Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

This is another Bill that has been caused by Brexit. EU co-operation has been crucial to sanctions and anti-money laundering, and we have moved quite far along the road together as friends, neighbours and colleagues. A lot of concerns about the Bill have been voiced in relation to the justification of proportionality, and whether it takes us in the right direction to give us the opportunity to correct the flaws in our own systems.

Sanctions, as other hon. Members has said, are effective when we have co-operation, particularly as an EU block. That reflects the limitations of sanctions from the UN Security Council, because there is not always agreement among its permanent members. We need to find our place. Our place is not in the EU, as it was, but it is not entirely as other states are in the world. We need to find out where we are. Tom Keatinge from the Royal United Services Institute has said that we may have greater flexibility, but we will certainly have less influence. Ministers need to be reminded of that. I see that the Foreign Secretary has scuttled off without hearing me, which is kind of him. Without the active co-operation and engagement of Ministers with the EU, we will not be able to be the most effective at imposing sanctions. We should not pour our own collective efforts over the years down the stank just because we are leaving the EU. Unilateral sanctions bring with them a recognised risk that while we might want to do the right thing there may be repercussions. Being a part of EU collective action cushions us to an extent from that risk. We do not want to be marginalised in the world. We must take care to make sure that does not happen.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point, although I have a different opinion on Brexit. Does she not agree that our ability to implement sanctions and address money laundering are essential components of our exit from Europe and that it is vital we have the same protections in place in the international market? We must look at the possibility of even enhancing them and making them even stronger.

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree that we perhaps can and should enhance what we do, but we must take care not to lose what we have so far. We must not lose that co-operation and sense of common purpose against evils in the world, which we have had as a part of the EU.

I support the points on human rights made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). Ministers did not quite recognise the point that paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h) in clause 1(2) are in the Bill because they were put there by a Labour Lord. She may have made that point, but I did not want to let it pass without having recognised it. The Government should not be taking credit for things they did not do and did not put in the Bill. Those paragraphs should be in the Bill. Anything that can enhance the importance of human rights in the Bill should be there.

The NGO sanctions and counter-terrorism working group, chaired by Bond and the Charity Finance Group, has asked for protection in law for humanitarian and peace-building work, as that is, to a degree, currently inhibited by the EU regulatory framework on sanctions. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) set out, aid operations in parts of the world that are extremely dangerous and under sanctions from the UN and the EU still have to have aid workers. They have to build up relationships on the ground. They may not be comfortable with them and they may be difficult, but aid would not happen without them.

Currently, there is not sufficient protection in the Bill. There is reference to general licences with a bit more focus on guidance. Clause 37(1) states that the Minister who makes the regulations must issue guidance, but clause 37(2) states only that guidance “may” include guidance about compliance enforcement and disregards. That is not concrete enough. The guidance should be more certain, so that people know the regime they are working under, know the risks involved in what they are about to do and know if there will be any comeback from the actions they take. I do not think that that is clear enough, and I would like to see improvements in this area of the Bill. More concrete assurances are required.

That concern is shared by the banks. The UK Finance briefing on the Bill says that there is a fear of misuse, but there has to be a way to get around that. It provides the example of banks avoiding any transactions whatever with Iran, due to the risk of being sanctioned by the US—its sanctions regime is far-reaching. That risk alone has a chilling effect on its transactions in that area, regardless of any actual certainty. Sanctions will have an impact on such countries for many years to come, even after sanctions have ended. Banks need to have the confidence that they can deal with a country consistently over a number of years without falling foul of sanctions that suddenly reappear. The people working in such countries need to interact with donors, banks and transport and logistics companies. They need comfort on that. They need to buy fuel. They need to buy mobile phones. They need to make payments to move about the country and to let aid flow. For example, it is not possible to move around Yemen because there are different forces imposing different visa regimes. Moving around the country may involve making payments that fall foul of sanctions.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady in effect agreeing with the Law Society of Scotland’s interpretation of the need in clause 1 for a list of all sanctions, including descriptions of any designated person and types of sanction imposed, and exemptions from such sanctions? Is that the thrust of the point she is making, because I agree with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with me. It is very rare and very nice, and I thank him for it. Yes, there has to be a good deal more clarity. I welcome the Law Society’s view, because that is not clear in the Bill. If people are working in that environment, they need certainty. For aid to flow and for banking transactions to flow, there has to be clarity.

UK Finance seeks further detail in clause 18 on extra-territorial application. It wants to know exactly what a UK element constitutes and what its reporting obligations might be under that regime, because it is not entirely clear.

Scrutiny and transparency are somewhat lacking. There is a lot of scope in the Bill for Ministers to create significant new criminal offences through secondary legislation, some of which would carry a sentence of 10 years in prison under clause 17(6). It is constitutionally unacceptable for that type of thing to be created by Ministers, and it is not just me saying that. The House of Lords Constitution Committee wants beefed-up parliamentary scrutiny, and the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee states that the provisions

“confer exceptionally wide powers which are capable of being applied to a very wide range of persons, with a very wide discretion being given to Ministers to determine the persons against whom sanctions measures may be applied.”

We should be concerned about that and seek corrections later in the process.

The Secretary of State, who has left his place, may not make decisions in haste, but we have to be concerned about the future. This is not a Bill for just now, but for many years to come, so the powers that we put in it are very important. The European Scrutiny Committee currently looks at EU sanctions that go through. We need to know what scrutiny process in this place will replace that, because it is important to ensure that things are being done properly and are above board.

At clause 21(4)(a) and (b) and clause 25(3)(a) and (b), a review process of three years from the laying of a sanction is mentioned. I would like clarity from the Government about why that is three years, because I understand that in the EU process it is only one. The Secretary of State said that a person who has been subject to a sanction has the ability to request from him that it is reviewed. Given that circumstances change and given the way of the world today, perhaps three years is a little too restrictive. We might want to push that down a bit further, or at least give scope for it to be varied, given the circumstances.

Clause 41—a Henry VIII clause, which has the power to authorise additional sanctions—is very like the other clause that I just mentioned, and again, the Lords Constitution Committee had concerns when it looked at it. The clause allows the amending of the definition of sanctions and puts a lot of powers into the hands of Ministers. What is the mechanism, the clause or the parliamentary check on that? Where is the means for Parliament and Committees of the House to have their say on the scrutiny of that? It is fundamentally important to have checks and balances in the system.

I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on responsible tax, as is the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and I am pleased to see her amendment on beneficial ownership. I look forward to hearing her later on in the debate hopefully talking about that a wee bit more. There are a lot of issues about working with overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Much as I do not wish the House to legislate on Scottish matters, I do not want us to legislate for overseas territories or Crown dependencies without consent. That is very important. If we want to get buy-in and compliance, imposing things upon people may not necessarily be the best way to do it.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady has hit on a very important point. If changes are to be made in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, it must be by persuasion, rather than imposition. Does she agree that so far, by using persuasion, significant changes have been made in transparency in those countries? That should perhaps be the thrust of future Government policy to ensure that these areas do not become places where money can be hidden and laundered.

[Alison Thewliss]

We have to be very careful. To an extent, we push people and give them a carrot, and in a sense, we have a stick. We have to weigh up in all of this where exactly they are on that continuum and with compliance. Will Ministers tell us what conversations they have had with the likes of Guernsey and Jersey? Do they have confirmation of a permissive extent clause? I am very keen to see open registers. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield laid out some points on that excellently. If the registers are there, they should be publicly available. We want to see transparency everywhere, but we also need to bear in mind that we have a long way to go on ensuring that everything that we do is absolutely correct and proper.

There are clearly issues and disputes among people about their interpretation of the proposals. Having read a submission from Jersey and Guernsey, I know that their account of affairs is quite different from other people’s. Perhaps we will have time in Committee to discuss this a wee bit more, take evidence and see in more detail exactly what needs to be done, how far people can be pushed, cajoled or brought along, or whether or not we need take this action and the extent to which it has a different force.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am intrigued by the hon. Lady’s contribution. We all want to move forward on the basis of consent, but I slightly disagree with her about how fast the overseas territories are moving. It has been five years since David Cameron first encouraged them to develop public registers of interest. Will she give us some indication of when she thinks that the broader interest of having those public registers and the role that they could play in tackling financial crime would override her absolutely instinctive desire to seek consent in moving forward?

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree. That is the point I was trying to make, fairly badly I suppose: how long do we leave it? Has it been five years with no sign of anything, or five years with some sign of something? We need more conversations to see exactly where things are, but I am keen to support the right hon. Lady’s amendment.

There is slightly more concern about overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda. When we look at the extent of the Panama papers and the Paradise papers, we cannot fail to be deeply concerned by the extent of nefarious transactions, out-and-out theft and money laundering, particularly when it involves, as other Members have said, the siphoning—the guzzling —of funds from countries whose populations can least afford it. We should be deeply concerned about that, and there seems to be little indication that they will comply at all. Perhaps there is a different approach from the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories on how willing they are to comply with what has to be done to make things transparent and open.

Moving on to part 2 and clauses 43 and 44, on the progress towards beneficial owners of overseas entities. This is very encouraging, but again the thing with the Bill is that action is required. Action is required to check up on all these companies and registrations. Action is required on enforcement and prosecution, and enforcement action requires agencies, intelligence, people and boots on the ground to make sure that it is done. It is fine to have law, but if we do not have anybody to enforce it, there is absolutely no point at all.

Scottish limited partnerships are a particular example of where things are not being enforced. This was bequeathed to me by Roger Mullin, and I am very grateful. It is estimated by Richard Smith and David Leask, who have been working hard on this issue—hon. Members will have seen some of David’s reports in The Herald—that an estimated 20,000 to 28,000 SLPs are of concern. The Herald recently reported that a former president of Peru has been accused of taking £4 million of bribes that have been funnelled through a shell firm based in Scotland. These things should be checked up on and enforcement action should have been taken, but SLPs have become a cover for all manner of murky and dubious behaviour.

As Transparency International and others have said, the missing link in all this is Companies House, because it does not have the duty to refuse a company’s registration; it has to register the company. It does not check up on whether it is legitimate, or whether the people who are registering it actually exist, and it is less compliant than the agents who use it, so there is no benefit to someone going through an agent if they can go through Companies House and avoid all the scrutiny. We have an opportunity in the Bill to close that loophole, because for me, Companies House is ignoring its money laundering duty.

There are wider concerns about shell companies. I invite the Minister to look at New Zealand, which was in a similar situation. However, its regulations have seen a near eradication of its 5,000 shell companies, which were registered to only about a dozen addresses in New Zealand. Part of the solution was a requirement for a New Zealand-based director, which made a huge difference almost overnight.

[Mr Sweeney]

Another interesting example from the recent Labour Government in New Zealand is the idea that they could ban the overseas ownership of property. Given the huge inflationary pressure in the UK housing market, usually from the opaque overseas ownership of UK property, perhaps we ought to consider that measure in this country as well.

[Alison Thewliss]

Yes, that would be a very useful addition. The Secretary of State did not answer the questions on the fifth money laundering directive: how it will be transposed; how it will be scrutinised; if there is a transitional phase; what that transition will look like; how we will prevent any loopholes; and how we will make sure that criminals do not exploit that transition.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Perhaps at this stage I can give the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) the answer they are seeking on the fifth money laundering directive. It will be published in the summer of 2018 and member states will have 18 months to implement it. That will be after we leave the EU, so whether we or Gibraltar are legally required to transpose will depend on the terms of the implementation period, which of course are under negotiation.

[Alison Thewliss]

That sounds like a vague, “I don’t know” kind of answer.

[Helen Goodman]

Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to ask the Minister whether the powers he is taking in chapter 3—temporary powers in relation to EU sanctions lists—will not give him the power to enforce the fifth money laundering directive.

[Alison Thewliss]

That is a very good question. I do not know whether the Minister wants to take this opportunity to answer it—perhaps not. He has heard the question, so I need not repeat it.

Finally, I want to refer to the Scottish Government, because aspects of the Bill reflect some of the powers that lie within Scotland. The Court of Session is referred to in clause 33(2) and clause 34(2). What consultation has there been with the legal profession in Scotland and with the Scottish Government on that? On clause 47 —“Regulations: general”—the power to change devolved legislation under the negative procedure is really not cool. It is not just I who object to this; the Library briefing states that this will

“enable ministers to make supplemental, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions repealing or otherwise amending existing legislation, including devolved legislation.”

Lord Judge referred to this clause as “monstrous”. Has the Scottish Government been consulted on this provision? What has the Minister got to say about this? This power grab, hidden on page 35 of the Bill, is something that I will seek to amend in Committee.

I support any moves to improve the scope of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The reason that we have made this distinction in terms of procedure is that we are obliged in law to implement UN sanctions. Once the sanctions have been agreed at the UN Security Council, the UK has an obligation to implement them under the UN charter. Not to do so would leave the UK in breach of international law—hence the distinction in the procedure that we are using.

Returning to what the hon. Member for Glasgow Central described as “monstrous”, I say again that sanctions are a matter of foreign policy and so are reserved to this Parliament.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No. We consulted the devolved Administrations—that answers a question that the hon. Lady asked—and they did not disagree with us. The ability to make changes to devolved legislation that can be used only to make changes required as a result of sanctions does not injure the devolution settlement. Their primary purpose is for a reserved matter.

Let me move on to the issue of Magnitsky. I recognise the concerns expressed about the importance of taking a stand against individuals responsible for committing gross abuses of human rights. We recognise and indeed share those concerns. I would like to make it clear that this Government are committed to promoting and strengthening universal human rights, and this Bill will permit us to do so. We already have a range of powers to take action against those who commit gross human rights abuses, most recently through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended by the Criminal Finances Act 2017. The Home Secretary also has the power to exclude individuals whose presence we believe to be contrary to the public good, and we keep track of potentially dangerous individuals to prevent them from entering the UK. To complement this, we also have a range of domestic asset-freezing powers.

We are already committed to using sanctions in this area. This is demonstrated by the number of countries against whom we use human rights-related sanctions. They include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Libya, Mali, South Sudan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. The Bill will rightly continue this, allowing the UK to continue to implement existing sanctions regimes and to impose new sanctions in the future. I reiterate my point that paragraphs (f) and (h) of clause 1(2) will empower the Government to implement sanctions on human rights grounds. These are broad powers that will provide maximum flexibility and allow us to include all sorts of abuses, including but not only gross human rights abuses.

I should like to refer to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield about humanitarian access and freedoms. This is an important point. The Government recognise the concerns expressed in the House about the humanitarian impact of sanctions, and we understand the need for engagement with non-governmental organisations and other humanitarian actors. We fully support the work of NGOs operating in difficult areas, and we recognise that they are important partners in delivering the UK’s objectives in challenging environments. I want to reassure the House that the Government have been actively engaging with NGOs. As part of the consultation for the Bill, we held a roundtable to understand their concerns. Within the past couple of months, we have also met organisations involved in humanitarian, development and peace-building work.

The Bill provides a number of tools that will enable the Government to tailor each regime to help to meet the needs of NGOs. In particular, it will enable the Government to make exemptions for humanitarian reasons and to issue licences for legitimate activity. EU case law currently limits our ability to issue general licences, but the Bill will provide greater flexibility by allowing us to do so in circumstances where Ministers judge it appropriate. It will also help to prevent the exploitation of NGOs by those seeking to circumvent sanctions. We have committed to remain engaged with the humanitarian sector and to provide it with high-quality guidance on the implementation and enforcement of individual regimes. We will continue to work with NGOs and other stakeholders to develop the best possible system.

Beneficial ownership has been at the heart of tonight’s debate. We will no doubt discuss it in Committee and perhaps on Report. It is important to recognise that the UK is the only member of the G20 with a public register of company beneficial ownership. We welcome the fact that the EU is catching up with us, but, when it does, public registers of beneficial ownership will still not be a global standard. The non-EU members of the G20 will still not have them.

We hope to work with the Financial Action Task Force and other partners to establish registers of beneficial ownership as a global standard, the effect of which will be not to allow companies or people simply to shift from one regime to another and hide their assets somewhere else. In the meantime, we should remember that the overseas territories are well ahead of most jurisdictions, including many G20 partners, in developing private registers.

In the exchange of notes in 2016, the overseas territories with significant financial centres each committed to holding central or equivalent registers of company beneficial ownership and to making information held on those registers available to UK law enforcement and tax authorities. Those arrangements are almost complete, with some of the territories understandably slightly delayed by last year’s devastating hurricanes.

Moreover, the overseas territories are separate jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Governments. The UK respects the constitutional relationship with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It is entirely right to work consensually with them, rather than to impose legislation. The UK has only legislated directly without the overseas territories’ consent in the most exceptional of circumstances, such as on capital punishment.

We do not generally legislate for the overseas territories, and to do so would have the effect of overruling their own legislatures and could be interpreted as disenfranchising the citizens who voted for them. The overseas territories have taken great steps forward in this area, further indeed than many other jurisdictions, and I urge the House to appreciate the importance of not jeopardising what has been agreed with them.

Until we leave the European Union, the United Kingdom will continue to exercise all the rights and obligations of membership, including with respect to common foreign and security policy, sanctions and anti-money laundering. After we leave, this Government intend to continue working closely with our European neighbours to ensure our collective peace and security. Sanctions and anti-money laundering regulations will continue to be a powerful tool in that effort.

Through this Bill, the Government intend to ensure that these important foreign policy instruments continue to be fully available for the United Kingdom to use wherever it is deemed appropriate so to do. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sanctions and Anti-money Laundering Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 6 March.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Sanctions and Anti-money Laundering Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or the Treasury; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Question agreed to.

SANCTIONS AND ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING BILL [LORDS] (WAYS AND MEANS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the imposition, by regulations under the Act, of charges by persons exercising functions under the regulations in connection with the detection, investigation or prevention of money laundering or terrorist financing or the combating of threats to the integrity of the international financial system; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

This group contains new clauses and amendments regarding three related issues that I will discuss in turn: imposing sanctions for gross human rights violations, or what is now popularly known as the Magnitsky amendment; Scottish limited partnerships, which are of deep concern, particularly for the Scottish National party; and public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories. In two of those areas, the Government are taking action to tackle abuses and tighten up standards: through Government amendments on Magnitsky and through a consultation document on Scottish limited partnerships.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is a bit early, but I will do so if the hon. Lady insists; I am ever obliging to the hon. Lady.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister mentions the consultation on SLPs. Does he not accept that there has already been a consultation on SLPs and that it closed over a year ago, so to have another consultation is just wasting time?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

If I might say so ever so politely to the hon. Lady, she is jumping the gun slightly given that I am only at the end of my first paragraph, and as she knows there have been some detailed discussions through the usual channels. I will address the matter she has asked about in more detail later on; if I may, I will tackle the three issues to which I have referred in the order that I raised them, in order to satisfy the House that we are looking at all concerns in detail and genuinely.

First, sanctions for gross human rights violations have clearly been an issue of significant concern to Members on both sides of the House, as was made clear by many who spoke on Second Reading and in Committee. I fully recognise why Members and many people outside this House want to include gross human rights abuses in the Bill explicitly as a reason why sanctions can be applied, particularly in reference to the abhorrent case of Sergei Magnitsky in Russia.

In her speech to the House on 14 March, the Prime Minister made clear the Government’s intention to bring forward a Magnitsky amendment to the Bill, and as the House can see we have fulfilled that obligation by doing so for discussion in the House today. As a result of that commitment, we have worked closely, constructively and genuinely with Members on both sides of the House, including some who have campaigned for this amendment at great length, particularly my right hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I also genuinely thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), my opposite number, and the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). Together we have worked to put together a form of words that now enjoys cross-party support. We have tabled amendments that we hope will capture the maximum possible consensus in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I will be saying more about the overseas territories in a moment. I fully recognise the interest that my hon. Friend has shown, over many years, in the importance of protecting the interests of the overseas territories, particularly in the Caribbean. I will be able to give him deeper reassurance on this in a moment, but if I may, I will continue with my points in the order that I was planning to make them, by addressing the Magnitsky issue first, then Scottish limited partnerships, before turning to that rather more vexed issue.

Looking at the Scottish National party Benches, I turn to the separate amendments on Magnitsky tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). While we agree with the driving principles behind the amendments, we are satisfied that the package of amendments that we have tabled—which have been signed by Members on both Front Benches—sufficiently cover the same objectives. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel that they do. As she knows from our discussions in Committee, we have approached this entire issue in a spirit of cross-party co-operation. Indeed, she has played an important part in that in her campaigning.

[Alison Thewliss]

I should like to take this opportunity to say that, having heard what the Minister has said on this matter and others, I am content not to press my amendments relating to Magnitsky.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name, on behalf of the Scottish National party. As I said earlier, I will formally withdraw amendments 31 to 33, which the cross-party amendments have dealt with adequately.

First, I would like to thank the Government and their advisers and civil servants for their time and expertise in the run-up to the Bill, as well as all those who sent me information and briefings, which have been incredibly helpful. I also want to particularly thank the experts at the Law Society, UK Finance, Roger Mullin, Richard Smith and David Leask for their thoughts on Scottish limited partnerships.

A lot has changed since the Bill began its process. Salisbury has focused minds and, I hope, will now result in some action. The UK Government went from trying to find a way to wriggle out of the Magnitsky amendment to the Prime Minister giving it her full support. Regardless of how the Government have come to that decision, I am grateful that they have finally come on board, and we can all be grateful that that move has been made.

I spent the weekend finishing Bill Browder’s disturbing book “Red Notice”, which details the lengths to which the rich and powerful in Russia are willing to go to preserve their ill-gotten gains. I recommend that all Members read it as an object lesson in Russian oligarchs’ power, which we need to be mindful of. It is a complex trail which finally led to the brave lawyer Sergei Magnitsky being wrongfully imprisoned, maltreated, tortured and eventually beaten to death in prison because he refused to perjure himself. He stood for the truth. He documented the human rights abuses against him, and, after his death, Bill Browder and his team campaigned steadfastly to bring some justice to the situation. That led to the Magnitsky Act in the US, which introduced Government sanctions prohibiting entry to the US and access to the US banking system for those involved in Sergei Magnitsky’s death. It has since been expanded in scope to become the Global Magnitsky Act, tackling more dirty money and dubious people.

The UK Government made moves on that with section 13 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017. The amendments today expand on that in a very welcome way, and I am glad to give my party’s support to them. It is crucial that the names go on the record, and I am glad that the Government have committed to an administrative list being publicly available. I could read out right now all the names that are currently on the American Magnitsky list, because they are in the public domain and everybody can see them. There is transparency and accountability, with nowhere to hide once someone is on that list. It is crucial that the list is used in the same way in the UK and that the webpage, or wherever the names are held, is available and updated regularly.

I appreciate that this is not an issue for the House, but I hope that Members will give further thought to how the process of parliamentary scrutiny will work. Will it be through a Committee? If so, which Committee? Will that Committee have powers to add names and conduct reviews? We must hold ourselves to the same standard as the existing Magnitsky list for this to be fully effective.

I want to speak about the issue of Scottish limited partnerships, which is dealt with in new clauses 1 and 19. We believe that linking an SLP with a human individual would go a considerable way to cracking down on the abuse of SLPs, so we suggest that a limited partner and a general partner must both be British citizens and that a general and a limited partner must have a UK bank account. That would, at a stroke, remove a great deal of illegitimate SLPs, while protecting those in agriculture and other areas who would be easily able to fulfil those simple requirements. The anti-money laundering requirements of our banks would act as a degree of deterrent to those seeking to abuse the system.

On new clause 1, until 2009 registrants of limited partnerships were required under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 to provide the full name of the partners. However, the Legislative Reform (Limited Partnerships) Order 2009 confirmed that the legally required level of registration disclosure needed to be less expansive. The new clause would restore the basic information requested at the time of registration and introduce a requirement for one of the general partners to be a British citizen.

New clause 19, on the UK bank account requirement, would tie this a bit more tightly. Although SLPs’ name and country of incorporation may give them the veneer of a UK-regulated entity, at the moment their bank account and all their financial transactions can be run through overseas bank accounts that have few, if any, anti-money laundering checks on their account holders. We want to tighten that up significantly, because allowing that kind of abuse could severely damage the credibility of UK legal entities abroad.

[Helen Goodman]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I took so many interventions on overseas territories that I forgot to comment on new clauses 1 and 19. We think that both are very sensible, given the explosion in SLPs in recent years and the complete failure to act on what has happened in the past year. New clause 19 is particularly powerful because it would mean that these people were within the ambit of the anti-money laundering legislation for the banking system.

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I hope to at least press new clause 19 to a vote, because there needs to be some action on SLPs, and tying it to a bank account is a good way of doing that.

The SNP is extremely proud of Scotland’s reputation as a successful place to conduct business, but with SLPs continuing to generate new scandals, there is an ever-growing reputational risk to Scotland, and indeed the UK, if action is not taken. I would like to take this opportunity to dig the Government up for their shenanigans on SLPs.

Owing to the diligent campaigning by the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Roger Mullin, the UK Government launched a consultation on SLPs on 16 January last year and closed it on 17 March last year. We then had an election, in which my dear friend did not get re-elected. We waited. Questions were tabled, and we were told again and again by Government that a response on the consultation was imminent. There was nothing. A month ago, we were told that it would be a matter of weeks, but probably not until after the Bill came back. Last week, we were told by officials that the report on SLPs was awaiting sign-off in Government, and on Sunday there was an announcement in the press that action was going to be taken, with a “Crackdown on abuse of UK businesses for foreign money laundering”. When we get to the detail, what in fact is it? It is another consultation—it is a consultation about a consultation.

That simply will not do. The UK Government are well aware of the problems with SLPs, which are well documented. The Secretary of State mentioned earlier the evidence that led to the bringing into scope of the person of significant control. We know that that was required, and there was evidence on it. We are waiting for fines to be levied on people who have not registered their persons of significant control.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental point in all this is that closing a consultation and then having a debate on Report shows a Government in complete chaos? How can they commit public money to a consultation process that has no influence on the legislation before us?

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. The Government have been told all the way through this process that this is the opportunity to act on the evidence that has been gathered and is out there in the newspapers—it is in The Herald on a weekly basis, for goodness’ sake—about abuses of SLPs. The Government could have done something about this. They could easily support the amendments we are proposing to the Bill. The press release that came out said that there was

“growing evidence SLPs have been exploited in complex money laundering schemes, including one which involved using over 100 SLPs to move up to $80 billion out of Russia. They have also been linked to international criminal networks in Eastern Europe and around the world, and have allegedly been used in arms deals.”

So why will the Government not act?

Proposals are far too vague. We are promised that the Government will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Secretary of State said that the consultation will close on 23 July, so we are looking at after the summer recess before anything comes back to the House. This is the stuff of never-never land. Minsters could accept our new clauses and amendments today and start to legislate now. If they are really serious about this, they should stop fannying around, support the new clauses and amendments and stop the flow of dirty money through SLPs once and for all.

The Government’s move not to oppose new clause 6 is astonishing, but I am very glad they have made it. There has been some speculation by Conservative Members about the Scottish National party’s position on this issue, and I will deal with that, but I first want to pay tribute to the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for their Herculean efforts in bringing this before the House today. For a long time, we did not know when or if the Bill was coming back, but they have steadfastly worked hard to garner cross-party support, and I absolutely pay tribute to them for doing so.

Earlier in the Bill’s progress, I made clear the reservations I had at first, and it should not be the case that the UK Government impose things on other territories. Again, I reiterate that I would not like this if it were about Scotland, but I should say to all Members who doubt the sincerity of the SNP’s position—[Interruption] I hear some of them chuckling—that we cannot envisage a situation in which a Scottish Government would deliberately act to damage the financial interests of the UK economy by allowing tax evasion and avoidance to take place on an industrial scale within our jurisdiction and to shield the flow of dodgy money. That is what we are talking about today, and that is the fundamental difference. In Scotland, the fundamental issue of landownership is also hidden behind the shield of overseas entities.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

I am just about to finish. [Interruption.] Let me finish this point, and I will then give way.

Landownership is hidden behind such entities. Just a few weeks ago, The Sunday Post highlighted the very important point that Scottish property is held in 22 different tax havens by 776 companies. Just last year, overseas firms bought £200 million of Scottish land and buildings, ranging in size from council estates to country estates, and the total value of such property is estimated to be £2.9 billion. This costs taxpayers in Scotland and here in the form of the capital gains tax revenue that is missed because the property has gone somewhere else. It has left the country, and there is no transparency. If the hon. Gentleman really wants to justify it, I will happily take an intervention from him.

[Luke Graham]

I actually wanted to praise SNP Members for standing up with others to support new clause 6 and back increased financial transparency. I also congratulate them on and thank them for recognising the sovereignty of Westminster in legislating for all parts of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories. I thank them for backing the constitution as it exists, and I appreciate such support at a time when we are looking for more investment in our constituencies, especially in relation to devolved matters.

[Alison Thewliss]

I must say that the hon. Gentleman makes a very simplistic argument. Unsurprisingly, he entirely misses the point. However, I welcome his support, which is very good. I hope that we will be able to claim back more money for our constituencies when there has been a crackdown on tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Why do we need to act now? Because the Prime Minister has committed to ensuring that the torrent of Russian dirty money stops, and Global Witness has found that over the past 10 years, more than seven times more money—an estimated £68 billion—has gushed from Russia to the overseas territories than into the UK. This has primarily been discovered through leaks, such as the Panama papers and the Paradise papers, and by the painstaking work of researchers and campaigners, including organisations such as Transparency International. They have tried to put that together, because we cannot see this hidden picture for ourselves.

Some of the money hidden in the British Virgin Islands has been revealed to be connected to the Magnitsky case too, so we must bear in mind the severe human rights implications of money laundering—with money hiding behind closed doors, where we cannot see it. There is an incentive for people to do that because they know that, at the moment, they cannot be found out. As hon. Members have illustrated, there are many cases of public funds being stolen from some of the poorest countries in the world and hidden in the overseas territories, and we cannot in all conscience allow this to continue.

Progress has been made by the overseas territories over the years, but the pace has been slow and the work has been patchy. The EU is moving towards having a public register of beneficial owners as part of the anti-money laundering directive, and we must play our part—regardless of Brexit—to keep up the pace towards international transparency.

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Thewliss]

I am about to finish, and I want to allow other speakers in.

This should be about everybody moving forward together on a global basis and gathering momentum towards transparency. I acknowledge the concerns of the overseas territories, but the case for action on corruption and money laundering is absolutely and completely compelling. I very much hope that we will not need to get to the position of using Orders in Council, because with such support public registers are entirely achievable.

I will talk more about Companies House later, if I am able to, but I want to close now by saying that I am not satisfied by the Government’s actions on SLPs. This is a missed opportunity, and I urge them to take real concerted action to do something today and make a change where they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am happy to be corrected, and I apologise to the hon. Lady.

Amendment 29 relates to the procedure by which individuals or entities apply for licences and exceptions to be included in the regulations. Retaining the application procedures in guidance will give the Government the flexibility to update them as needed and to respond to stakeholder feedback.

The Government have tabled new clause 4 because we recognise the concern raised by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the repeal of part 1 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 would remove the independent reviewer’s oversight of domestic counter-terrorism asset freezes. Government new clauses 15 to 17 and amendments 23 to 26 will provide the UK Government with the powers necessary to enforce UK sanctions regulations against ships in international and foreign waters. These powers will ensure adherence to the standards set out in relevant UN Security Council resolutions and provide protection against the transportation of dangerous and harmful goods in international waters. These provisions contain important safeguards on the use of these powers, including a requirement to have reasonable grounds to suspect that sanctions are being flouted before enforcement action can be taken as well as flag state and foreign state consent where relevant.

New clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central—I hope I have got that one right—would oblige the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament each year on the exercise of the powers in the Bill. We have a range of reporting requirements in the Bill already, including an annual report on the sanctions regulations in force, and further reports when sanctions are imposed or amended. In addition, new clause 3 sets out reporting requirements for regulations made under the human rights purpose. We consider it unnecessary, therefore, to add an additional report on top of these, given that the issues that would be addressed in the report would be mirrored by those already required in the Bill.

Amendments 3 to 6, also tabled by the hon. Lady, would require that every sanctions designation be comprehensively re-examined annually. We agree that sanctions should only be in place for as long as there are good reasons for them to be so, and the Bill contains a range of procedures to ensure that all our sanctions are subject to regular scrutiny and review. We believe that three-year comprehensive reviews, combined with a robust package of procedural safeguards in the Bill, will ensure that these standards are at least maintained, so we would ask that she consider not pressing her amendments.

New clause 10, tabled by the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland and for Oxford East, would require statutory instruments that are to be considered under the draft affirmative procedure to receive a positive recommendation from a House of Commons Committee before being laid. All secondary legislation to which it would apply requires affirmative votes before coming into force, and we believe that that negates the need for additional parliamentary scrutiny. Sanctions are a manifestation of the UK’s foreign policy. They are not stand-alone or independent initiatives. Indeed, a number of existing parliamentary Committees have considered, or are planning to consider, sanctions issues, including the House of Lords EU Committee and the House of Commons Treasury Committee. It is not clear why further layers of scrutiny are necessary or desirable.

Amendment 22 would remove the requirement for Ministers to publish a written statement of explanation if they did not comply with a reporting provision. I should make it clear that this provision does not in any way displace the statutory duty to report; Ministers who fail to comply with that duty must face the consequences, regardless of whether an explanation is given.

Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, would mean that sanctions regulations could be created only when that was deemed “necessary” for the purposes of the Bill, rather than when it was deemed “appropriate”. For many years the use of sanctions has been an essential part of international diplomacy, to respond to threats such as terrorism or to change unacceptable or threatening behaviour. It is important for the Government of the day to have the flexibility to impose sanctions or not to do so, after a thorough review of the prevailing political situation. Changing “appropriate” to “necessary” would mean that the Government could consider sanctions only as the last resort.

Amendment 9 would require the legislative consent of the devolved Administrations for any sanctions regulation made under section 1, if that regulation included a consequential repeal of, revocation of, or amendment to any law created by those Administrations. The power to create sanctions regulations falls under matters that are reserved to Westminster, and that includes modifications consequential on those regulations. Under the UK’s constitutional settlement, foreign policy is a reserved matter. The Bill gives the Government the power to impose sanctions as a foreign policy and national security tool.

[Alison Thewliss]

I have already made this point to the Minister. I agree that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to impose sanctions, but why do the UK Government want to say that we cannot do so when it is already clear that we cannot? Why should the Government revoke something that we cannot actually do?

[John Glen]

We contend that the amendment would change this part of the devolution settlement, and we have received no representations from the Scottish Government on it.

Amendment 21 would remove Ministers’ power to make consequential amendments, related to sanctions and anti-money laundering regulations, to existing primary and secondary legislation. That would remove the ability to ensure that the statute book works after sanctions have been imposed. The power is not unusual, and is confined to modifications that arise solely as a result of sanctions or anti-money laundering provision. In any case, regulations making such modifications of the statute book would be dealt with by the draft affirmative procedure, so both Houses would need to approve them before they could come into force. I ask the House to preserve that important power.

Let me make it clear that the Government support the principle of amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, which is to help prevent organised crime and human trafficking. Those are serious issues that we are strongly committed to tackling. However, as we have explained before, we do not think it necessary to state that sanctions regulations could be created for these purposes in the Bill, because it already provides the powers to impose sanctions in these cases.

Government new clause 5 is technical. It simply seeks to clarify the interaction of the powers in this Bill with the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. This Bill contains powers that enable the Government to amend retained EU law to impose or lift sanctions. The new clause simply makes it clear that restrictions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill do not prevent those powers from being exercised in the way that was intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that those 80,000-plus properties, which are often owned through secrecy jurisdictions, are the ones that crop up most often in corruption investigations. It is often exactly that kind of property that appears to be used illicitly, and it is enormously important that we get a grasp of this problem. We have seen—through the various laundromat investigations, for example—how British property has been used not only to hide illicitly gotten gains, but to guarantee additional profit, because those properties can be let out, guaranteeing a future income stream.

In that regard, I will give the Government one more opportunity. I have asked them many times to indicate whose side they are on. Are they on the side of the investigative journalists who have shown us so much about the movement of dirty money through our financial system, either through the laundromat investigations or through the Paradise, Panama and Luxembourg leaks papers, or are they on the side of those who want to shut down debate on this matter? It would also be helpful to know whether they think it is appropriate that the BBC and The Guardian are being singled out by the firm Appleby and having legal action taken against them purely because they published information from the Panama papers leaks. They are the only two British companies to be singled out in that way.

Moving back to the substance of new clause 8, the Government initially intimated that they would introduce the register back in April. Instead, it now will not be available until 2021, but we heard nothing from the Minister about why that delay is necessary. Investigative reporters have already created a register of sorts that we can all access on the internet. It was created by journalists at Private Eye and other organisations who matched up Land Registry data with company data. I am not aware of any significant worries about the reliability of that information, so why are there so many concerns in this regard? The Financial Action Task Force is due to report soon on our systems to combat money laundering, and this is not the time to delay any action.

If Ministers feel the need to slow down the process in order to consult the Opposition and produce draft legislation, I can tell them that Labour Members support such a measure. The Government do not need to jump through hoops with this legislation—they can move ahead immediately with our full support—so there is no need for delay. In fact, there is every need for haste. I look forward to hearing whether Conservative Members think that there are genuine reasons for this hold-up, because I do not believe that there are any. There is cross-party support for the original timetable. Indeed, faster progress was urged by Conservative peers when the matter came up in the other place, so I hope that the Government will listen to them and to the Opposition, and deliver this register to an appropriate, faster timetable.

On the question of registers, the topic of trusts has been raised in previous debates as well as this one. In fact, it is covered by an Opposition amendment, and the Minister also mentioned it. Not having transparency for trusts will place us behind developments in the European Union, because there is now consensus at the EU level about the need to ensure that there will be transparency for business-like trusts, so we will be behind the curve on that one. Of course, the coalition Government lobbied against transparency for trusts, and we now know that David Cameron personally intervened to try to prevent it. However, this Government could take a different approach and introduce greater transparency, so I hope that they will shift that position.

On the offence of failure to prevent money laundering, I hope the House will not mind if I briefly ask the Minister when exactly we will see the Government response to the consultation and call for evidence, which ended last year, on the failure to prevent economic crime. Although that process ended many months ago, we still do not know what action the Government will take—we are still waiting. There is no lack of evidence for the need to take action; there is only a lack of will, sadly, and that needs to change.

Our new clause 13 is similar to the SNP’s new clause 2, but it is rather broader, as it deals with trust and company service providers, as well as Companies House. In the previous debate, the Minister for Europe and the Americas rightly drew attention to the fact that the UK was a frontrunner in adopting a public register of beneficial ownership. The Opposition are of course pleased that the Government have accepted the need for such a register for the overseas territories but, as Members on both sides of the House have said, we need to ensure that the information in any such register is accurate, and that is the point about which many concerns have been raised.

I have been in correspondence with the Minister and with the FCA about one particular case, namely that of the so-called Business Bank Italy, in which a number of rather strange figures seem to be involved. One of them gave his title as the Italian translation of “the chicken thief” and maintained that he lived on the “Street of 40 Thieves” in the town of “Ali Babba”. I have tried to find out whether he and those associated with him are being prosecuted, but he has certainly been under investigation in Italy, and some of his associates have been prosecuted for their involvement in the mafia over there.

In contrast, the only person to have been prosecuted— I would also say persecuted—in the UK for submitting false information is Kevin Brewer, who is actually a whistleblower. He created a fictitious company and told the world about it in the pages of a national newspaper, but his prosecution has since been held up as showing the Government’s determination to

“come down hard on people who knowingly break the law”.

He broke the law in order to show that the law was an ass under the current system, and it is a disgrace that he has been prosecuted when others seem to be able to operate with impunity. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is no longer in the Chamber, referred to an 85-year-old who was exercising significant control in 25,800 companies, so it is essential that such individuals are investigated.

New clause 13 would require any company formation agent to carry out appropriate due diligence on the beneficial owners of the companies that they are forming. It would cover both trust and company formation service providers, and Companies House, where companies can be directly registered without anyone else being involved in the process. I will not re-run our debates during the Bill’s previous stages, but suffice it to say that rather than providing additional clarity—I say the same of the additional exchanges that I have had with Ministers since—the waters have only been muddied. There is a huge ambiguity about the precise role of Companies House. Some Ministers seem to resist the view that it should be responsible for checking data on the business database, while others say that it should exercise that kind of due diligence and is doing so perfectly well. What I see as a parliamentarian, as do many businesspeople and others who are concerned about the fraudulent companies that appear to be able to operate with impunity, is Companies House sadly being severely behind the curve that has been set by crooks and criminals.

The Minister said that change would be difficult, but it would not. For example, when one registers a company with Companies House, one can enter whatever information one wants in the boxes on the website. That website does not even have the highly technologically sophisticated tool of a drop-down menu, which means that people can enter non-existent addresses, as I just mentioned, suggest that two-year-olds are people of significant control in a company and so on. The situation is ridiculous and dealing with it would not require a huge amount of investment.

We also need stronger action when it comes to the responsibilities of trust and company service providers. There is extensive evidence, most recently revealed by “Panorama”, that existing anti-money laundering legislation is insufficient to deter the money-laundering activity facilitated by some TCSPs.

I have had an extensive exchange of letters with the Treasury, and I am grateful to the Minister for corresponding with me on this subject, particularly regarding the problem of foreign TCSPs registering companies with Companies House. I have been informed by the Government that foreign TCSPs are of lower risk than UK-based ones, despite the fact they are not covered by UK anti-money laundering legislation. I received the latest letter this very morning, for which I am grateful, and it concludes by stating that foreign TCSPs are regulated by their home jurisdictions. That is okay then—they are regulated by their home jurisdictions, so there is no problem. Sadly the evidence suggests quite the opposite.

We have seen some positive moves from the Government today, under enormous pressure from Members on both sides of the House, on Magnitsky clauses and on beneficial ownership registers for overseas territories, but we need appropriate scrutiny of sanctions and anti-money laundering legislation, a return to something nearer the original timetable for foreign-owned property registration, and the exercise of proper due diligence on the information submitted to our companies register if we are really to clean dirty money out of our financial system.

We have to stop crooks, criminals and the corrupt benefiting from our country’s good name. Our Government need to stop obfuscating and start acting.

[Alison Thewliss]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. I will rattle through them and say why they have been tabled. The primary concern is about Companies House. Very much as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has just said, we have laid out our serious concerns at all stages of the Bill. It is disappointing to get to this stage and find that the Government are still not listening to those concerns.

Companies House does not have the adequate resources or powers sufficiently to monitor and ensure the integrity of the company incorporation data submitted to it.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems to be harder to open a gym membership than to register a company with Companies House?

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Registering with Companies House seems to be the easiest thing possible. It is baffling that anything else, such as a tax return, a passport application or a driving licence application, needs to go through the gov.uk verify scheme, but Companies House does not have that requirement. Just tightening up those rules would help hugely both to ensure the accuracy of the information and to clamp down on those who wish to abuse the system. It is in all our interests to make sure the system is accurate, but it is not accurate.

Worse, there are only about 20 people at Companies House policing some 4 million firms’ compliance with company law. There are no proactive checks on the accuracy of the information submitted, which, as the hon. Member for Oxford East has just said, allows a significant amount of false and misleading data to be submitted to the companies register.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says there are no proactive checks at Companies House, but if an outside person challenges an entry, surely the people at Companies House have to check it out. It is a criminal offence if an entry is wrong, is it not?

[Alison Thewliss]

The difficulty in all this is with enforcement. As the hon. Member for Oxford East pointed out, it has been very difficult to get anything to happen in the case of “the chicken thief”. The only person to be prosecuted so far is a whistleblower, which does not lead me to believe much will be done to those who abuse the system. The volume of data at Companies House makes such abuse very difficult to tackle. Indeed, investigative journalist Richard Smith has flagged up such things and has found it difficult to get any action. If a person submits the wrong name and address on their form, either deliberately or accidentally, how is the agency supposed to track down that person to get them to correct the information?

Not making the system accurate allows hon. Members to stand up in this place and say that transparency of registers does not work, but we know it does work if it is done properly and if we invest in it properly. We need to be careful to make sure that our own integrity is right, because if we are leading on transparency and beneficial registers across the world, we need to make sure that what we are doing here—the intention around Companies House—is what is carried out in practice. Companies House needs more resource to allow that to happen.