logic of this; I cannot see where the pressure is coming from to have a distinction between the two, and why we should want it. Why are we putting this down? Why should somebody who has been guilty of a human rights abuse, who may not have an asset that we can sanction, still need to be defined as somebody who is not a fit and proper person to set up a company here? We do not want them to do that, do we?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think the best way forward on that is for myself and the Minister for Security to have a conversation. We can set out some of the reasons why that is the case in more detail in writing, as I promised to do earlier. We can then have a further discussion from there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I always listen to the right hon. Lady very carefully, so she can be sure that I have been listening. I am keen to tie up—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, put it—any loopholes that we identify in the legislation. That is one of the purposes of Committee stage.

Broadly, I think the Committee and the wider House would accept that our sanctions regime, and the supervision regime at Companies House, are not fit for purpose today—that is why we are legislating. Clearly, the actions taken by Russia in recent months have further highlighted the work we need to do and the reform we need to put in place. The comments are welcome, and I think we are all trying to get to the same end point; we just want to make sure people do not suffer unintended consequences in the process.

I think the right hon. Lady said that Companies House is very poor at sharing information. That is probably a little unfair. Currently, it is not there to share information, other than by putting things on a public register for people to seek out; that has been its role in the past. Today, it is a register—we might call it a dumb register—and that is what we are seeking to change. We are seeking to give the registrar responsibility for promoting the integrity of the registers so that people can rely on the information in them and, as it says in the registrar’s objectives, to minimise unlawful activities and the facilitation of unlawful activities.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Obviously, Companies House has not had to do this to date; it has just been a library of dud data, really. What I was drawing to the Minister’s attention—I am sure he agrees with this—is that all the enforcement agencies working in this territory are poor at sharing information. That is why the stuff we get from whistleblowers so often falls through the middle somewhere and does not get tackled. That is why we should put a duty on the agencies to share information; we would not tell them how to do it, but just say, “This is really important if we are to bear down on wrongdoing.”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am still not sure I agree. Of course there are elements of our enforcement agencies that we are all frustrated by at times, but to my mind nobody goes to work to do a bad job. People are doing their best, often in very difficult circumstances. We all agree that we need to hold our enforcement agencies to account and properly resource them. What we are trying to do is provide them with more powers and ability, and then hold them to account for the use of those powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not know the answer to that question. When the Bill has received Royal Assent, it will facilitate exactly that process. At the moment, Companies House does not have the powers we would like it to have to bring that about. That is exactly what we are debating.

On amendment 83, I think the right hon. Member for Barking implies that Companies House knows of the changes with a company on an ongoing, dynamic basis. That is not how things work. Companies House does not have access to information until a company files an annual return. Companies do not provide information to Companies House on a daily or even monthly basis. That is not how it works.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

But under the legislation, companies will have to provide information on changes of directorships and so on within 28 days, we hope—we had this argument yesterday—so Companies House will have that. I am not expecting it to go through 4 million companies, but there must be a way that the information can be highlighted by the IT system and, if we know a director is somebody who has been sanctioned, that information can be shared. Under the legislation, if a company has changed a directorship, as Usmanov did, it will have to provide that information within 28 days or whatever, and surely that will be there to share.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

A change of directorship, yes, but I do not think that is the situation the right hon. Lady was describing. She was talking about a movement of assets, as I understand it. I do not know the detail of the case she is talking about—[Interruption.] May I finish? If she is trying to prevent a person from moving assets around on the basis that Companies House needs to know about that as it is happening, that situation cannot be delivered. Companies can move assets around without asking the permission of Companies House or notifying it, so her amendment does not serve any purpose in that regard.

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that any information that Companies House is made aware of and deems to be pointing to some kind of risk should be shared with the relevant agencies. We all agree with that point, and the Bill allows Companies House to do that for the first time. That is what we are trying to facilitate, but directing it to act in a certain way on a certain piece of information will lead us down a million rabbit holes, and we do not have the time or the ability to implement that through the Bill. We have to give it the powers and then let it get on with it while holding it to account against those broader objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This is a question of clarification: if a director is disqualified, can he or she still act as a shadow director?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It depends on how the right hon. Lady defines a shadow director. If she is implying that they are a person of significant control influencing others, which I guess is what she means, I will point her to the definitions of a person of significant control. They are those who hold

“more than 25% of shares in the company…more than 25% of voting rights in the company…the right to appoint or remove the majority of the board of directors”

that might influence or control a company through other means. That means that the person is still covered under the legislation; if a person is exerting that control, they should be designated as a person of significant control and ID verified, as discussed previously. Any person who became disqualified before the clause comes into force and is disqualified at that time will also cease holding the office of director.

Clause 37 amends some yet to be commenced provisions of the Companies Act 2006 on when a corporate director can act and minimum age requirements for directors. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 amended the 2006 Act to establish—as the hon. Member for Aberavon said—that company directors should, in future, be natural persons except where they have met specific requirements determined by regulations. We will bring forward those regulations following the enactment of the Bill to establish the exemptions to the general natural person director rule. After a transition period, companies must ensure that any corporate directors on their boards are compliant with the regulated exemption criteria. Where they fail to do so, those director appointments will be void once the transition period ends.

The clause makes it clear that should any non-compliant corporate director continue to act in the capacity of either a de facto or shadow director after the end of the transition period, they will be held liable for the consequences of their actions as they would be if they were a validly appointed director. The clause makes a similar clarification in respect of the principles that will apply in respect of an individual who does not meet minimum age requirements for a company director. In such instances, the appointment would also be void, but those who continue to purport to act as a director or operate in a shadow capacity will continue to be exposed to personal liability none the less.

Clause 38 repeals the power for the Secretary of State to require that companies with disqualified directors who have been given permission by the court to act as a director make a statement to the registrar confirming that permission. The power is no longer required, because the Bill introduces new requirements to provide statements about disqualification and permissions to act in sections 12, 12A, 167G and 790LA.

Clause 39 introduces a prohibition on an individual acting as a director unless their ID is verified or exempted from that requirement under the regulations. It establishes a duty on a company to ensure that unverified individuals do not act as directors unless they are exempted from the ID verification requirement. Failure to comply with the duty constitutes an offence committed by the company and every officer of the company who is in default.

Clause 40 will make it a criminal offence for a person to act as a director unless their appointment has been notified to the registrar. It will be a defence for a person to prove that they reasonably believed that the notice of their appointment had been given to the registrar. The actions taken by an unverified director, or a director whose appointment has not been reported to the registrar, will remain valid to ensure that third parties who have relied on the actions of an unverified director are not unfairly disadvantaged.

We want there to be consequences for not complying with ID verification obligations, and clauses 41 and 42 help us to achieve that. The clauses allow for the disqualification of individuals where they are persistently in default of the ID verification requirements for directors and people with significant control, or where they have been convicted by consequence of such contravention. Clause 41 legislates in respect of Great Britain, with clause 42 legislating to create equivalent powers for Northern Ireland.

Finally, clause 43 makes amendments to section 246 of the Companies Act 2006 regarding addresses on public record. It is consequential to other amendments to no longer require companies to hold their own local registers of directors.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Sincere apologies for being late, Mr Robertson. I want to start by welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, to his role. I have worked very closely with him over the past few years, and it is great to see somebody who understands the issues sitting in his seat. I hope that we can have very positive engagement with him while considering the Bill.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the reforms. The amendments that we have tabled, including this amendment, are all designed to improve the quality of the legislation that we pass. I hope that they will be taken in that spirit. Having been a Minister in my time, I am very aware of the fact that when amendments are tabled by hon. Members, whether they are on the Opposition or the Government Benches, there tends to be a mood of “reject” from the officials advising the Minister. I simply say to him that many of the amendments that we are putting forward, like this one, are really there to improve the Bill. They are not about trying to raise contentious issues. Perhaps as we proceed, we will come across more contentious issues, but this amendment is not contentious; it is simply to secure an improvement. It is not party political, and I think it reflects common sense. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this particular amendment.

Why have we tabled the amendment? I draw the Minister’s attention to the Government’s own factsheet on the Bill, which states that broadening the powers of the registrar of Companies House is designed—that is my word—so that the registrar can become a “more active” gatekeeper over company creation and a custodian of more reliable data. Companies House itself has six strategic goals, one of which is to combat economic crime through active use of analysis and intelligence. We have there a commitment from Government and from the organisation itself that it should take a proactive role in using the information that it has.

Our amendment would embed in legislation the Government’s intent and the organisation’s goals. It would ensure that that intent and the goals were on the statute book and therefore implemented in the future. Too often, as the Minister knows, we have organisations and bodies that have powers but simply do not use them. We can think of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and its oversight of company service providers as just one example of where there is a power but, without emphasis on that duty in legislation, it tends to get ignored. The aim of our amendment is just to ensure that what is a power becomes a strong duty.

Why does that matter? Companies House holds a massive amount of data: information about 4.5 million companies, with more than 800,000 new companies incorporated each year and more than 10 million documents filed annually. That data is full of red flags that should be proactively investigated to ensure that we really bear down on economic crime. We want to pursue the wrongdoers, and if we get that stronger investigation and it is known that Companies House does use its proactive powers, that is a good preventive measure because it is much less likely that the ne’er-do-goods will indulge in bad practice.

Let us look at the sort of stuff that has come out so far. There are endless examples: five beneficial owners control over 6,000 companies—a massive red flag. They are clearly not the real beneficial owners. Four thousand beneficial owners are under two years’ old, including one who is not born yet. The company Atlas Integrate Services LLP was registered in September this year. The person of significant control in that company is just two months’ old. In her two months of life, she has not just found time to start a business but apparently has got married, as she is listed as “Mrs” in the register.

We know from all the leaks how Companies House and our UK corporate structures are used and abused by bad people. I take just one example from the FinCEN files: 3,267 of the LLPs and the LPs were holders of bank accounts that involved suspicious transactions—British corporate structures. Of those 3,267 British corporations, 1,656—over half—were created by just four agencies. Nine agencies created more than 100 UK entities. One agency created 646 limited liability partnerships and limited partnerships. Those are examples of strong red flags that suggest malpractice.

It is not just the perpetrators who benefit but the victims who suffer, as the Minister knows. The only successful prosecution in this space is that of Kevin Brewer—the Minister will probably remember the case. This was a man in his 60s who deliberately set about showing the flaws in the system in Companies House. He set up a company called John Vincent Cable Services Ltd, when Vince Cable ran the Department that the Minister is now in. He did that in 2013. He then wrote to Vince Cable to tell him what he had done.

In 2016, he used the names of James Cleverly and Baroness Neville-Rolfe to set up another company. Again, he wrote to them. All he was doing with drawing attention to what was wrong with the system, but he was prosecuted. The Government proclaimed that prosecution as a great victory of how Companies House is vigilant over the quality of the data. Nothing could be more wrong. I think the Minister will agree that, in effect, he was a whistleblower. He was treated abominably by the authorities. That throws into stark relief the lack of action taken against others responsible for setting up bogus companies.

I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is common sense. It simply ensures that there is a strong duty on Companies House to use that wealth of data to investigate, proactively raise red flags and talk to the enforcement agencies. I hope that he sees the amendment as something that adds to the value of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson, and to speak after the right hon. Member for Barking. As she knows, and I hope all Committee members know, I am—like her—incredibly ambitious for the Bill. Hopefully, the dialogue we have in this room over the next few weeks will serve a great purpose to ensure that this legislation is fit for purpose.

I entirely agree with the thrust of the amendment. Of course we want a proactive gatekeeper of the information. The right hon. Member for Barking highlights many examples, as does the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, who talked about the culture of the organisation. She is absolutely right that the culture needs to be focused on making sure that the information held by Companies House is accurate, but we need a balance. We must avoid an impossibly bureaucratic and expensive system. The right hon. Member for Barking highlights some of the problems of dealing with a register of this size. There are between 4 million and 5 million companies and about 7 million or 8 million directors in the UK. To independently verify all those records, one by one, is clearly a huge challenge.

On changing the culture of the organisation, the Bill has its four objectives: accuracy, completeness of records, reducing risk and reducing the chances of unlawful activity. I would also point to the text in bold type in clause 1—the objective

“to promote integrity of registers”.

That does exactly what the right hon. Lady intends with her amendment. To me, promoting the integrity of the registers speaks to the proactivity that we want to see. We definitely want to see Companies House sharing information with law enforcement agencies proactively, for example.

The right hon. Lady spoke about a number of obvious cases that would raise red flags, and that happens because Companies House is not operating as she wants it to. One of the key bases of the Bill is to change the role of Companies House from registry to gatekeeper, and to promote integrity properly and proactively by identifying information on a risk-based approach.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s work in this area. We should not get into semantics. The key point, as he says, is making sure that we have a plan that sits behind the objectives, and Companies House is currently working on how it will perform its duties under the objectives. That is key. We can legislate all we want in here, but legislation is less important than implementation. The implementation of the rules is key. We must ensure that the plan is robust and that it identifies the red flags on a risk-based approach and shares that information with the relevant law enforcement agencies that have their duties to undertake. “Promoting integrity” does what the right hon. Member for Barking wants.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister—I know he is struggling. Why not put this objective in? If Companies House is going to do this work anyway, what is the objection? Why not let it stand there? It will ensure the work over time. Our lives are always short as Ministers. The Minister is not going to be there all the time. Other people are going to take over from him. We want Companies House to be proactive throughout the time that the legislation lasts. Why not put this objective in?

The only reason I can think of for why the Minister is getting objections from his civil servants—I assume the objections are coming from them—is that Companies House will not carry out this proactive role, because it will prioritise its other role of verifying information, and we will lose the advantage of the wealth of data with integrity that we could use to eliminate the wrongdoers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I take the right hon. Lady’s point, but I do not agree. Clearly, we will seek to improve many things as the Bill goes through its various stages. However, if we look at the objectives themselves, objective 1 is to

“ensure that any person who is required to deliver a document to the registrar does so.”

That is, to me, a proactive condition and objective. We probably have arguments about the drafting, but the nature of what we seek to achieve is the same. I would therefore politely ask that the amendment is withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who I worked closely with on the Treasury Committee, for all her work on economic crime. I absolutely agree we need the right resources to go alongside the Bill, so I am fully committed to anything I said before in the Chamber or otherwise about ensuring that that resourcing is available. I certainly agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill when he talks about clean trade—absolutely right. We do not want this country associated with dirty money in any shape or form.

The right hon. Gentleman gave an interesting example about the money laundering through Danske Bank, which was, as he said, hundreds of billions of pounds-worth of Russian money stolen from the Russian people flowing through UK shell companies to its destination. That was subject to regulatory action and potential criminal enforcement; it is not as though the matter was held secretly until it was identified locally in Danske Bank. Danske Bank will get sanctioned for that, so it is not as though law enforcement is not happening. However, the right hon. Gentleman and I would agree that, too often, big banks turn a blind eye to the problem on the basis that it is quite profitable for them, and the fines are ultimately a cost of doing business. What we need to do is hold people properly to account, including individual directors.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I agree, but the point with Danske Bank, as with so many of these massive scandals, is that it was a whistleblower who uncovered wrongdoing, not the enforcement agencies. We will come to whistleblowing later in our considerations, but what we want is for the enforcement agencies—in this case, Companies House—to be equipped to do the work themselves and not to rely on whistleblowers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the right hon. Lady’s point. As she knows, I am a big fan of improving the legislation on whistleblowers. I am delighted to say that role is part of my portfolio and I am determined to take that forward as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Is the Minister minded to use that power to enter the nationality of individuals on a company’s register of members?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am certainly minded to consider all aspects of the debate we have had in Committee and to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State and others. We are here to inform the debate, and Members on both sides of the House are better informed as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The definition of “persons with significant control” accounts for exactly that—it accounts for the fact that a person with influence on a company might have any level of shareholding, even including zero shares. That is catered for in the definition of “persons with significant control.” Of course, there is always discussion about how we find out about and verify such information, which is very difficult to ascertain in any circumstance. The subject of ID verification is interesting to debate. I have discussed different aspects of it with officials and we should definitely consider it further.

The regulations under new section 113A will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so the overall intent behind the amendment would be better addressed in a wider conversation about what additional information, if any, it would be proportionate to require every company to provide about its members via these regulations. I hope I have provided some assurance that this amendment is not necessary. Therefore, I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston would withdraw it.

Clauses 3 to 8 will require those seeking to form a company to confirm that they are doing so for lawful purposes. The clauses make it absolutely explicit that those forming companies are welcome to do so only if they intend to do so for a lawful purpose. Through the requirement and provision of the new statement, subscribers to a new company can be in no doubt that if they are found not to be telling the truth, action can be taken against them.

Clause 4 will require applications to register a company to include a statement that none of the company’s subscribers, founding members or initial shareholders is a disqualified director. The definition of “disqualified person” is provided in proposed new section 159A(2) of the Companies Act 2006. Clause 4 enables the registrar of companies to reject the application if any subscriber is a disqualified director. The registrar should reject such applications, because by being involved in the formation of a company, a disqualified person breaches the law.

Under clause 5, an application to incorporate a company must include a statement confirming that all the company’s proposed directors have either verified their identity or are exempt from verification requirements.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

How will the exemption be defined? Will the regulations confirming the exemption be subject to the affirmative procedure? Also, I draw to the Minister’s attention an example that he could look at: Fedotov took advantage of exemptions to use Russian stolen wealth in the UK. These exemptions are very dangerous; I want to hear from the Minister how we will ensure that they are properly regulated and monitored by Parliament.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady makes a fair point. I am sure that she will accept that the Secretary of State is as keen as she is to clamp down on this activity. Exemptions can be made when directors undergo sufficient scrutiny on employment. Also, the director’s ID can be confirmed without verification when the prohibition to act as a director while unverified does not apply. An example would be directors appointed by the community interest companies regulator under section 45 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am worried about this. Will the Minister look at how Fedotov managed to get an exemption, and then perhaps write to Committee members about it? Then we could see whether there is a systemic issue, and whether we ought to have a better overview of the way in which exemptions are determined.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I can see the officials writing like mad. I am sure that they will have picked up on that. I am happy to look at this as well. I reassure the Committee that the affirmative procedure is required, so that we can ensure sufficient scrutiny of exemptions from the obligation on directors to verify their identity, and so that Members can see why those exemptions are proposed.

We will come to other identity verification clauses later in Committee, but I am confident that Members will agree that clause 5 is vital. It improves the accuracy and integrity of the companies register by allowing the registrar to refuse incorporation of a company if the directors are neither ID-verified nor exempt from the requirement to be ID-verified.

Clause 6 requires a company’s subscribers to provide a statement when an application to register a company is filed confirming that none of its proposed directors is disqualified or ineligible to be a director. Disqualified or ineligible people include undischarged bankrupts and individuals subject to asset freezes. The clause allows a registrar to reject an application to register a company if a proposed director is disqualified or ineligible for appointment. The registrar’s rejection prevents the company from being formed. If the statement confirms that a proposed director who is disqualified has received a court’s permission to act, the registrar will accept the registration. The clause helps to ensure that disqualified and ineligible directors do not make it on to the companies register.

Clause 7 requires that applications to register a company include a statement that none of the people with initial significant control is a disqualified director. People with initial significant control are individuals or legal entities that will own or control the company once it is registered. The clause will ensure that the registrar has the necessary information and power to reject an application if the person with initial significant control is a disqualified director.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful. Of course, my target will certainly be 100%; I cannot imagine why it would not be. The 28 days refers to the time that relevant legal entities will have to rectify their identity from receipt of the registrar’s direction.

To answer the hon. Member for Glasgow Central on computer code, there have been a small number of instances where Companies House systems have identified computer code. What constitutes that may change and evolve over time, so the drafting is future proof. Companies House already has a security capability that will develop and evolve over time. Where necessary, Companies House’s internal scrutiny functions will consult other experts.

The right hon. Member for Barking asked what had been rejected. No other categories were rejected in the course of policy development. I think that these categories were deemed important, but I do not know of any others that were considered. The right to appeal regarding the name change would be through a judicial review. Clearly, it is fair to say that Companies House will use its judgment.

To answer the right hon. Lady’s point on the Secretary of State’s functions, Companies House exercises those functions. There is a well-established administrative process by which Companies House makes the Department aware of potentially problematic names, so the Secretary of State can also exercise their judgment. On how we identify any of those names, of course, a lot of that is technology-based.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am really sorry, but I just want clarification. Does that mean the decision is taken by both Companies House and the Secretary of State—or a Minister on their behalf?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I understand it, Companies House makes the decision under delegated authority.

On trading styles or business names, which the shadow Minister mentioned, that is clearly not something that Companies House oversees directly, because it does not have a register of trading styles or business names. However, it does rely on third-party information to understand what a company may be trying to do regarding its trading style.

On the other problem—the other side of the coin, as the right hon. Member for Barking says—of money laundering and people supporting the Russian state, those matters are, of course, principally dealt with through money-laundering regulations or, indeed, sanctions regimes. People supporting the Russian regime, for example, should very often be subject to sanctions.

Question put and agreed to.  

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.  

Clauses 10 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.  

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Scott Mann)

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Bardell.

As Members will have noted, this group is large and includes both amendments and clauses. The hon. Member for Aberavon—I appreciate his kind words and those of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston—has tabled many amendments, and they would make changes across multiple clauses. It will therefore be helpful for all Members if I lay out the effects of the clause as currently drafted, before turning to the amendments and the many points made during the debate.

Clauses 14 to 22 together form the majority of the chapter on registered company names. At present, the Companies Act 2006 leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary of State to determine the time period within which a company must comply with a direction to change its name. Clause 14 amends that to standardise the various direction-issuing powers already found in part 5 of the Companies Act 2006 and those that are inserted by this Bill. This means that in all instances where companies are directed to change their registered names, they must do so within at least 28 days of the date of the direction. [Interruption.] There are two things I would say to the hon. Member for Aberavon. Clause 14 must be looked at in context, and the point is that proposed new subsection (2A) of section 64 of the Companies Act would give

“a period of at least 28 days beginning with the date of the direction.”

Combined with new subsection (2) of section 76 of that Act, as inserted by clause 14(5) of this Bill, that means the direction will be a fixed period. There will be a fixed period, just as he wants, and in all likelihood it will be 28 days. It may sound like odd drafting, but the “at least” part is to ensure that the direction cannot be less than 28 days to give companies a reasonable chance to make the change. Once the decision has been made on how long the company will get, that will be a fixed period, unless the company provides justification for changing it.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Further on in the Bill, there are a lot of Henry VIII powers. I cannot see the justification in this context, and perhaps the Minister can advise us why we cannot put 28 days in the Bill. It has to be “at least”, but it also has to be “at most”. Let us just put that in the Bill. I do not know why we give any Minister discretion on this. It ought to be in the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is in the Bill. The point is that the company, in some circumstances, can effectively apply to have that time period extended. That is the point of this; that is where the “at least” bit comes in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Permission should certainly be sought; it is just that some people do not seek permission. That is the point behind the clause. We are putting provisions in place to clamp down on that behaviour and completely eradicate the possibility of someone doing that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Okay, but I have not read anywhere in the Bill of a legal duty placed on an individual establishing a company to seek the permission of the person whose address it is, whether a householder or a business. I cannot see that in the Bill, so it would be helpful if the Minister could direct me to it.

That is point No. 1. My second point is that there is massive abuse of addresses, to which other Members have already pointed. In the FinCEN files, which I happened to have looked at again recently, one case involved a private address in Leicester that was used as the company address of 36 shell companies.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I draw the Committee’s attention to the wording of clause 28, on an “appropriate address”:

“A company must ensure that its registered office is at all times at an appropriate address…An address is an ‘appropriate address’ if, in the ordinary course of events…a document addressed to the company, and delivered there by hand or by post, would be expected to come to the attention of a person acting on behalf of the company”.

It is therefore impossible to see how people could just pick any address, as some do now; that clearly would not be an appropriate address, because there would be nobody there to hand the correspondence on.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Interestingly enough, the example that I was halfway through describing proves that one could still choose an address and have documents delivered to it, but, if one had not sought permission of the person whose address it is, it could still be a phoney address.

To follow through on the example in the FinCEN files, a private address in Leicester had 36 shell companies, all with accounts in the Danske Bank in Estonia. The address was in fact that of the home of a Latvian cleaner called Dace Streipa—I hope I pronounced that correctly. When she was confronted by the journalist investigating the FinCEN files, she claimed to know nothing about it. Letters had kept appearing at her house, but she did not know what to do with them.

The other FinCEN files example was that of 175 Darkes Lane, Potters Bar, which I am sure the Minister will remember. It was home to more than 1,000 companies. It may be, then, that there is an obligation, but someone could choose any address, including my home address if they so wanted, and I am not sure that there is an obligation for the person who chooses that address to seek my permission to do so. If I am wrong, I am happy to take that back, but I do not think the clause that the Minister directed me to covers that. We want to stop the cuckooing activity.

Clauses 61 and 62 put duties on Companies House to ensure that identities are verified, but there is no duty to ensure the verification of addresses. That duty is needed: it is part of the proactive role that we talked about at the beginning of this morning’s debate. It should be proportionate and could be done with a risk-based assessment, but if we do not place a duty on Companies House to perform some sort of check on the addresses that are submitted in relation to the formation of each company, as well as a check on the identity of the individuals, we are digging a hole for ourselves and will find that the legislation we pass is not effective in the way that is wanted. I ask the Minister to give the idea really serious consideration, because I do not think the Bill goes far enough to give us the certainty that we seek on the legitimacy of companies that are formed.

[The Chair]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I remind the Committee that it is helpful if Members indicate in their substantive contribution whether they are going to press or withdraw an amendment.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I hear clearly the comments made on both sides of the argument, but I think the provisions in the Bill do tackle the issues that Members are trying to tackle—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

They don’t.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady should let me develop my argument, if she does not mind.

We are all aware of the frequent problems that arise when criminals incorporate companies using an address that belongs to a person who has nothing to do with that company, or when criminals hijack the details of a legitimate company and change the address to one that is invalid or ineffective. The Bill contains provisions that will not only reduce the risk of that happening, but mean that when it does happen the registrar can take swifter action to remedy the situation, which I think is what Members are asking for.

The Bill will operate like this. Clause 28 imposes new duties on companies to ensure at all times that their registered office address is an appropriate address. The companies and individuals involved would be guilty of an offence if they did not make sure that the address was appropriate—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Let me develop my point a little bit. The meaning is clearly defined in the Bill: an appropriate address is an address where it can be reasonably expected that documents sent to the company will come to the attention of a person acting on the behalf of the company. It is inconceivable that a Latvian lady in Leicester who does not know why she is getting correspondence could be defined as somebody who is able to pass on the documentation to a person acting on behalf of the company.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way at this point?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Let me just finish the other critical part of the definition. An appropriate address is an address where an acknowledgement of the delivery of documents is capable of being recorded.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister has not answered the point about whether, in the Latvian cleaner example, her permission would legally have had to be sought for that address to be used, but let us put that to one side. He says that if it does happen, swift action will be taken; how on earth would that ever come to the knowledge of Companies House? How would it ever know if there is no system of spot checking to ensure that the addresses that are used are true? There is no system in the Bill. The main point of this whole argument is that we need a checking system—I accept that not every address would be checked, but it could be a spot-checking system—to ensure that the addresses are valid. That is not in the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are 4.5 million companies in the UK—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I know; there should be spot checks.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

And I do not think the right hon. Lady imagines that the registrar could go around them all. I am glad we agree on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is something that we will need to see—the plan for Companies House and the resources needed for that. A figure of £50 or £100 was quoted; if the company formation fee was £50, that would raise £20 million a year. That is quite a significant amount of money. As I said, cart and horse, first we need to see what powers and resources Companies House needs, and then we can apply the right levy in terms of the company formation fee to ensure that the resources are available. A review will also be conducted to ensure that those resources will still be available as time goes on. On that note, I conclude my remarks.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I want to say a number of things. First, may I say to Conservative Back Benchers that I do not think anyone in the room wants to do anything other than encourage maximum commercial activity to maximise growth? Right? I have looked at the issue for a long time, and my view, which I believe is shared by the Minister, is that if we do not sort out the dirty money, Britain will become a less attractive place in which to invest and grow. Let us be clear that we are not in any way trying to over-regulate or impede economic and commercial activity; we want to encourage it. Let us have that as a shared objective.

Secondly, I accept and applaud the work the Government have done on trying to hone down the definition of appropriate address. The proposed clauses and amendments on that are really important, but then comes the “but”, which is that all the evidence we have, from all the leaks we have had over the past decade or so, demonstrates that shell companies abuse addresses for nefarious purposes. That is how they work.

In his concluding remarks, the Minister said that Companies House would intervene “where intelligence and reasonable information was made available to her”. We are not asking for the addresses of 4.5 million companies, or whatever the figure is. The idea of knocking on the door of all such companies is obviously completely and utterly totally absurd, and that is why we are calling for a risk-based approach. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, made a very good point; if we could just use the technology intelligently, we could then see whether the same address was being used by 10, 20 or 30 companies. There are ways of doing that, but at present, there is no duty or obligation on Companies Houses to check. I have not found it, but perhaps the Minister will be able to show it to me. We also know that if we do not make that duty clear, it will fall out of the in-tray and go to the back of the to-do list. We then leave the opportunity available for dirty money to enter the country and not be checked by Companies House.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If the right hon. Lady looks at the literal interpretation of her amendment, she will see that it puts an obligation on Companies House to check every single address in the UK. It says:

“Duty of the registrar to verify appropriateness of address of registered office”.

It does not say “on a spot-check basis”. It seems to be a blanket provision. I agree with much of what the right hon. Lady has said, but I think we need to be careful. The drafting of this has to be right, because, as she rightly says, we do not want to impede the normal commercial activity of 4.5 million businesses in the UK. That would be detrimental to our constituents and the citizens of this country.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

2nd reading
Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), who has been a passionate and strong advocate on behalf of whistleblowers and the very important part they play in fighting economic crime, money laundering and fraud.

Many of us have waited with eager anticipation for the Bill that the Government promised would enable us to rid Britain of the influence of oligarchs and kleptocrats and of the cancer of money laundering, fraud and other economic crime. That is particularly true of the large and ever growing group of Back Benchers who are working together across the House on these issues. Although we all welcome the fact that the Bill is now before us, many of us deeply regret that, yet again, the Government have failed to demonstrate the strategic vision, determination and ambition that are plainly needed if we are to translate our shared aim into reality on the ground and convert our warm words on economic crime into real action. The Bill contains good and important changes, but it does not allow us to make the big leap forward that we need to systematically drive this pernicious and pervasive illegal activity out of our economy and our society.

Let me remind Members why tackling economic crime really matters. Bluntly, the cost to the UK economy is immense. People have talked about the figure of £290 billion a year, but a recent study by the University of Portsmouth gives us a figure just short of £350 billion. The mind boggles. That is somewhere between a quarter and a third of total public spending every year. It is the enormity of the sums that gives the UK the shameful and dubious distinction of being the jurisdiction of choice for oligarchs, kleptocrats and criminals around the world—people who choose us to hide and launder their ill-gotten gains.

Governments of both the main political parties have long championed the UK's financial services, and the success of our financial services has contributed significantly to economic growth over recent decades. We boast of our professionals, our institutions, a trusted legal jurisdiction, the English language, an attractive property market and the lure of London as a place in which to live and work—all things that help to create a vibrant financial services sector. At the same time, though, our weak regulations, our woefully inadequate enforcement capability, our relationship with the UK tax havens in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, our lack of transparency and our deficient accountability protocols have meant that it has become all too easy to wash the dirty money along with the clean here in Britain.

The human impact of this is beyond awful. We have all seen the horrific, heartbreaking images of Putin’s vicious assault on Ukraine and the effect that it is having on innocent Ukrainians. However, we must face up to the understanding that the dirty cash is laundered and cleaned by Putin and his kleptocratic friends both in and through the UK. Ukraine is now paying the price for corruption and economic crime. We are helping to enable Putin’s assault. Our corporate structures, our lawyers, bankers, company service providers and accountants, and our links with places such as the British Virgin Islands all facilitate the accumulation of stolen wealth and power that helps to fuel the criminal onslaught on an independent nation and its people.

We have allowed that to happen. It is an utterly appalling truth that, since Putin came to power more than 20 years ago, there has not been one single prosecution for economic crime launched against any individual Russian oligarch—not one. Similarly, the explosion of fraud in Britain has led to endless instances of misery and harm, which other Members have cited. The authorities, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, reported 5.1 million incidents of fraud in the year to September 2021, and we know that much fraud remains unreported. The published figure means that at least one in 11 adults were the victim of fraud in that year. People such as Len, who, at the age of 96 and with a proud record of service in the Army and a successful career as a chartered surveyor, was getting 600 scam communications a month. Although he did not keep track of his total losses, he knew that in one 10-day period he had spent and lost £600. It is the lack of enforcement action that contributed to Len’s misery and that has allowed fraud to spiral into the most common crime in Britain today.

The Government are absolutely right to bring forward legislation. In fact, I would argue that if we do not eradicate money laundering, fraud and other economic crime we will cause lasting damage to our financial services sector, because we will lose our reputation as a trusted jurisdiction, and the plentiful supply of clean money across the world will go to other more reputable countries. We will lose business, not attract it. Britain can never enjoy sustained economic growth on the back of dirty money.

I welcome the good and important changes the Bill will bring about when it is passed into law. The reform of Companies House, which other hon. Members have talked about, is warmly welcomed and hugely important. None of us wants more regulation, but we do need much smarter regulation, and that is what these provisions aim to achieve. We need to tackle and stop scandals such as the Danske Bank scandal, where an Estonian branch of the Danish bank allowed $8.3 billion of suspect payments to move through the bank using British registered companies. Many of those companies were limited liability companies, and we now know that 90% of the more than 800 limited liability companies involved in the scandal were set up by one rogue company service provider and registered at the same address in Birmingham. We need to stop the practices that meant that in the FinCEN files leaks 3,267 UK shell companies were named—more than in any other country. We need to tackle the reasons that led to Transparency International’s finding in a 2017 investigation that 766 UK shell companies were involved in corruption and money laundering cases worth up to £80 billion, with half of those 766 companies registered at just eight different addresses.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady is making a fantastic speech, and it is always a pleasure to listen to her and to work so closely with her from our respective positions on the Back Benches. She refers to Danske Bank; the total amount of money laundering through that Estonian branch was €200 billion, much of it Russian money from kleptocrats moving the money out of Russia. The bank has not been fined yet. It will probably get a fine of £2 billion or £3 billion, but the likelihood is that not a single individual will be held to account. That is absolutely wrong. Fines are seen as a cost of doing business. I know she agrees that we need to extend the failure to prevent an offence to include economic crime and things such as false accounting, and we must have individual directorial responsibility.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Hear, hear! I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman, and it is a real pleasure to work with him on all these matters. He is completely right. The interesting thing about Danske Bank is that, were there to be any prosecutions, they would not happen in the UK. They might happen in other jurisdictions, particularly America, but they will never happen in the UK because of the weakness of our enforcement agencies.

The provisions in the Bill are essential to help tackle some of the wrongs in the examples I have given, but I hope the Minister will assure the House when he winds up the debate that he will seriously consider amendments that we intend to table to strengthen the reform of Companies House and prevent potential loopholes. I also welcome the proposals to allow organisations such as banks to share information where that could help to prevent or detect wrongdoing, and the proposals to treat cryptoassets just like cash or any other assets for the purposes of seizure and enforcement.

However, the Bill too often tinkers with the challenges at the margin instead of boldly adopting a more holistic and systemic approach to bearing down on dirty money. For example, instead of proper and much-needed reform of the supervision of the professional enablers who are responsible for implementing anti-money laundering regulations, we get new cost caps for the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and new powers for the Legal Services Board—piecemeal reform, not systemic reform.

Instead of reforming the present outdated criminal offences in relation to the responsibilities of companies and their directors to prevent economic crime, which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) referred to, so that we can really hold those who enable, facilitate or collude with economic crime to account, we get new pre-investigation powers for the Serious Fraud Office—important, but piecemeal reform. Instead of a systemic reform of the broken suspicious activity reports regime, we tinker at the edges by reforming part of the regime, the defence against money laundering SARs—again necessary, but yet another example of the piecemeal approach being taken.

Not only does the Bill tinker at the edges; it also fails to address key matters that are all vital to a comprehensive approach to preventing, detecting and punishing money launderers and fraudsters. Where are the proposals to seize, as well as freeze, the assets taken from sanctioned individuals and states? We want the money that Putin and his kleptocratic cronies stole from Russia to be used to fund the reconstruction of Ukraine. We need similar powers to those that already exist in other European countries such as Italy and in nations across the world such as Canada.

Where are the proposals for a sustainable funding regime for the enforcement agencies, so that they can use the powers they have? For instance, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) stated, the cost of registering a new company with Companies House is a mere £12. It would still be a bargain at £50 or £100, with the extra income ringfenced to fund Companies House properly.

Where are the proposals to do away with the requirement that our enforcement agencies pick up the tab for the legal costs incurred by individuals who succeed in resisting a prosecution for economic crime? The US enforcement agencies, which are far more successful in securing convictions, do not have to pay the costs of the person prosecuted if they lose a case. We should follow that example. Our system acts as a brake on our enforcement agencies. They fear the financial costs of losing, so they fail to prosecute aggressively, and because of that fraudsters, criminals and money launderers get away with awful actions.

Where are the proposals, which the hon. Member for Cheadle called for in her contribution, to protect the brave whistleblowers on whom we are so dependent? Where are the proposals to ensure accountability to Parliament and the public, so that we can see whether our reforms deliver? Where are the proposals to tackle the abuse of our defamation laws by oligarchs who want to silence those of us wanting to hold them to account? Where are the proposals to close the loopholes on transparency for trusts and the ownership of land, which continue to act as secret ways to launder money into or through the UK? Where are the reforms to the SARs regime, to the supervision of AML supervision or to corporate criminal liability laws?

In the wake of the 7/7 attack in Britain, we treated the reform of counter-terrorism as a mission requiring strong and comprehensive action, and we are now rightly proud of our capabilities in that area. The war in Ukraine should be our 7/7 moment in the battle to eradicate dirty money. It has helped us to understand the horrors that allowing illicit finance to infect our financial services sector, our economy and our society can bring, both at home and abroad.

This Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put things right. We cannot and must not waste it. I look forward to working with my colleagues across the House and with Ministers in Government to achieve our shared and crucial objective: to show that we are a country that consistently demonstrates zero tolerance for all illicit finance and is determined to grow a strong, trusted financial services sector in a jurisdiction that boasts the smartest regulation, first-class enforcement of the rules, maximum transparency and strong accountability. There lies the way to economic growth.

Economic Crime

Debate between Baroness Hodge of Barking and Kevin Hollinrake

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I completely agree with the important contribution that our anti-corruption tsar has made in the House today. I think it is a really short-term view to believe that our British economy can flourish on the back of dirty money. We will flourish if we clean up the act in the City of London and it again becomes a trusted institution.

I just wonder how many Panama papers, Paradise papers, Pandora papers, FinCEN—Financial Crimes Enforcement Network—leaks, laundromat leaks, Falciani leaks and Luxembourg leaks we need for our Government to wake up, stop mouthing warm words, which they do a lot, and start acting with tough measures to bear down on this dangerous crime and this terrible trend.

A proposal to toughen up the regulatory framework was included in the 2015 Conservative party manifesto. The party pledged—I hope I am quoting accurately—to create a criminal offence where companies

“fail to put in place measures”

to prevent economic crime. The Government launched a consultation that lasted four years, and then parked the issue in the long grass by referring it to the Law Commission. I understand that the Law Commission is about to report, but we need and want corporate liability reform, and we want it now.

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

It is a delight to work with the right hon. Lady on this particular issue. As part of the Law Commission consultation, there is talk that, instead of there being a criminal liability for failing to prevent economic crime within a corporation, it may be downgraded to a regulatory offence. Does she agree that that would not create the deterrent we need for these corporations, such as NatWest, which is facing a fine of £340 million for not properly monitoring money laundering in this country in a Bradford jewellery company? Does she agree that there must be a serious sanction, such as a criminal offence, where individuals could be locked up for not doing the right thing in these areas?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Again, I am pleased to see such unity across the Chamber today. I completely agree that if it is not made a criminal offence and there is no direct liability on the individuals concerned, it simply becomes a business cost and will not change the behaviour or conduct of those big corporations. I concur with the hon. Gentleman.

I was going to use the example, although I probably do not need to, of the Serious Fraud Office’s failure to successfully prosecute the Barclays bank case. As many observed at the time, that case showed that under our existing law the bank could not be held accountable for the actions of its employees, and the chief executive could not be held to account for the actions of the bank. Nobody could be held to account. These reforms would change that by introducing a vicarious liability condition and bringing in a “failure to prevent” clause. The Americans do it; they have much tougher laws that hit the corporations with criminal, civil and regulatory penalties, and they secure many more resources.

Our second ask is about starting the work to strengthen our enforcement by reforming Companies House. Creating a public register of beneficial ownership was an important move when David Cameron was our Prime Minister, and a huge step forward. In one year, the register was accessed more than 2 billion times, but the data, as we all know, is often inaccurate or incomplete. Global Witness did an analysis in 2018 that showed that 10,000 companies declare a foreign company—mostly linked to a secrecy jurisdiction—as the owner of the company, 335,000 companies had no beneficial owner and 9,000 companies were controlled by beneficial owners who each controlled more than 100 companies, so they were nominee beneficial owners.

It takes £12 to set up a company—it is ridiculous. That is why so many UK companies keep appearing in all the leaks we get of wrongdoing. Our lax enforcement leads to tragedies worldwide, and we need to do something about that. That is why these reforms could be funded by raising the fee. If we quadrupled the fee and charged 50 quid to start a company, we would raise a huge amount of money that we could put into reforming Companies House and ensuring that it had unique identifiers for the beneficial owners, and powers to investigate and interrogate.

My third proposal, which I will deal with very quickly, concerns the introduction of a property register. Buying a property through a shell company registered in the British Virgin Islands is the easiest way to launder money into the UK. There are very few good reasons for maintaining anonymity, but plenty of bad ones: not just money laundering, but avoiding stamp duty, inheritance tax and other taxes.

It is difficult to put a number on that, although many people have tried, but I will share one fact with the House. All London boroughs have had an increase in their electoral register over recent times; the only borough that has not is the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the reason being that such a large number of properties there are bought through shell companies by foreign owners that there are fewer residents there today than there were 10 years ago.