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.