Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Nineteenth sitting)

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Seema Malhotra

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Seema Malhotra

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.