Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Third sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Thank you, Graham, for all the work that you are doing. Even the suggestions you have made are very sensible. Obviously the data that is collected is important, but one of the ways in which we think we can tighten up the provisions a little bit is to increase the duties of Companies House to check. In a way, that is what you do. You go into these massive datasets and decide, “What the hell am I going to look at?” Can you give us some ideas as to how we could hone the measures to ensure that there is a red flag way—call it what you like—of going in and checking on everything?

Graham Barrow: Absolutely. What I am looking at is probably not even 5% of what I could look at in terms of suspicious activity and red flags. I have not the hours in the day; bear in mind that I do not get paid for any of this, so it is a labour of love, or whatever. There is a sensible answer, which is that we are now in a world where data is manipulated really easily and in bulk. Therefore, something that my company has done is to design algorithms that looks at clusters of red flags. If all we look at, Dame Margaret, is red flags, we are going to be overwhelmed. We have to accept that we cannot address every issue straightaway, which means that we need to look at clusters of red flags, which, taken together, can indicate significant organised crime or corruption that is being utilised through the formation of companies.

This year I have seen one organised crime group create about 1,500 companies, using data that they have stolen from two major global organisations. These are HR files, so the data is replete with all the personal information of those employees, who have then found themselves directors of companies that have been registered to empty shops, which have then been used to access banking, particularly overdrafts or other banking credit. There are about 1,500 companies, and the average overdraft might be £5,000 to £8,000; you do not need too many of them to be successful to understand that millions of pounds are being extorted or fraudulently obtained from banks through this ease of use.

Something else that is really important is the ID&V piece. If you have stolen ID&V data from, for example, a company’s HR files, the implementation of proof of life at the same time—that is, you do not just have the documents, but can prove it is you by having some form of selfie or other real-time interaction—is vital, because these people do not just set up companies; they open banking with them. Banks can be criticised, but they do an awful lot more due diligence than Companies House. If these people are opening bank accounts, the ID&V they currently have is clearly high quality. We must bear that in mind.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Q A lot of the issues that the Bill rightly seeks to address are fairly high-level economic and corporate crimes, which are huge issues—and we are talking about huge amounts of money—but they do not directly have an impact on the vast majority of our constituents. One issue that does is phoenixing companies. Does the Bill do enough to address that type of issue?

Graham Barrow: Probably not. We have done some analysis of phoenix companies. For example, I think that something like 30,000 companies on Companies House have changed their name for fewer than seven days and then changed it back to its original name. That is a variety of phoenixing by which you disappear from your company name for a few days and then come back again. As you will probably know, Gavin, every year on Companies House there are thousands of proper phoenix companies—those that have dissolved and reopened, either geographically close or at the same address with virtually the same name. It is a real issue, and it is part of the whole broader issue of company name observations. There was a piece on “You and Yours” on Radio 4 a few weeks ago about a lady who had Asda Ltd registered to her terraced house in Huddersfield. She received 7 kg of post and all sorts of other things, and bailiffs turned up at her door.

The Bill does include the ability for Companies House to reject similar names, but if you have 3,000 companies a day—and that extends to companies across the world that may have similarities—I do not see how you are going to enforce that reasonably. There is just too much volume and too many potential comparative data points to compare them to. That is a huge issue, and one that inserting a little bit of friction between application and registration would help to address. At the moment, the focus is entirely on speed of getting on to the register. Putting in a bit of friction to do some proper checking would be a good idea.

[Gavin Newlands]

Q What specific amendments would you suggest for the Bill to address it a lot better?

Graham Barrow: Being clear that a company will not be allowed on to the register until those full checks have been made would be one. I would also be a lot stricter about the ability for people to register a company that has significant similarities to a previously registered and dissolved company. That may need a bit of crafting, in terms of the words, but I do not think that is beyond the wit and wisdom of people.

Companies House refused to dissolve or eject Asda Ltd because it was not close enough to Asda Stores Ltd, which is the actual name of the well-known supermarket. That seemed to be a bit of a nonsense. I am not saying that Companies House did not apply the law correctly; it suggests the law is not very good in terms of the intellectual capital.

There is a guy in Cheam who has legitimately registered Renault Ltd, Volkswagen Ltd, Adidas Ltd and Asda Ltd—which he re-registered after Asda Ltd in Huddersfield got struck off. That is simply nonsense. Intellectual capital is clearly being compromised by those registrations, yet we do not currently have the powers to deal with it. I know there is wording in the Bill on this. Obviously, the proof of the pudding is in the application of that, but I would like to see it tightened.

[James Daly]

Q Thank you, Graham. I think you have answered this question, but, in layman’s terms, if Fred Bloggs from Bury—my constituency—who has led a blameless life and is 95 years of age, finds that his name is down as a director of, or linked to, any company or legal entity that has sent a supporting application to Companies House, how does this Bill assist him?

Graham Barrow: I guess the Bill is trying to assist by not allowing that to happen in the first place. That is the premise, is it not—that you should not be able to get somebody without their clear permission?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Seema Malhotra]

Clause 125 sets out a process for the registrar to confirm the dissolution of a limited partnership that the registrar has reasonable cause to believe has been dissolved. The registrar will be required to publish a notice stating that they believe the limited partnership is dissolved and asking for anyone to come forward with information to the contrary. While we support the clause, to enable the register to be kept up to date and for information on it to be as accurate as possible, we believe that certain elements of it could and should go further to make things more robust, and we have tabled amendments 163 to 165 to address that.

I will discuss amendments 163 and 164 together. Amendment 164 would amend the provisions setting out the registrar’s power to confirm the dissolution of a limited partnership by replacing “may” with “must”, such that the registrar must publish a dissolution notice and begin the dissolution process should they have reasonable cause to believe that a limited partnership has been dissolved. In short, the amendment would turn the registrar’s power to confirm the dissolution of a limited partnership, if they have reasonable cause to believe that it has been dissolved, from a power into a duty.

Amendment 163 is consequential on amendment 164. The explanatory notes to the Bill describe that

“there are currently thousands of limited partnerships on the register which the Registrar either knows or suspects are inactive.”

The registrar’s power to confirm the dissolution of these partnerships should not be optional, hence our amendments would make it a duty.

Amendment 165 would introduce a requirement that the limited partnership dissolution notice published in the Gazette must also be published on the registrar’s website and remain published for a minimum of 20 years. This would ensure that the notice of the partnership’s dissolution is transparently and clearly available to third parties who would benefit from such information. As Professor Berry set out in her written evidence:

“All dissolution/deregistration information should be shown on the Register and retained for at least 20 years. This is essential…so that third parties can fully examine the recent history of a particular participant or investigate suspicious networks.”

It is an important principle that innocent third parties should be able to access all information about former participants following the dissolution of a limited partnership. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure finally to speak in the Committee. It would be an exaggeration to call me the second chair of the SNP; I am more the office junior to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, given her knowledge on these matters. I do not intend to repeat much of what was said by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, whose amendments I support.

I will make a wider point about power versus duty. In pretty much every Bill Committee I have sat on—perhaps it is something to do with the Bills—amendments have been tabled that seek to replace powers with duties. We all know that there are so many Government agencies and bodies that have lots of powers that are rarely, if ever, used. I have yet to hear a robust response from a Minister as to why we should not replace a power with a duty. Perhaps we will hear one—it may be the first time ever—when the Minister gets to his feet, but I highly doubt it.

In general, the Bill is good, and it enables Companies House and the Secretary of State to do a lot of vital and long overdue work. Sadly, it does not compel them to do enough. That is my issue, and that is why I support the amendments.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Nineteenth sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and it is fantastic to rise to do something more worthy in Committee than pour water for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central.

I accept completely that, as has been said many times, the Bill is excellent and we just need to tighten it up, and that it contains provisions, including on unique identifiers, that will help to block some of the more obvious means of carrying out the practice of phoenixing, which has been discussed both when we took oral evidence and throughout line-by-line scrutiny. However, it is my view, and that of many others, that we are missing a golden opportunity to fully address phoenixing with the Bill and to tighten up all parts of the regulations relating to Companies House.

The genesis behind new clauses 69 and 70 is a specific directorate and company the businesses of which have unfortunately harmed my constituents and many others across Scotland and throughout the UK. New clause 69 would stop those who burn through multiple limited companies leaving a train of destruction in their wake, with little or no recourse for the authorities. It would not prevent those who have no nefarious or ill intent but find that their company is unsuccessful, even on more than one occasion. It would not apply automatically to any individual who hits the three winding-ups limit; it would only allow the registrar to act if there were grounds to do so.

Around 10 years, a company called HELMS—Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems—controlled and operated by a man named Robert Skillen, went door to door in my constituency offering solar panels and home insulation as part of the now-scrapped UK Government green deal scheme. You will be pleased to know, Mr Robertson, that I do not intend to go over the whole story; suffice it to say that hundreds of my constituents and thousands of people across Scotland are still paying the price to the tune of thousands of pounds each.

Skillen was able to wind up HELMS, move on to his latest venture with millions in his back pocket and face no consequences for his personal actions. He is an individual—there will be thousands like him—with a long track record of extracting maximum value from his scams via limited companies and then setting up shop for a new crack at it, having defrauded thousands of people. He even had the cheek to set up a company to assist those who had been defrauded by his previous company to receive compensation from which he would receive a cut. That type of individual is currently beyond the reach of the law; hopefully, provisions such as the new clause would assist with that.

Mr Skillen was fined £200,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office and £10,500 by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, as it was at the time, but the fact is that of that £200,000 he paid only £10,000 before winding the company up. That led the ICO to lobby the Government to enable it to fine individuals such as Robert Skillen up to £500,000.

In respect of cases such as those of Mr Skillen and many others who make sharp practice look easy and do so without any care or remorse, the new clause would act as a deterrent to the manipulation of company registration for personal gain and enrichment and prevent those who have used multiple company identities for malfeasance or sinister purposes from continuing that pattern of behaviour ad nauseum. I stress that the point of the new clause is not to prevent those who have had genuinely unsuccessful businesses from starting afresh. The registrar should be able to separate those cases from those of people with evil intent.

Companies House already has the power to disqualify directors and the new clause would simply allow it to consider slightly wider grounds on which such a disqualification could rest. It would help to put an end to the cases that every Committee member will have encountered in their constituencies of companies taking payment for goods and services, shutting up shop with the cash pocketed and then popping up again under a different name but carrying out exactly the same work. The purpose of the new clause is to tease out from the Minister the Government’s approach to phoenixing. With that, I rest.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson, and to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, who made a very important speech. New clause 69 would introduce new provisions to prevent the continued trading of companies repeatedly declared insolvent and the practice of phoenixing, which the hon. Member outlined. It states:

“A company may not be registered under the Companies Act 2006 if, in the opinion of the registrar of companies, it is substantially similar to a company which has been subject to winding up procedures under the Insolvency Act 1986 on more than three occasions in the preceding ten years.”

A company may be “substantially similar” to previous companies in terms of its name, registered office, proposed officers and so on. This would mean that there is more scrutiny, and questions are raised about whether a company should be able to continue trading.

It is very important, for the reasons we have outlined in Committee, to seek to protect the public and other businesses from unscrupulous operators effectively carrying on their business activity and going through the same cycle of building up debts, which leads to consumer issues, and simply disappearing and starting again. We must deal with that behaviour, which is a route through which economic crime takes place, and that is why we support the new clause. We will listen closely to the Minister’s response on how the Government propose to tackle the issue of phoenixing.

I note the similarity between the intentions of this new clause and new clauses 28 and 46, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and I, which we have discussed. In different ways, all those new clauses would tighten up glaring loopholes around strike-off, insolvency and phoenixing that enable those who are participating in economic crime to avoid scrutiny. We welcome the new clause, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, and I also appreciate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North describing this as an excellent Bill—a very constructive point—but one that needs tightening up; I understand his points and applaud the efforts made by him and other Opposition Members to do so.

I am fully aware of the devastating consequences that such issues have on businesses, suppliers, supply chains and our constituents. I have a case of a gentleman called Scott Robinson who repeatedly closed his investment business down. It was called TBO Investments at one point and then became Mount Sterling Wealth. He effectively took his clients with him, and people lost huge amounts of money. They had provided money for him to invest based on supposedly low-risk investments, but he was actually gambling that money in very high-risk investments, and he did that time and again. I really sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, and I am keen to look at not just phoenixing but other types of situation where people deliberately take risks like that that have devastating consequences for consumers and businesses in our constituencies.

[Gavin Newlands]

The Minister says he will look at this and is sympathetic to the issue. For clarity, does that mean a later stage beyond the Bill or at a later stage of the Bill?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In my view, it needs further work rather than just plonking the new clause in the Bill. There is a wider issue here and I am pleased to see that he seems to acknowledge that. Certainly, a piece of work is needed to look at this in detail. There are some measures in place already—just the pre-pack arrangements subject to Committee scrutiny. I will come on to that in a second.

There are existing provisions in the Bill that provide safeguards against the fraudulent phoenixing behaviour that the new clause targets. Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 makes provision for restriction and prohibition on the re-use of a company name when new companies are formed, which is an intrinsic feature of phoenixing and one that the hon. Gentleman addresses in his new clause. That provision will be complemented by the new powers contained in the Bill. For instance, the registrar may choose to exercise the power to compel the production of information to help her determine whether an application to incorporate a company complies with the proper delivery requirements. They will include that those named as prospective directors can lawfully act as such, which would not be the case if they were barred under the 1986 Act from acting as a director of a company using a prohibited name, and the registrar would be empowered to reject the incorporation application. Furthermore, the registrar will have greater power to direct companies to change their names if they deliberately mislead in their purpose. Such powers provide the registrar with a powerful tool when considering new company registrations.

The registrar will be able to examine and interrogate information already held and share data with law enforcement partners and other authorities. That will allow other key characteristics such as verified identities, the registered office, proposed officers and business activities to be critically assessed with intelligence received to spot patterns of phoenixing.

If adopted, the new clause would be largely duplicative of provisions already in place or those introduced by the Bill. It would also erode the registrar’s discretion in the application of their powers as envisaged. There will be some instances when companies are captured by the new clause and are not culpable, but are merely victims of a legitimate business failure trying to start their enterprise. For instance, the new clause mentions companies that have

“been subject to winding up procedures”.

In that situation, they may be companies that have not necessarily gone into liquidation. There might be other legitimate reasons that those procedures have taken place, which may not be reflective of something that might be considered phoenixing. So, the registrar must be allowed to apply their powers according to the facts and information available. As I have said, I am keen to look at that, including the pre-pack rules, to see where we can tighten up on the matter to make sure those instances are minimised. For all those reasons, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his new clause.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the Minister for his response. The new clause was very much a probing amendment and the Minister points out one weakness. It is a small new clause for dealing with quite a big problem and I may look to table a much more rounded amendment on Report. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 70

Bar on directors in breach of duties receiving public funds

“(1) A company with a director or directors which are in breach of the general duties outlined in Chapter 2 of the Companies Act 2006, or who have been found to have committed statutory breaches of employment law, may not receive Government provided funds or financial support, unless subsection (2) applies.

(2) A company whose director or directors meet the criteria outlined in subsection (1) may receive Government provided funds or financial support if such funds or support are provided solely and specifically for the direct benefit of the company’s employees.”—(Gavin Newlands.)

This new clause seeks to prevent directors who fail to comply with their duties as a company director or with employment law provisions from being able to access funds in instances where these funds are for the benefit of the company and not the company’s employees.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Gavin Newlands]

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

It is like London buses—I am back. I do not propose to take as long to speak to new clause 70, which proposes to turn off the tap of public funding to those who have failed to discharge their duties under the Companies Act or who have failed to discharge their duties to their company’s staff. I mentioned Mr Skillen previously, and his local constituency got in touch with me to tell me that he is back in business and that his company had been in receipt of public funds. The aforementioned Mr Skillen is currently a director of four limited companies, each one coming after the winding up of HELMS. Those companies are interlinked via control and ownership structures. Through that, Government loan funding was applied for and granted just before Mr Skillen became a director and owner of a large chunk of the new enterprise.

My new clause is very simple and would prevent those who fail to discharge their duties from receiving public money or support for any company for which they are listed as a director. Mr Skillen’s modus operandi was to misuse and mis-sell under the Government’s green deal scheme, but he popped up a few years later at a company benefiting from taxpayer funding and is involved in the energy business as well. It is simply not good enough that policy interventions intended to promote a wider economic strategy, be it local or national, are manipulated and used by spivs who are able to hide behind company registration and face no barriers to their actions from the registrar, short of the nuclear option of being barred from acting as a director.

We have seen a number of cases over recent years of multinational companies, such as P&O Ferries and, not quite to the same extent, British Airways, breaching their duties as employers and breaching employment law. Indeed, the chief executive of the former happily admitted breaking the law while appearing before the Transport Committee’s joint session with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Such blatant and open law breaking cannot be rewarded with taxpayer support, and the new clause would ensure that those breaching laws that are meant to protect workers cannot then dip into the same workers’ pockets for financial support. It would not impact on workers, because any funding, such as for a furlough scheme, would not be affected by the new clause.

[Seema Malhotra]

This is a useful new clause, in the spirit of some of the new clauses that we have tabled on what should and should not be available to directors who are in breach of their duties, disqualified and so on. The new clause, tabled by our colleagues from the SNP, would introduce new provisions that bar directors who are in breach of their duties from receiving public funds. Under the new clause, a company with a director or directors who are in breach of the general duties outlined in the Companies Act 2006, or who have been found to have committed statutory breaches of employment law, should not receive Government-provided funds or financial support unless it is solely and specifically for the purpose of directly benefiting the company’s employees.

This is an important debate, and I would be interested in the Minister’s response. When taxpayers find out that their money goes towards effectively supporting or enriching directors who are in breach of the Companies Act, there will be a real question about what the Government can do to further disincentivise and not reward those who are in breach of employment law or other areas of legislation. We support the sentiments behind the new clause and the arguments being made, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very good point, but the new clause is probably not the right way to tackle it, and I hope he will withdraw it.

[Gavin Newlands]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. To pick up on a couple of his points, he said that there are already remedies available, but as we have seen there are far too few for employees who suffer at the hands of a nasty business owner. We have all seen such cases on the news or from our own case loads.

The Minister mentioned the regulations governing covid loans. Clearly, that is a very specific example, and he makes a fair point, but that is not the case for all public moneys. However, this is a probing provision and would require further work before I sought to test the Committee or the Chamber with a vote. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 71

Suspicious Activity Reporting: risk rating

“(1) The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection 339(1) insert—

‘(1ZA) An order under subsection (1) must prescribe that a risk rating be included as part of a disclosure.’”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

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

I will be on my feet for a bit, so I will try to be succinct—I know that Members have other things to do this afternoon. [Laughter.] It may be impossible for me. I want to say quite a lot about this new clause.

New clause 71 is about reforming of the suspicious activity reports regime. Ministers will accept that the SARs regime is a central tool in our defence against money laundering, but I hope they also accept that the current system is broken—it is not working. The new clause would introduce a new risk rating system, which would transform the efficacy and efficiency of the current regime.

SARs are very valuable and a vital source of intelligence. They are made mainly by financial institutions, but also by solicitors, accountants or estate agents, and they report suspicious activity. They have been absolutely instrumental in a range of successful actions against criminal activities, locating sex offenders, tracing murder suspects and identifying those involved in online child abuse, and they have shown how young women are trafficked into the UK. They have also been instrumental in closing down fraud and money laundering.

To give one example of a successful case involving fraud, a vulnerable elderly man in his 80s was the victim of a fraudster who had gained his personal details through a cloned website, when the elderly man believed that he was making a genuine investment. The reporter who saw the transaction going through was suspicious when the fraudster tried to impersonate the victim and access his main funds. He reported the transaction, and the UK Financial Intelligence Unit, which operates the SARs regime, received that report. The unit immediately passed it on to the enforcement agency—I wish this happened every time—which visited the victim in his house. The agency was then able to quickly contact the institution where the transaction was supposed to take place. It reported that the suspicious activity was wrong and confirmed the real identity and bank details of the elderly man, which all prevented him from losing in excess of £80,000.

This scheme is therefore important, and it is successful when it works well. However, at present, the sheer volume of SARs and the limited resources available mean that the information is not analysed and often simply not used. In evidence to the Treasury Committee, Mark Steward, the director of enforcement at the Financial Conduct Authority, said:

“More needs to be done in order to get more out of the valuable data that is in there. Otherwise, it just sits there.”

Graeme Biggar, also giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, as director general of the National Economic Crime Centre, said:

“Twenty years ago, we got 20,000 suspicious activity reports in, largely from banks. This year, we would not be surprised if we got three quarters of a million, and the number of defence against money laundering SARs, where we are told in advance and given the option to refuse permission to proceed, is going to double, we think, this year. The sheer volume coming through is really significant and very hard to deal with.”

According to research from Spotlight on Corruption, only 118 people handle the SARs. That is one employee to 4,250 SARs. The Australians, who have a similar enforcement regime, and who have also experienced an explosion in SARs, have a staff complement of one to 1,400—three times better than our own. The Committee has often talked about the relative budgets for enforcement of the UK and the USA. The USA has increased funding of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by 30%, and its staffing by 50%. The Minister should recognise that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s budget is now 15 times larger than the National Crime Agency, although our population is only five times smaller than America’s.

The Financial Action Task Force review in 2018 said SARs should be reformed, and SARs were criticised by the FATF. The Treasury Committee report in 2019 talked about SARs reform. In 2017, the Government had announced a reform programme for SARs, led by the Home Office together with the NCA. That reform programme constituted action 30 in the economic crime plan. The intent was to have an IT transformation, better analytical resources and capabilities, and an improvement in SARs processes. That SARs programme was reviewed by the Government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority, and was given an amber rating in 2021. So reform started in 2017, the programme was given an amber rating in 2021, and today, in 2022, it is not complete and there is no timetable from the Home Office—maybe the Minister can help with that—or a target date for completion, which was a criticism the Treasury Committee made of the programme. Delivery was originally promised by December 2020, but we are two years on from that and we are a long way from seeing SARs completed.

In that context, new clause 71 introduces a risk-rating regime. I do not think anybody thinks that is a crazy idea, and I hope the Minister will—just for once—adopt one of the suggestions that the Opposition have made in Committee. I hope he will not say that we do not need the legislation. We are nearly six years on from when the reform programme was announced, and reform has not happened. The Government cannot, despite the best efforts of right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), ignore legislation, although they seem to be ignoring the desire to reform the SARs programme.

If Ministers want action, which they have consistently said they seek with the Bill, they should accept new clause 71. If they simply see this measure as party political, they should not. We do not deal with the funding issue in the new clause, but we will ensure that the focus is on the most significant SARs. That will lead to more enforcement. I urge the Minister to adopt our new clause.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

Most of the points that I make today are of what I would call the fine-tuning variety. As I have said, the nature of this worthy Bill means that more fine-tuning will be needed as we go along. An acknowledgment of that from the Minister would be appreciated.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 37 and 38. May I start by informally correcting the record? The Hansard report of the Committee stage noted that I had said, “The Bill is excellent”, and indeed, the Minister jumped on that—unsurprisingly, given those comments—when he responded to my contribution. Perhaps characteristically, I had mumbled, “The intent of the Bill is excellent.” And it is no doubt excellent in places, but as it stands, it is a good Bill that could be made excellent with further provisions.

The Minister has—certainly from an Opposition point of view—gone through what amounts to an extended honeymoon period, given the acclaim with which he has been addressed by Members from across the Chamber. Like those who are more expert in the general area addressed by the Bill, and its provisions, I absolutely do not doubt the Minister’s intent, but in the end, he will be measured by the final Act and its implementation.

I accept that the Government have made a big concession on directorate exceptions, but many of the areas to which Opposition parties sought to draw the Government’s attention in Committee remain unchanged or not strong enough—the Minister himself campaigned on some of them just a few weeks prior to the Bill. In the end, 69 pages were added to what is now quite a hefty Bill, but some areas of Companies House policy remain largely unaddressed. The one I will focus on—and the subject of new clause 37—is phoenixing.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in her place, described phoenixing for us, so I do not have to. I am sad to see that her amendment 112, which I sponsored, has not made the final agenda, but new clause 37 is, in many ways, wider than her amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made the point about how serious phoenixing is to all our constituents. As laudable and important as the aims of the Bill are, many of the issues that it addresses do not impact day to day on the vast majority of our constituents, whereas issues such as phoenixing do.

As I have said, I accept the laudable intentions behind the Bill, which contains provisions on unique identifiers and so on that would help to block some of the more obvious means of phoenixing—as we discussed when we took oral evidence and throughout our line-by-line scrutiny—but my view, and that of many others, is that we are missing a golden opportunity to fully address phoenixing and tighten up all parts of the regulation relating to Companies House. The genesis of new clauses 37 and 38 is, as I mentioned in Committee, a specific director and company that, unfortunately, harmed hundreds of my constituents and thousands across Scotland and the UK.

New clause 37 would stop those who have burned through multiple limited companies, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake with little or no recourse for the authorities. It would deal with the worst of those culprits by specifying those who are

“subject to winding up procedures under the Insolvency Act 1986 on more than three occasions in the preceding five years”,

so we have gone for the particular egregious end of phoenixing. It would not prevent those who have no nefarious or ill intent but find that their company is unsuccessful, even on more than occasion. It would not apply automatically to any individual who hits the three winding-ups limit. It would only allow the registrar to act if there were grounds to do so.

Around 10 years ago a company called Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems, controlled and operated by a man called Robert Skillen, went door-to-door in my constituency offering solar panels and home insulation as part of the now scrapped UK Government green deal scheme. Hundreds of my constituents and thousands across the UK are still paying the price to the tune of thousands of pounds each. Skillen was able to wind up HELMS, move on to his latest venture with millions in his back pocket and face no consequences whatsoever for his personal actions. There are thousands of individuals like him with a long track record of extracting maximum value from scams via limited companies and then setting up shop for a new crack at the very same thing, having defrauded thousands of people. Skillen even had the cheek to set up a company to assist those who had been defrauded by his previous company to receive compensation, from which he would receive a cut. It is extraordinary.

That type of individual is currently beyond the reach of the law, so hopefully provisions such as the new clause would assist with that. Mr Skillen was fined £200,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office and £10,500 by the then Department of Energy and Climate Change, but the fact is that he only paid £10,000 of that £200,000 before winding the company up. That led the ICO to lobby the Government to enable it to fine individuals such as Mr Skillen up to half a million pounds. In respect of cases such as Mr Skillen and many others who make sharp practice look easy and do so without any care or remorse, the new clause would act as a deterrent to the manipulation of company registration for personal gain and prevent those who have used multiple company identities for malfeasance or sinister purposes from continuing that pattern of behaviour ad nauseam.

I stress that the point of the new clause is not to prevent those who have genuinely unsuccessful businesses from starting afresh. The registrar should be able to separate those cases from those of people with evil intent. Companies House already has the ability to disqualify directors, and the new clause would simply allow it to consider slightly wider grounds on which such a disqualification could rest. It would help put an end to the cases that every Member of this House will no doubt have encountered in their constituencies of companies taking payment for goods and services, shutting up shop with the cash pocketed and popping up again under a different name, but carrying out exactly the same work.

As it stands, there is no prohibition on being a director of a new company while another director is subject to insolvency procedures, as far as I am aware, unless the Minister can tell us differently. I have looked through the Bill and there are no provisions within the current Bill that would change that situation. In Committee, the Minister said, in responding to the new clause we were discussing at the time, that he was

“keen to look at not just phoenixing but other types of situation where people deliberately take risks like that that have devastating consequences for consumers and businesses in our constituencies.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022; c. 601.]

Moreover, he said:

“There is a wider issue…Certainly, a piece of work is needed to look at this in detail.” ––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 29 November 2022; c. 602.]

Can he tell us what work that is? When might it be brought forward? If it is not dealt with in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, then where? I hope that Members in the other place will give phoenixing the attention that it demands.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is making a good case on the impact of phoenixing on individuals and our constituents. Is he aware also of cases where companies have employed subcontractors, they have done all the work and then the company goes bust before they have been paid? Does he agree that it is important that the Bill tackles that kind of practice, too, which can put those subcontractors at risk of going bust?

[Gavin Newlands]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Subcontractors also come to us with these issues. As well as the customer or consumer, there are currently no protections for those subcontractors at the end of the day. New clause 37 would go some way to addressing that.

I will deal with new clause 38 in short order. It proposes to turn off the tap of public funding to those who have failed to discharge their duties to their company’s staff under the Companies Act 2006. I mentioned Mr Skillen; a local constituent got in touch to tell me that he is back in business. The company that he is currently a director of is in receipt of public funds. Mr Skillen is a director of four limited companies, each one coming after winding up a firm. Those companies are interlinked via control and ownership structures. Through that, Government loan funding was applied for and granted just before Mr Skillen became a director and owner of a large chunk of the new enterprise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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

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

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

[Gavin Newlands]

Will the Minister give way briefly?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sorry, but I must conclude. I do apologise.

To conclude there, I thank all the Members who have spoken in today’s debate for their insights, and I am sorry if I have not spoken to their points directly. I call on the House to support the Government amendments, and I hope that the explanations I have given provide reassurance that their amendments are not needed to make the Bill and the implementation of the reforms effective.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Disqualification on summary conviction: GB

“(1) Section 5 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (disqualification on summary conviction) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for the words from ‘provision of the companies legislation’ to ‘the registrar of companies’ substitute ‘of the relevant provisions of the companies legislation’.

(3) For subsection (3) substitute—

‘(3) Those circumstances are that, during the 5 years ending with the date of the conviction, there have been no fewer than 3 relevant findings of guilt in relation to the person.

(3A) For these purposes, there is a relevant finding of guilt in relation to the person if —

(a) the person is convicted of an offence counting for the purposes of this section (including the offence of which the person is convicted as mentioned in subsection (2) and any other offence of which the person is convicted on the same occasion),

(b) a financial penalty of the kind mentioned in section 3(3)(aa) is imposed on the person, or

(c) a default order within the meaning of section 3(3)(b) is made against the person.’

(4) In subsection (4), omit paragraph (b) and the ‘and’ before it.

(5) For subsection (4A) substitute—

‘(4A) In this section “relevant provisions of the companies legislation” has the meaning given by section 3(3B).’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This new clause replicates the effect of the amendments made by clauses 41(3) and 102(3) (which are left out by Amendments 7 and 15). The restructuring of the material is in consequence of NC8.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

Disqualification for persistent breaches of companies legislation: NI

“(1) The Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)) is amended as follows.

(2) In Article 6 (disqualification for persistent breaches of companies legislation)—

(a) in paragraph (1), for the words from ‘provisions of the companies legislation’ to the end substitute ‘relevant provisions of the companies legislation (see paragraph (3ZA))’;

(b) in paragraph (2), for ‘such provisions as are mentioned in paragraph (1)’ substitute ‘relevant provisions of the companies legislation’;

(c) in paragraph (3), after sub-paragraph (a) (but before the ‘or’ at the end of that sub-paragraph) insert—

‘(aa) a financial penalty is imposed on the person by the registrar in respect of such an offence by virtue of regulations under—

section 1132A of the Companies Act 2006, or

section 39 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022,’;

(d) after paragraph (3) insert—

‘(3ZA) In this Article “relevant provisions of the companies legislation” means—

(a) any provision of the companies legislation requiring any return, account or other document to be filed with, delivered or sent, or notice of any matter to be given, to the registrar,

(b) sections 167M and 167N of the Companies Act 2006 (prohibitions on acting as director where identity not verified or where there has been a failure to notify a directorship), and

(c) sections 790LM and 790LN of the Companies Act 2006 (persons with significant control: ongoing duties in relation to identity verification).’;

(e) for paragraph (3A) substitute—

‘(3A) In this Article “the companies legislation” means—

(a) the Companies Acts,

(b) Parts 1A to 7 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (company insolvency and winding up), and

(c) Part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (registration of overseas entities).’

(3) In Article 25A (application of Order to registered societies), in paragraph (2)(c), for ‘Articles 6(1) and 8(1)’ substitute ‘Article 6(3ZA)(a)’.

(4) In Article 25B (application of Order to credit unions), in paragraph (3)(b), for ‘Articles 6(1) and 8(1) references’ substitute ‘Article 6(3ZA)(a) the reference’.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This new clause replicates the effect of the amendments made by clauses 42(2) and 103(2) (which are left out by Amendments 8 and 16) and contains changes to ensure that a person can be disqualified for breaches of obligations under Part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 etc.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

Disqualification on summary conviction: NI

“(1) Article 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)) (disqualification on summary conviction) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (1), for the words from ‘provision of the companies legislation’ to ‘the registrar’ substitute ‘of the relevant provisions of the companies legislation’.

(3) For paragraph (3) substitute—

‘(3) Those circumstances are that, during the 5 years ending with the date of the conviction, there have been no fewer than 3 relevant findings of guilt in relation to the person.

(3A) For these purposes, there is a relevant finding of guilt in relation to the person if —

(a) the person is convicted of an offence counting for the purposes of this Article (including the offence of which the person is convicted as mentioned in paragraph (2) and any other offence of which the person is convicted on the same occasion),

(b) a financial penalty of the kind mentioned in Article 6(3)(aa) is imposed on the person, or

(c) a default order within the meaning of Article 6(3)(b) is made against the person.’

(4) Omit paragraph (4).

(5) For paragraph (4A) substitute—

‘(4A) In this Article “relevant provisions of the companies legislation” has the meaning given by Article 6(3ZA).’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This new clause replicates the effect of the amendments made by clauses 42(3) and 103(3) (which are left out by Amendments 8 and 16). The restructuring of the material is in consequence of NC10.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

A limited partnership’s registered office: consequential amendments

“(1) Regulation 2 of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1773) (interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (1)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘EEA AIF’ insert ‘(but see paragraph (1A) if the AIF is a limited partnership)’;

(b) at the end of the definition of ‘Gibraltar AIF’ insert ‘(but see paragraph (1A) if the AIF is a limited partnership)’;

(c) at the end of paragraph (b) of the definition of ‘UK AIF’ insert ‘(but see paragraph (1A) if the AIF is a limited partnership)’;

(d) at the appropriate places insert—

‘“established”: a reference to the place where an AIF is established (however expressed) is, in relation to an AIF that is a limited partnership, a reference to—

(a) the country in which the AIF is authorised or registered, or

(b) if the AIF is not authorised or registered, the country in which it has its principal place of business;’;

‘“limited partnership” means a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907;’.

(3) After paragraph (1) insert—

‘(1A) In the application of the definition of “EEA AIF”, “Gibraltar AIF” and “UK AIF” to an AIF that is a limited partnership, a reference to the AIF’s registered office is to be read as a reference to its principal place of business.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This new clause would mean that whether or not a limited partnership is an EEA AIF, Gibraltar AIF, UK AIF or established in the UK does not change solely because it complies with the new requirement introduced by clause 112 of the Bill to have a registered office in the UK.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

Removal of limited partnership from index of names

“After section 26 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 (inserted by section 138 of this Act) insert—

‘26A Removal of limited partnership from index of names

(1) The registrar must remove a limited partnership from the index of names as soon as reasonably practicable if the registrar—

(a) becomes aware that the limited partnership is dissolved (whether on the receipt of a notice under section 18, the publication of a dissolution notice under section 19(6) or otherwise), or

(b) publishes a deregistration notice under section 26 in respect of the limited partnership.

(2) If the registrar removes a limited partnership from the index of names, the registrar must include a note in the register of limited partnerships stating either—

(a) that the limited partnership has been removed from the index of names because of its dissolution, or

(b) that the limited partnership has been removed from the index of names because of its deregistration under section 26.

(3) The registrar must also publish a notice of the removal in the Gazette if the limited partnership is removed from the index of names other than following the publication of a dissolution notice under section 19 or a deregistration notice under section 26.

(4) Notes included in the register of limited partnerships in accordance with subsection (2) are part of the register of limited partnerships.

(5) A note may be removed if it no longer serves any useful purpose.

(6) In this section “the index of names” means the index kept by the registrar under section 1099 of the Companies Act 2006.’”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This new clause requires the registrar to remove a limited partnership from the index of names as soon as practicable following dissolution or deregistration. The registrar must place a note in the register when a limited partnership is so removed and publish a notice in the Gazette in certain circumstances.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

Reports on the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3

“(1) The Secretary of State must—

(a) prepare reports on the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3, and

(b) lay a copy of each report before Parliament.

(2) The first report must be laid within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) Each subsequent report must be laid within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the previous report was laid.

(4) But the duty to prepare and lay reports under subsection (1) ceases with the laying of the first report on or after 1 January 2030.” —(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This new clause imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament reports about the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Person convicted under National Minimum Wage Act not to be appointed as director

‘(1) The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) After Clause 5A (Disqualification for certain convictions abroad) insert—

“5B Person convicted under National Minimum Wage Act not to be appointed as director

(1) A person may not be appointed a director of a company if the person is convicted of a criminal offence under section 31 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 on or after the day on which section 32(2) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2022 comes fully into force.

(2) It is an offence for such a person to act as director of a company or directly or indirectly to take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the leave of the High Court.

(3) An appointment made in contravention of this section is void.”’—(Seema Malhotra.)

This new clause would disqualify any individual convicted of an offence for a serious breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, such as a deliberate refusal to pay National Minimum Wage, from serving as a company director.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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