Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Thursday 25th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue, and earlier I set out specific actions such as giving the Small Business Commissioner more powers, and producing league tables. We work closely with the Good Business Pays campaign, which produces league tables on this issue, and naming and shaming the people responsible is important. The Government are leading the way, and from April 2024 firms bidding for Government contracts worth more than £5 million will have to demonstrate that they pay their invoices within an average of 55 days, tightening to 45 days in April 2025 and to 30 days in the coming years.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

14. Whether she has had recent discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on taking fiscal steps to help support the steel industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Clearly, our regulation must work in favour of employment and helping people to get work and stay in work. I am very happy to meet him, possibly with one of my colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions, to look at this matter.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I am honoured to chair the all-party group on steel, and, as such, I have invited the Secretary of State to meet us, as all four of her predecessors have agreed to do. I am very disappointed that she has declined to do so. I urge her to reconsider that position.

The US is investing $282 billion in green manufacturing. The Spanish and German Governments are each investing £1 billion in the decarbonisation of their steel industries. Labour would match that opportunity with a £3 billion clean steel fund, but the Government’s response to date has been woefully inadequate. When will the Secretary of State bring forward a steel transition strategy that matches up with what our competitors are doing and that matches the ambition of our professional and dedicated steelworkers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Alongside the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, I met energy suppliers and Ofgem recently to discuss the matter. The problem is principally that energy prices have fallen, so businesses entering into new contracts today are getting more competitive rates, but the ones who entered contracts between July and December last year are facing difficulties. The energy suppliers have promised to help, but if the hon. Lady wants to talk to me about any particular instances, I am happy to help.

[Stephen Kinnock]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the exchange I just had with the Secretary of State, I want to underline the point that her office has declined and said that she would not be interested in meeting the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries. While she did come to visit the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency, which of course I welcome, I was not invited to join her on that visit, whereas I understand the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) was invited to join her on the visit to the Scunthorpe steelworks. I just want to set the record straight on those points.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

As always, I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend’s views on the matter. That cannot be beyond the wit of this place or the Government. I know there are legal complications around property and international law, but those are not insuperable. We cannot allow them to be insuperable because, with every day that passes, the people of Ukraine are suffering, and the barbaric acts of Vladimir Putin and his regime are not being held to account in a way that would contribute to the massive reconstruction effort that will be required for Ukraine. It is absolutely right that the person guilty of the crime should pay for the crime and that has to be the fundamental basis of our approach. We need urgency on this in the G20, the G7, and the United Nations. We need Ministers to get a grip of this issue so that we can do justice and deliver for the people of Ukraine, which we must do with great urgency.

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

New clause 27 is interesting. It is about setting up a fund for compensation of victims of economic crime. We have heard estimates that economic crime costs UK citizens £200 billion to £300 billion a year. How much will this cost and who will pay for it?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister tempts me to write Labour’s manifesto right here at the Dispatch Box. It is an issue of principle: how will we ensure that victims of economic crime are compensated? Clearly, we cannot finalise in the Chamber today the quantum of that amount, but we did raise that in Committee and are open to discussing it with the Government. We hope that they will be open to having that discussion in the fullness of time.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Member confirm that he is expecting the taxpayer to contribute to the fund? Is that what the new clause would effectively lead to?

[Stephen Kinnock]

No. This is based on a fund that is generated through fines and through accountability for those committing the crimes. It is along the lines of what I said about Ukraine: the people who commit the crime, rather than the victims, should be paying for the crime. How will we address that question now? If the Government think that the current system is absolutely fine and that there is justice and equity in the system, the Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and say that. However, if he thinks that there is a clear, principled and moral argument in favour of ensuring that the people who commit a crime should be made to pay for it, and that that should contribute to the compensation, we can have that conversation.

Prepayment Meters: Self-Disconnection

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady has raised an important point about people being treated equally. In these circumstances, people will often have been through the processes that she has described. They will have been on normal payment terms, and there will have been a debt recognition and reconciliation process that may have ended up with people either adopting a prepayment meter voluntarily or, as a last resort, having one forced upon them. There are mechanisms, which I will explain in a minute, whereby people are granted abeyance and forbearance.

In the case of many households, if debt were allowed to spiral out of control—and that is not generally voluntary; it is more often due to matters beyond the control of those households, and it is important that we provide support for them—the suppliers themselves could find themselves in a perilous position. These are commercial suppliers of electricity and gas. In fact, this could force out of the market suppliers who specialise in cases such as this. The last thing we want is a lack of provision for people in these circumstances.

These prepayment meters have moved on from the ones that we used to have. The modern smart meters are far easier to top up remotely, and make it easier to check balances.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous.

My constituency office is being contacted by a great many people who have still not received their prepayment vouchers from the energy suppliers, but are receiving letters from the suppliers telling them that if they do not use the vouchers by January they will be cancelled, which would of course push those people further into debt. What are the Government doing to ensure that they receive the vouchers and do not lose the money to which they are entitled?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Other Members have made that important point, and I will come to it, but I had better make some progress, because you asked me to finish in about four minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I shall endeavour to do.

We believe that there is a role for prepayment meters. Ofgem rules already require energy suppliers to offer a prepayment service only when it is safe and reasonably practicable to do so, and that applies whether a meter is smart or traditional. There are clear obligations on energy suppliers regarding customers in payment difficulty, and a prescribed process for occasions on which a warrant is required. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East.

There are clear expectations for suppliers in respect of the steps to be taken before they instal a prepayment meter owing to debt, or switching a smart meter from credit to prepayment mode. Those steps include conversations to discuss debt repayment, budget management and energy efficiency measures, and referrals to debt advisers and charities. Before a prepayment meter is chosen as the debt repayment pathway, its safety must be assessed, as well as the customer’s ability to pay. Suppliers must give their customers seven days’ notice before installing a prepayment meter or switching a smart meter to prepayment mode. Ofgem recently published a regulatory expectations letter, in which it set out its expectation that suppliers will ensure that prepayment meters are safe and reasonably practicable in every case.

I would like to highlight some of the circumstances in which it is not deemed safe to have a prepayment meter, which include having specific disabilities or illnesses, or having children under five, as has been set out. Indeed, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) raised that point. It is absolutely right that we provide support for those who are most in need.

The hon. Member also raised the issue of social tariffs, which were introduced in 2008 as part of a voluntary agreement between the Government and energy suppliers. They were replaced by the current mandated warm home discount scheme in 2011. This has improved outcomes by providing consistent and transparent benefits, and by utilising data matching to improve targeting. Clearly, it is important that we continue to review our current provisions and see what else might be done to help people in those circumstances.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

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

Conservative Members will have gathered by now that the common theme of many of the new clauses tabled by the Opposition on the register of overseas entities is really closing loopholes. We may not, even will the best will in the world, be able to foresee at this stage exactly where any loopholes may arise, but we can at least act now to close the most obvious and predictable ones. In that spirit, new clause 52 seeks to address one of the most widely documented and understood means by which criminals attempt to conceal the true owners of property in places such as the UK.

As the Financial Action Task Force guidance on transparency and beneficial ownership explains:

“Criminals often use informal nominee arrangements whereby friends, family members or associates purport to be the beneficial owners of corporate vehicles. This can be particularly challenging given the informal and private nature of such arrangements. This issue can be addressed by placing obligations on the nominee to disclose to the company registry the identity of the person on behalf of whom they are acting and imposing sanctions for false declarations.”

Going back as far as the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 as well as in more recent legislation, the Government have made significant strides toward eliminating legal loopholes used to conceal economic crime—for instance by abolishing bearer shares and providing for a requirement for company directors to be natural persons, which the Minister assures us will be brought into effect shortly.

Although I commend the Government for having taken those steps, it is clear that we need to go further. Given how high the Government have set the threshold at which ownership of a company’s shares must be declared—at 25%—the need to tackle risks of concealing ownership by spreading shares among several different people becomes all the more urgent. Splitting ownership between family members would appear to be the easiest and most obvious way to do this. If the threshold for declaring ownership is set at 25% of a company’s shares or voting rights, it takes little imagination to come up with a solution: simply break up the shares so that on paper, if not in reality, five members of the same family appear to own no more than 20% of the company each. As a result, none of them have to disclose their connections with the company under our current laws.

Although it should be acknowledged that similar issues involving the use of nominee directors, for example, raise some complicated legal questions, the use of family members to conceal the beneficial ownership of a foreign company is surely an issue that can be easily dealt with. New clause 52 provides a simple solution that I hope the Government will accept in the constructive spirit in which it is proposed.

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

Although I welcome the spirit of the new clause and the hon. Member’s wish to close a loophole, I do not think there is one. Let me set out why. It is his position that persons might deliberately reduce their shareholding below the 25% threshold, or hold shares via multiple family members, in an effort to avoid scrutiny. The 25% threshold follows the UK’s people with significant control regime, which similarly requires beneficial ownership information for UK-registered companies.

When the PSC regime was in development, significant analysis, including consultation, considered the question of thresholds. The threshold of more than 25% reflects the level of control a person needs in voting rights, under UK company law, to be able to block special resolutions of a company. It was considered that 25% represented the optimum opportunity to understand who is in a position to exert significant influence and control over a company. Collecting information on legal ownership below that threshold would be much more akin to what would be done to have the effect of creating a register of shareholders, rather than beneficial ownership.

In any case, reducing shareholdings will not allow an individual legally to evade scrutiny if they continue to exert significant influence or control. The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 already addresses that; anyone who has a right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over an overseas entity is still required to be registered under condition 4 of schedule 2, which states that,

“X has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over Y”.

Condition 3 states that,

“X holds the right, directly or indirectly, to appoint or remove a majority of the board of directors of Y.”

There are other conditions within the definition, other than the 25%.

Information submitted about beneficial owners must be verified by a UK-supervised “relevant person”, such as a lawyer or accountant. Where shares are held through multiple members of the same family, relevant persons are likely to notice that when verifying an overseas entity’s application. Where a nominee holds shares for another person, the ECTE Act requires the other person to be recorded as the beneficial owner, not the nominee. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Aberavon set out. It is an offence to deliver false or misleading information to Companies House, and anyone who delivered, or caused to be delivered, such information would be at risk of prosecution—including, potentially, the lawyer or accountant.

From April 2023, UK anti-money laundering supervised relevant persons will be required to report material discrepancies to Companies House in the information contained on the register of overseas entities. That would include where a person has not been recorded as a registrable beneficial owner when a relevant person believes they should have been. The Government do not intend to lower the threshold at this time, but the Bill includes a power to amend the beneficial ownership threshold, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that these reassurances will persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for his response. I think the spirit of the new clauses is about prevention being better than cure. The Opposition feel that, if we look at the spectrum from deeply opaque business practices to fully transparent ones, when family members are involved we are almost by definition at the more opaque end of the spectrum. By definition, family members will be in a position to communicate with one another, things will not be on the record and the whole thing can be easily cooked up in the way that I outlined. For example, if five family members were given 20% each, they would come in under the 25% threshold.

Does the Minister agree that where family members are concerned things are more likely to be at the more opaque end of the spectrum and therefore the Bill should reflect that and have the lower threshold, as set out in the new clause?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I go back to what I said earlier; I think there are all kinds of ways in which somebody could try to subvert the regulations. That is the reality and that is why we are putting the onus not only on the people concerned with the entity but on the people who represent the entity. That is the lawyer, or the accountant, and they should ask all the questions that the hon. Member set out. They should notice a family connection and potentially the person behind those individuals.

However, as I said before, someone could potentially have 0% ownership of an entity and still exert significant control. That is the point. What we are saying is that even if they have 0%, the rules still catch them if they are the person who is exerting control in a way that influences directors or shareholders, or indeed if they can appoint or dismiss directors. All those things are covered under the current provisions.

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I have said, we are very much about prevention being better than cure and a smart as possible approach to risk management. However, I take the Minister’s comments on board and I have no further comments to make. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 53

Beneficial owners in overseas territories

‘(1) The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 51, after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Order in Council under subsection (2) above comes into effect on date no later than 30 June 2023.”’—(Stephen Kinnock.)

This new clause would amend the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to ensure that an Order in Council requiring open registers of beneficial ownership in the British Overseas Territories comes into force no later than 30 June 2023.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Nothing.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My right hon. Friend asks a very good question, while chuntering from a sedentary position. I trust that the Minister’s views have not changed with his recent promotion.

The fundamental principle behind new clause 53 is simply that there should be no double standards in the legal requirements for transparency of beneficial ownership across different parts of the UK, including in the overseas territories. To put it bluntly, we have simply witnessed too many scandals involving money being laundered through territories for whose administration the UK is ultimately responsible to accept the idea that we must simply leave them to their own devices.

I will not name names here, but I think—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I fear that it is a bit naive and complacent to think that this is going to be done by consensus. Five years have gone by since the 2018 Act was introduced and it is extraordinary that we may have to wait another 12 months, as the Minister says. Frankly, I remain sceptical that, without a stick as well as a carrot in this conversation, anything will ever happen. I would welcome any feedback that the Minister has on that point. I do not really have a specific question for him, but I am struggling to understand why we can possibly think it is acceptable that here we are, five years later, with a chasm in our ability to implement and go after the things that we want to go after. Does he really think it is justifiable to wait another 12 months, rather than just accepting the new clause?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As Ronald Reagan used to say about the Russians: trust, but verify. It is important that we trust our partners but also that we see what they are doing to put these measures into effect. I quoted a number of examples where that has been done. All these overseas territories are putting the measures in place. It is right to work on a basis of good faith. We have the stick the hon. Gentleman requires, if necessary. Beyond the end of 2023, we can then use the Order in Council procedure, as he suggests. I will ensure that we keep watch over the situation very carefully, as I have committed to do. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that it is our understanding that these measures will be in place. I urge him to withdraw the new clause on that basis.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Unfortunately, we remain unconvinced by the Minister’s answers on these points and we wish to push the new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

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

Given the extensive discussions we have had on issues involving money laundering risks, including risks in relation to certain designated high-risk jurisdictions overseas, there is a fundamental question that we are not sure we have got to the bottom of. That question, which is addressed in part by new clause 54, is why we should allow a company incorporated overseas in a jurisdiction that operates on the basis of lax money laundering controls to do business in the UK at all, much less to own property or land here.

As we have already discussed, the primary purpose of the Treasury’s list of designated high-risk countries is to mirror the list of jurisdictions identified by the Financial Action Task Force as posing serious threats of money laundering and terrorist financing on account of weaknesses in their laws, inadequate law enforcement or some combination of the two.

New clause 54 seeks to incorporate into the Bill what we on the Opposition Benches believe to be a matter of basic common sense: if a company was initially formed under laws designated by the Treasury, under international guidelines, as seriously deficient in their approach to money laundering risks, that company should not be allowed to own land or property in the UK. It is a straightforward solution to a very serious problem. It would go a long way towards driving tainted money out of the UK property market. I hope that, on this basis, the Government will support new clause 54.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

New clause 54 seeks to prevent the acquisition of land in the UK by companies registered in jurisdictions that are listed as high risk by the Financial Action Task Force or so designated by the Secretary of State under the UK’s money laundering regulations. The Financial Action Task Force lists jurisdictions identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing regimes that could pose an increased illicit finance risk.

The new clause is well intentioned and hon. Members are to be commended for their determination to rid the UK of dirty money. However, we do not believe that the new clause will have the intended effect. Jurisdictions that appear on the taskforce’s list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring, which include some key UK partners and Commonwealth members, have committed to swiftly resolve the identified deficiencies within agreed timeframes. The list is updated three times a year, and under the UK’s AML regulations, obliged businesses are already required to take enhanced due diligence measures for customers and transactions linked with individuals or companies established in high-risk jurisdictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

He may not have been, because he was not on the sanctions list at that point, and he was not on a sanctions list anywhere else in the world, as far as I am aware. He may have been—I do not actually know that information—but Usmanov would have been treated like anybody else under our system. It is interesting how quickly the Opposition sometimes will jettison some of the fundamentals of our society, one of which being that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We need the evidence before we can sanction somebody. We will adhere to that principle—certainly I will as long as I am in Parliament.

This new clause would prevent the registration of titles by legitimate companies in any of the jurisdictions on the lists. That would have a detrimental impact on those companies wishing to invest in the UK, as not every company incorporated in those jurisdictions is a bad actor. Although the new clause would prevent registration of title by an overseas entity, it is not possible to prevent a transaction from taking place and money changing hands. Unintended consequences would be likely.

Any overseas entity applying to the Land Registry to register title must now be registered with Companies House and have an ID number. That provides a safeguard against bad actors, more transparency about the overseas entity, and information for law enforcement should it later transpire that the overseas entity is involved in criminal activity. Therefore, I politely ask for this new clause to be withdrawn.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We are really just going back to the point about prevention being better than cure. Of course, what is really important here is that it is our sovereign Government, our Treasury, doing the designations. It is our Treasury and other expertise in our British Government saying, “That jurisdiction over there is high risk. It has lax control on money laundering. It has no sense, really, of what is going on. It’s a kind of wild west in its business environment.” That should raise many red flags and set many alarm bells ringing. The constructive spirit of this proposal is to say, “Look, we know where there are red flags. We should be acting on those red flags in a preventive way,” rather than, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said, an ex post facto way, because once the damage is done, it is a lot more costly and a lot more insidious, because we have not dealt with the issue at source and then we are left to clear up the mess and pick up the pieces. That is the spirit in which the proposal is made. I invite the Minister to express any reflections that he has on what is actually a kind of philosophical point about the Bill. Is prevention better than cure—yes or no?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, undoubtedly, but I think that putting a blanket restriction on bona fide companies and bona fide individuals buying from those jurisdictions is disproportionate and wrong. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman in terms of the spirit of the new clause and of his point about red flags. That is exactly the way the system works. Yes, certainly, the registrar should definitely look at the jurisdiction from which the person is purchasing a property, for example. That may well be the red flag that the hon. Gentleman refers to. To me, that is a more appropriate way of dealing with this matter than simply a blanket ban on purchase.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for those points. We remain unconvinced by the position and would like to push this new clause to a Division.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

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

New clause 55 also provides a simple solution to what appears to be a flaw in the Bill’s current drafting, which could be exploited by criminals seeking to exploit any legal loopholes left open to them. Under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, companies required to register their ownership of UK property are required to provide annual updates on any changes to their beneficial ownership. It is not hard to see how that could be used as a loophole to conceal the ownership of property by, for instance, an individual designated by UK sanctions. A company could, at least in theory, report to Companies House that its beneficial owner was the same as it had been the previous year, without disclosing the fact that another individual had been a beneficial owner at some point during the intervening 12 months.

New clause 55 is intended to probe the Government’s thinking in this area and, as with the previous new clause, to provide the Minister with an opportunity to set out in detail how the Government plan to ensure that the laws leave no foreseeable loopholes open for exploitation by criminals.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I might get into trouble with you, Sir Christopher, but on the previous new clause, countries on the high-risk jurisdiction list include Israel, Turkey and the Czech Republic. Is it honestly the Opposition’s intention to prevent individuals and companies from those jurisdictions from buying property in the UK? We should think again.

I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon for new clause 55. I wholeheartedly agree that keeping the information on the register up to date is critical. The annual update requirement is intended to provide certainty for third parties transacting with overseas entities. Property transactions often take many months to complete, and during that time a third party transacting with an overseas entity must have certainty that the entity remains compliant with the requirements of the register so that transactions are not disrupted. The key sanction for non-compliance with the register, which interferes with existing property rights, is to make it impossible for a buyer to register a title if purchasing from a non-compliant overseas entity. The onus is therefore on the buyer and their agents to ensure that they do not transact with a non-compliant entity.

In order to protect the buyer, likely to be an innocent third party, it follows that there must be absolute legal certainty about the compliance status of the overseas entity throughout the duration of the transaction. An annual update provides that certainty, giving enough time for transactions to be completed before the requirement for an update kicks in. If an update is not made on time, the overseas entity is regarded as non-compliant, and the restrictions on land transfers will bite.

The hon. Member talked about somebody switching ownership between the two reporting times. I cannot honestly see what the benefit to anybody of doing that would be, but he may wish to give me examples.

The ECTE Act includes a power to amend the update period by regulations. Should it become clear, once the register has bedded in, that the update period is too long or too short, that power can be exercised to change the update period. I therefore ask that the probing new clause be withdrawn.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for those clarifications. This was an opportunity to set out those assurances, which we are happy to accept. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 56

Limited partnerships: registration of persons of significant control

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the registration of persons of significant control in relation to limited partnerships.

(2) For the purposes of regulations under this section, ‘persons of significant control’ may include persons with a right to—

(a) 25% or more of the surplus assets on winding up,

(b) a voting share of 25% or more,

(c) appoint or remove the majority of managers,

(d) exercise significant influence or control over the business, or

(e) exercise significant influence or control over a firm which would be a person of significant control if it were an individual.

(3) No regulations to which this section applies may be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations (whether or not together with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. New clause 24, tabled by SNP Members, would add to the transparency of the companies register and enhance the ability of law enforcement to identify suspect registrations. It would do so by requiring the subscribers or initial shareholders of a company to provide information on the location of any bank account held either by the individual shareholders or in the name of the company itself.

The new clause reflects an acknowledgement of the realities that have been exposed by many of the recent leaks and investigative reporting by the media of the widespread criminal use of bank accounts registered in jurisdictions known for exercising minimal oversight over financial activity and for lax controls on money laundering offences. Given that the entire point of the Bill is to clamp down on the ability of criminals to exploit gaps in laws and regulatory approaches to economic crime across different countries, the Opposition sincerely hope that the Government welcome proposals that are intended to provide law enforcement with as much information as possible to facilitate the detection of economic crime. Requiring Companies House to record information on the location of relevant individuals’ bank accounts seems like an eminently reasonable measure that could make a valuable contribution to the fight against economic crime.

[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, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central for the new clause, which raises an interesting point. I have concerns about the privacy issues involved in putting this information in the public domain, and I wonder whether she has considered that. We are potentially talking about personal bank accounts rather than company bank accounts.

A similar proposal to require the disclosure of bank account information relating to companies was included in the 2019 corporate transparency and register reform consultation, as the hon. Member mentioned. Respondents did not on balance support the proposal and the Government subsequently agreed that the proposal did not offer sufficient benefits to justify the additional burden being imposed on companies. There is also concern that there would be practical difficulties with implementation, such as the inability to confirm information provided, or to identify where it is missing, which would reduce the effectiveness of the proposal.

There are some other measures we can use. The European Union’s fifth anti-money laundering directive required the UK to build a centralised automated mechanism, a bank account portal, designed to help law enforcement and AML supervisors to access information on the identity of holders and beneficial owners of bank accounts and safe deposit boxes. Following the UK’s exit from the EU and the agreement of the trade and co-operation agreement in January 2021, the Government reviewed the case for building the portal. At that point, law enforcement did not believe there was a strong rationale for an alternative, centralised mechanism in order to support its work and the Government concluded that we should not build a bank account portal. UK money laundering regulations have been amended to remove redundant obligations.

I would be grateful if the hon. Member withdrew her amendment, but I would like to explore the issue further, certainly as it relates to company bank accounts, so we will perhaps return to it at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for his remarks. We are talking about how to make it as easy as possible for those red flags to be clear. If we were to do exception reporting, there may, of course, be a clear explanation in certain circumstances for why there is not a single UK-based company director and perfectly legitimate reasons for that. We think that it would be better to do the exception reporting on that basis, so that we are casting the net and identifying red flag areas because of the nature of the company directors and where the risk would appear to be.

I take it from the Minister’s remarks that there is not a great deal of room for negotiation on that point. However, we are trying to put forward a sensible and pragmatic solution. Can the Minister say any more about how to look through the telescope in terms of exception reporting? We argue that exception reporting could be conducted on the basis of explaining why there is not a single UK-based company director while maintaining the blanket provision that there should always be such an individual in order to minimise risk.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is exactly how we expect the process to operate. If there are red flags of concern—an exception report, as the hon. Gentleman calls it—the registrar can ask further questions and may deny that company the right to establish itself in the UK. I think those checks and balances are in place, and of course, as hon. Members have said, it is very important that those opportunities are used by the registrar. I am very keen to ensure that we have the opportunity to scrutinise the use of those powers.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for those points. I see that we will agree to disagree on this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Registration requirements: UK-based assets held by overseas entity

‘(1) The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 2—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2, for “and” substitute “or”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2 insert—

(aa) is a beneficial owner of any UK-based assets held by overseas entity, and”.’—(Stephen Kinnock.)

The intention of this new clause is to broaden the scope of registration requirements for overseas entities, as set out in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, to include the beneficial owners of any UK-based assets owned by an overseas company, as well as the beneficial owners of the company itself.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stephen Kinnock]

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

The purpose of the new clause is to close what appears to be a loophole in the current requirements on the registration of overseas entities that own property in the UK. The case for the new clause is simple. Under the current rules, as set out primarily in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, a foreign company that owns property or land in the UK is required to declare the beneficial ownership of the company itself. It is, however, unclear whether it would also be required to disclose the ultimate beneficial owner of any property owned by that company.

In recent years, we have seen ample evidence of how easy it can be—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am trying to understand the new clause. How could someone be the beneficial owner of a company and someone else own the assets? If the beneficial owners own the company, how can a different beneficial owner own the assets?

[Stephen Kinnock]

According to our interpretation, schedule 2 of the 2022 Act is unclear about whether a company would be required to disclose the ultimate beneficial owner of any property owned by that company. Our worry is that there is a loophole in the law that talks about the beneficial owner but does not give us the tools to obtain disclosure of who is the ultimate beneficial owner of the property.

In recent years, we have seen ample evidence of how easy it can be for money launderers and the enablers of economic crime to exploit any grey area, perceived or actual, in the laws that apply to them. Therefore it is essential that the law is absolutely crystal clear on that point. It is about tightening up the law as it stands.

We already know that the beneficial ownership of property and other assets is often shrouded in layer on layer of corporate secrecy. In its official guidance and examples of best practice on beneficial ownership, the Financial Action Task Force draws a distinction between the ownership of a company on the one hand and the ultimate beneficial ownership of any assets held by that company on the other. The guidance makes it clear that they are not necessarily the same thing. One of the most salient differences is that although a company can be the legal owner of a property, the ultimate beneficial owner of that property will always be a natural person, or, in layman’s terms, a human being. It is not clear whether the current legal framework for the register of overseas entities is sufficiently clear on that point.

To make a significant difference in terms of transparency, the register must require all companies to disclose the ultimate beneficial owner of any UK property under their control. It must publish that information. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether the legislation currently provides an adequate degree of clarity. If he agrees that the requirements could be made clearer, I hope that we can trust that the necessary changes will be incorporated in the Bill, or set out in regulation.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause. I understand what he is seeking to do, and I support him in that endeavour. I believe that the intent behind the new clause is the concern that assets other than land can be used for illicit purposes, but I am not sure that the new clause, as drafted, serves to address that.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, overseas entities are required to register beneficial owners with Companies House. Those registered as the beneficial owners of the overseas entity are the same persons as the beneficial owners that the new clause seeks to make registerable. Any assets held by the overseas entity are ultimately owned by those already required to register with Companies House.

Say an overseas entity owns a case of whisky, so we know who is the beneficial owner of that case. Who then owns the bottles of whisky in the case? It is the same owner as the one who owns the case. There is no separate owner—they either own the case of whisky, or they do not. I honestly do not think that the new clause would achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants it to achieve. If we think about yachts and other property, if we know the beneficial owner of the company, we also know the owner of the assets inside it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. What rang alarm bells with us were the comments of the Financial Action Task Force, which drew the distinction between the ownership of a company and the ultimate beneficial ownership of any assets held by that company. The Minister has made his position clear, and, again, we just agree to disagree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Thursday 17th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.

The clause amends section 15 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to align it with amendments made to section 32 during the passage of that Act and with amendments introduced by this Bill. The clause substitutes section 15 and adds proposed new sections 15A and 15B.

Proposed new section 15 restates and slightly amends the general false statement offence in section 32 of the ECTE Act to reflect changes made by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. Existing section 15 restricts the false statement offence to being committed when a person knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement in response to a notice. Proposed new sections 15A and 15B amend that offence to change the threshold to be met, by splitting it into two separate offences. That aligns with section 32 of the ECTE Act and amendments to that section introduced by the Bill.

Clause 137 amends section 32 of the ECTE Act on the general false statement offence. The effect of the amendment is that both the basic offence and the aggravated offence are expanded so that a false statement offence can be committed by a legal entity, and, where this is the case, by every officer of the entity in default. That maintains consistency with other legislation amended by the Bill. The penalty for committing the aggravated offence on summary conviction in England and Wales is also amended in line with the Judicial Review and Courts Act.

Clause 157 amends the Reports on Payments to Governments Regulations 2014. Those regulations require certain large businesses in the extractive industries to report annually their payments to overseas Governments associated with the extraction activities. The regulations were brought in to support accountability and to reduce space for corruption.

The Government are conducting a post-implementation review of the regulations to evaluate their impacts and effectiveness. However, in advance of that, the Government propose that the false statements offences and penalties in the regulations be updated to provide consistency with other offences, as previously outlined.

Clause 157 does not alter the requirement for any prosecutions for non-compliance with the 2014 regulations to be mounted or approved by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions—or, in Northern Ireland, by the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions—to ensure that they are in the public interest.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. Compared with clause 135, clauses 136, 137 and 157 are more substantial. In drafting them, the Government appear to have accepted that the existing law in relation to false statement offences is too narrow to serve either as an effective deterrent or as a useful tool for law enforcement.

Clause 136 removes the requirement to prove that false information had been submitted knowingly and recklessly. That is a very high bar for prosecutors to clear, and the introduction of a broader set of criteria for these offences is therefore welcome. The changes will replace the existing false statement offence with a two-tier approach that will provide a range of options for dealing with overseas entities that either fail to provide information about beneficial ownership upon request or respond with false or misleading information.

The basic offence, which will not require evidence that a false statement had been made knowingly or recklessly, should provide a strong incentive for companies to be as rigorous as possible in ensuring that any information they provide is completely accurate. Of course, the financial penalties for such an offence will need to be set at a level sufficient to impose a significant cost on non-compliant companies. Will the Minister therefore comment on how he will ensure that penalties are set at a rate commensurate with achieving that objective?

Particularly welcome is the additional provision in clause 137 for an aggravated offence in cases where an intent to mislead can be proven, as is the extension of the changes to the reporting requirements in relation to payments to foreign Governments under clause 147. The threat of criminal convictions, with custodial sentences of up to two years, sends a strong message that fraudulent activities must not and cannot be tolerated.

Of course, in these clauses, as elsewhere in the Bill, the jury will be out on whether the changes will have any meaningful impact on economic crime until we can be sure that compliance with the law is robustly monitored and that non-compliance will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. The Committee will be grateful for any reassurances that the Minister can provide, especially on what preparations are being made to ensure that offences are identified and prosecuted as swiftly as possible, because he has repeatedly said that legislation without robust implementation is not worth the paper it is written on.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As for the level of fines, in England and Wales they can be unlimited—level 5 on the scale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Does he have any broader assurances around enforcement and implementation? It would be useful to get a sense of what institutional or organisational capability he envisages, and of whether that is in line with what the Bill is trying to achieve.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, as we have discussed on many occasions and as I am on the record as saying, legislation without implementation is worthless. We need to ensure that offences are discovered and then prosecuted. Of course, we must ensure that the registrar, and the law enforcement agencies they work with, have sufficient capacity and resources to do the job. The Bill does not cover that directly, but I am certainly keen to ensure that happens.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for those assurances. I have no further comments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 136 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138

Meaning of “service address”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clause 138 will improve the effectiveness of the register of overseas entities by defining “service address” so that it has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 2006. That will help those registering as overseas entities to ensure that they understand what a service address is, and that they must provide an address that meets the definition.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Clause 138 is another relatively minor change to the definition of a company’s service address, and it brings the definition used for the purposes of the overseas entities register into line with the language in the Companies Act. That language, the Committee will recall, defines a service address as a place where documents may be served to someone. We have already debated the potential problems of relying on such a definition in the context of amendments in which the Opposition sought to restrict and clarify what counts as an appropriate address for a company to register.

While we will not go back on all that and re-litigate those lengthy arguments, and while we will not oppose the clause, I put on the record that the Opposition do not believe that the Bill goes as far as it could and should have to prevent the fraudulent or unauthorised use of addresses. I am sure that we will come back to that on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 138 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139

Meaning of “registered overseas entity” in land registration legislation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The clause amends the Land Registration Act 2002, Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 and the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. It will improve the effectiveness of the register of overseas entities by punishing a registered overseas entity for failing to comply with the registrar’s new power—as inserted into the Companies Act by the Bill—to require information from the entity.

Currently, an overseas entity will lose its status as a registered overseas entity if it fails to provide an annual update to the registrar. The clause adds that an overseas entity will also lose its status as a registered overseas entity if it fails to respond to a notice from the registrar requesting information. Once it is no longer considered to be a registered overseas entity, the entity will be treated as non-compliant. A non-compliant entity will find it difficult to sell, lease or raise charges over its land and cannot therefore deal freely with it.

Upon submitting the requested information to the registrar, the overseas entity will once more be compliant. However, the compliance status is not retrospective. Any person dealing with the overseas entity in the non-compliance period will be unable to register any completed transaction with the land registries. I know that all Members will join me in wanting to ensure the robustness of the register and ensure that overseas entities comply with their duties, or face tough restrictions. The clause will help Companies House to do so.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The clause makes some relatively minor changes to the language on the requirement to provide information requested by the registrar. The effect is to extend the existing restrictions on the ability of an overseas entity to deal with property it owns, such as by selling it, in order to apply the restrictions to companies that fail to comply with the registrar’s requests for information. The change is sensible and pragmatic, and the Opposition support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 139 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 140

Power to apply Part 1 amendments to register of overseas entities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 19—Resolving inconsistencies in the register.

Government new clause 20—Administrative removal of material from register.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Thursday 17th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I want to make a few general points about registers of beneficial ownership and have a number of questions for the Minister, as a preamble to commenting on clause 135 specifically. Registers of beneficial ownership are not, of course, a new concept. We have had one for UK companies, namely the people of significant control register, since 2016. In that year, David Cameron made what would turn out to be the first of many promises to introduce a register of overseas owners of UK property, meaning that for the first time

“foreign companies that already hold or want to buy property in the UK will be forced to reveal who really owns them”.

Yet here we are, six and a half years and four Prime Ministers later, still discussing how to implement the register. After years of kicking the can down the road, it took the Russian invasion of Ukraine to jolt the Government into action. The first of this year’s economic crime Bills, now the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act, provided the legislative basis for the register of overseas entities, which at long last went live on 1 August.

As much as I welcome the fact that the register is now up and running, it remains very much a work in progress. The legislation passed earlier this year was rushed through on an expedited timetable, with just two weeks of debate. The need to amend what was clearly a hastily drafted law is reflected in the changes set out in clauses 135 to 140. Before addressing the substance of the clauses, it is worth taking stock of what progress has been made in setting up the register and, more importantly, what more needs to be done. According to Government figures, some 32,000 overseas companies are required to register with Companies House by 31 January. Between them, those companies own almost 100,000 properties in the UK. It was the Minister himself, in his previous incarnation as a Back Bencher, who argued forcefully back in March for the transition period during which those 32,000 companies would be required to register to be limited to six months.

Now that we have reached the halfway point in the process, I asked the Minister in written questions how many companies have now registered. Members might have reasonably expected the number to be somewhere in the region of 16,000, or half of the 32,000 total required. Imagine my surprise and disappointment when the Minister replied to my written question saying that, in fact, only 3,214 entities had registered as of last week; in other words, just 10% of those required. If progress were to continue at such a sluggish rate, the register would not be completed until 2025. I therefore ask the Minister whether he has a magic wand, and whether he intends to use it to ensure that the remaining 90% of companies comply with the registration requirement in the next three months.

I will also ask the Minister what he thinks is the reason for the astonishingly low number of registrations to date. But the answer to that question is in fact clear: the failure of the Government to enact the new law until the situation became urgent due to the war in Ukraine meant that the regulations and statutory guidance were sloppily drafted without consultation, leaving the entire framework riddled with holes and shrouded in uncertainty.

I hope the Minister will take the opportunity we have today to clarify some of the issues. Companies House has written to entities to inform them that they need to register, but the data used to contact them came from the Land Registry. That data is, in many cases, out of date. What assessment have the Government made of the accuracy of the contact information provided by the Land Registry? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that everyone who is expected to register is at least made aware of the requirement in time for them to apply ahead of the 31 January deadline?

Will the Minister also confirm what additional resources, if any, have been made available to Companies House to support the introduction of the register? How many staff are now working to support its implementation? What preparations are the Government making to deal with companies that fail to comply before the deadline? Specifically, how will Companies House identify such companies and work quickly to impose the financial and criminal penalties that the Government have provided for? Will the Minister explain how the Government plan to deal with companies whose beneficial ownership cannot be verified? His Department’s guidance says that entities that claim to have no beneficial owner should provide information without a “managing officer”, but that term is not defined in the guidance. Can the Minister shed some light on this?

Clause 135 makes what appear to be minor technical changes to the wording of documentation to be held as part of the register. To the extent that those changes help ensure that the information on the register is giving as complete and as accurate a picture of companies beneficial ownership as possible, the changes are welcomed by the Opposition.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I very much value the hon. Gentleman’s comments and reflections. There is no doubt at all that the measures are a work in progress; that is one of the reasons behind the Bill, of course. I enjoyed answering his questions in writing and we will no doubt correspond further on such matters. He is right to scrutinise the activities of Companies House, which I have sought to do as well.

Let me give a few facts that may help the hon. Gentleman. As of today, there are 3,893 registrations; that is a more up-to-date figure than the one I gave him on 11 November, which was about 3,500. That equates to about 400 in the past six or seven days, which illustrates that the number of registrations is increasing significantly. We always thought that there would be a last-minute rush to file because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are significant penalties for not doing so: up to £2,500 per day and a prison sentence of up to five years. That is the risk that those who do not comply are taking, which is pretty significant, so we always thought that there would be a last-minute rush.

To answer one or two of his other questions, eight people are working full time on the register of overseas entities and 20 are trained to handle registrations. They are deployed relevant to workload. There is no current backlog at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in this regard. A managing officer is defined in the Act as being akin to a director, secretary or manager.

[Stephen Kinnock]

On that point about staffing, I think the Minister’s point is that there will be a last-minute rush. Is he confident that the current staffing levels are sufficient to cope with that last-minute rush—that surge?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not intimately involved in the management of the register. It would be interesting to see and that is a fair point. I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I have asked Companies House to provide us with that information, which it has done, about the activities it is undertaking to pursue people who have not yet completed their registration. We will continue to do that. In the meantime, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the points he has raised and, indeed, on his further point about making sure that we have enough staff to deal with the last-minute rush that we anticipate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that. Does he have any thoughts on the interface between the Land Registry and the register of beneficial owners? It appears that a lot of the information on the Land Registry is seriously outdated. What steps are being taken to address that challenge, and does he see a risk in the communication between them?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not see there being a risk of a lack of communication; they seem to be working together adequately. There is no doubt that some information is out of date. Many overseas entities have not kept their address details up to date, and many letters have been returned as undeliverable. Companies House is undertaking open-source research to try to identify up-to-date addresses, and we are working with stakeholders to raise awareness of the requirements and the deadline.

Companies House is used to dealing with large number of registrations, and we believe it can handle much larger volumes than it is receiving. The hon. Gentleman has asked some detailed questions and made some salient points that I want to follow up with Companies House in order to make sure that we can maintain the register properly, and I suggest we correspond on that basis.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 135 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clause 107 requires a limited partnership to confirm on application for registration that none of its general partners are disqualified under directors disqualification legislation. It also introduces a duty on all general partners of a limited partnership to take any steps necessary to remove a disqualified general partner on pain of criminal sanction for failure to take those steps.

General partners are responsible for the management of limited partnerships, including the movement of funds. There is currently nothing in place to remove a general partner from a limited partnership once they become disqualified. The clause is needed to ensure that disqualified individuals are prevented from being general partners of a new limited partnership set up after the Bill and to ensure that existing general partners of extant firms who become disqualified, or already are when the Bill comes into force, cease to be a general partner.

New clause 49 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations under section 87 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which amended the Companies Act 2006 to require all company directors to be natural persons, with the power to make exceptions in regulation. I have every sympathy with the intention of the amendment, which challenges the Government to act on something they have long promised. I am happy to commit to the Committee that such regulations will be made soon.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Is that like shortly?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Very similar. It is sooner than shortly. The ban on the appointment of corporate directors will not and should not be absolute. That is why the Companies Act provides for a delegated power to create exemptions by regulations. Those regulations will address the limited circumstances under which a company will be permitted to have a corporate director. It is important that those regulations are in force before we ban the appointment of any corporate directors and are aligned with the new reforms proposed in the Bill.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. The Bill seeks to ensure that companies and other entities benefiting from incorporated status directly contribute to maintaining the integrity of the company register. We will do that by including investigation and enforcement costs in Companies House fees. We will debate those issues shortly, but first, I hope that Members will agree that it is right that the costs incurred through pursuing enforcement activity in Northern Ireland should also be included in the Secretary of State’s decision making when setting Companies House fees, which is the effect of these amendments.

Amendment 14 agreed to.

Amendments made: 15, in clause 89, page 68, line 36, at end insert—

“(ba) any function of a Northern Ireland department under or in connection with the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I. 19)), so far as relating to bodies corporate or other firms;”.

The amount of fees set under the Companies Act 2006 is determined in accordance with regulations. This amendment allows the regulations to reflect costs or likely costs of a Northern Ireland department under the insolvency legislation.

Amendment 16, in clause 89, page 68, line 40, at end insert—

“(d) any function carried out by the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland on behalf of a Northern Ireland department in connection with the detection, investigation or prosecution of offences, or the recovery of the proceeds of crime, so far as relating to bodies corporate or other firms.”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

The amount of fees set under the Companies Act 2006 is determined in accordance with regulations. This amendment allows the regulations to reflect costs or likely costs of the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland in connection with enforcement.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 89, page 68, line 40, at end insert—

“(3B) Prior to making any changes to the level of fees payable to the registrar, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult with the registrar on the proposed changes; and

(b) set out in writing what the basis is for the proposed changes, with reference to subsection (2) above.”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

No. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 17, in clause 89, page 69, line 5, at end insert—

“(b) the reference in subsection (3A)(d) to functions carried out by the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland on behalf of a Northern Ireland department, so long as the functions referred to are functions of a Northern Ireland department that are of a similar nature.”—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

The amendment allows the reference to functions carried out by the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland on behalf of a Northern Ireland department to be amended in the event that, in future, the functions are exercised otherwise than by the Insolvency Service in Northern Ireland.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I have just set out to the Committee, clause 89, as amended, will enable Companies House fees to be used to fund enforcement and prosecution action against companies and other entities. As we increase the powers of the registrar and expand the role that Companies House and the Insolvency Service play in tackling economic crime, we need to make sure that they are appropriately resourced to carry out that activity. The clause is therefore vital in ensuring that Companies House can do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90

Disclosure of information

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I shall respond briefly to the queries raised. All the information must be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. The way the Bill operates is consistent with similar legislation that deals with data sharing.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston raised the issue of the protection of information. The provision applies in a situation of risk of harm or serious risk of violence or intimidation—for example, in respect of domestic abuse victims.

Data sharing was raised by both shadow Ministers—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberavon. It is permitted to assist public authorities when they exercise public functions, such as confirming the accuracy of data or providing intelligence to law enforcement agencies.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Does the Minister have any comments on the points about local authorities?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I just made those comments.

[Stephen Kinnock]

You mentioned intelligence agencies—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I did not.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am sorry, Minister; I may have misunderstood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Data sharing is permitted to assist public authorities when they exercise their public functions. For example, they could ask the registrar to confirm the accuracy of data that is held, which may lead to information being shared for intelligence purposes with enforcement agencies.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Does “public authorities” include all local authorities?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Local authorities are a subset of public authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Disclosure of information: consequential amendments

Amendment made: 49, in schedule 3, page 162, line 5, leave out paragraphs 5 to 7.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment is consequential on NC17 and NC18.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 91 to 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94

General false statement Offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clause 94 amends the general false statement offence in section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006 to create two separate offences: a basic offence and an aggravated offence. The Bill also amends section 32 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to make a mirror-image, two-tier approach. The existing false statement offence under the Companies Act requires a document or a false, misleading or deceptive statement to have been delivered or caused to be delivered knowingly or recklessly to the registrar. Clause 94 substitutes that existing offence for two new offences with commensurate penalties.

The basic offence is committed when the false statement is made without reasonable excuse. The aggravated offence is committed when the false statement is knowingly made. It is worth noting that that refines the amendments made by the Government during the passage of the 2022 Act in response to parliamentary scrutiny. When either offence is committed by a firm, every officer of the firm that is in default also commits the offence. The structure of the new sections maintains consistency with amendments to the 2022 Act, the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 and the Reports on Payments to Governments Regulations 2014, as amended by the Bill.

On clause 95, we have already discussed many of the new powers that we are providing to the registrar and how they are intended to work. In exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to allow material that would otherwise be treated as false, misleading or deceptive to be deliberately provided to the registrar to protect our nation’s interests or to assist in the prevention or detection of serious crime. The clause ensures that when such action is taken, the Secretary of State can issue a certificate that ensures that the person to whom it is issued is not liable for the commission of acts that might otherwise amount to a false filing offence.

Clearly, the work of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies must be able to be carried out without fear of prosecution when they are acting in our interests. The certificate that may be issued provides an exemption for those purposes. The Secretary of State must be satisfied about the reason why a certificate has been sought and may issue one only if to do so is in the interest of national security or for the prevention or detection of serious crime. The certificate can be revoked at any time.

To further limit the circumstances in which a certificate can be issued, serious crime is defined in the clause, providing further assurance about the need for such a certificate. The definition of serious crime aligns with that used in section 18 of the 2022 Act, which allows the Secretary of State to exempt a person from the requirements of the register of overseas entities for the same reasons. The Government listened to the concerns expressed about such exceptions and exemptions during the expedited passage of the 2022 Act; the clause is therefore carefully constructed so as to be as narrow as possible.

[Stephen Kinnock]

One of the key problems the Bill seeks to address is the difficulty that arises when enforcing laws for which the burden of proof is exceptionally high. In that regard, the Opposition welcome the changes set out in clause 94. The current requirement to prove that somebody who has delivered false or misleading information or documents to Companies House did so knowingly and recklessly seems to set the bar so high as to act, in effect, as a hindrance to successful prosecution. It is a sensible change to replace the current requirement with language that enables a defence on grounds of a reasonable excuse, especially in the context of the related provision in the clause to prosecute those who can be shown deliberately to have provided false information for an aggravated offence that is subject to imprisonment for up to two years.

Clause 95, however, raises some questions that I hope the Minister will clarify. It will amend the Companies Act to allow the Secretary of State to issue any individual with a certificate that, it would seem, could provide blanket immunity from prosecution for any offence related to the delivery to the registrar or the making of a statement that is misleading, false or deceptive. This power is potentially very broad and, beyond a couple of lines stating that a certificate could be issued for reasons of national security or to assist in the prevention or detection of serious crime, there is little clarity as to how it might be used. I am sure the Committee would be grateful if the Minister could provide any further detail on how frequently and in what kinds of circumstances the power might be used. Perhaps the Minister could also set out in a bit more detail what safeguards, if any, might be put into place to ensure that the power is used only in cases in which there is a compelling need to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister knows that that is not necessarily to fight economic crime, but to fight other crimes. I was talking about the economic crime levy and those are the figures that I have.

It is irritating but understandable that the enforcement agencies prioritise other crimes in their day-to-day work; they do not prioritise economic crime. Despite the lack of funding, a lot of money is brought in by the enforcement agencies. Between 2018 and 2021, £3.9 billion was brought in in fines, confiscation and forfeiture. If all of that had been reinvested, all of the agencies would have had an extra £748 million to fight economic crime over that period. That would have had a fantastic impact on our ability to fight, detect and prevent economic crime.

It has been said in previous debates that money from fines cannot be hypothecated in that way, but I draw the Minister’s attention to three precedents that negate that claim. In June 2022, the Information Commissioner announced a new arrangement allowing the office to keep some of the proceeds of its civil penalties to fund its work with the big tech companies. In 2019, Ofwat kept the proceeds of penalties it had raised on Southern Water to pay out to and reimburse customers. The Gambling Commission can also require payments rather than penalties to compensate victims or make payments to charities. Those are three precedents on which the Minister could build the argument that it would be perfectly appropriate for the proceeds of fines to be kept in order to resource the fight against economic crime.

I also draw the Minister’s attention to a report on fraud published by the House of Lords last week, which states:

“To support the forthcoming fraud strategy”,

which is only a part of addressing economic crime,

“with adequate resources, the Government must commit to a long-term funding strategy with an increased offer for law enforcement agencies”—

and this is the important bit—

“focussed primarily on recycling revenue collected by law enforcement agencies back into law enforcement activity.”

The House of Lords has, therefore, come to the same conclusion as we have in tabling this amendment.

The UK’s asset recovery incentivisation scheme ensures that some assets are recycled. Most of them go to the Treasury. Of the £354 million recovered in 2021-22 from confiscation orders, forfeiture orders and civil recovery orders, only 40% went back into fighting crime. If we compare ourselves with the Americans, we will see that all of their forfeiture proceeds go back into enforcement.

Under our proposal, money would be ring-fenced and it would be a cross-Government fund to finance enforcement against fraud and dirty money. The Minister knows that if the UK is to tackle economic crime effectively, far greater ambition is needed on the scale of public investment, and establishing an economic crime fund is the radical response that we need.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I would like to add some comments to the eloquent remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking.

In clause 96, the Government provide a framework for the registrar, within parameters to be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations, to impose direct financial penalties for many offences without the need for lengthy and often costly court proceedings. That is surely a welcome development, at least in so far as it should enable the registrar to take swifter action to deal with any offences involving false representations made to Companies House.

Of course, we will need to look closely at the details of how that will work in practice. In that respect, it is right that the Bill provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the relevant regulations via the affirmative resolution procedure. If the Minister could give a rough indication of when we can expect those regulations to be published, I am sure that the Committee would be grateful.

One thing that clause 96 makes clear is that any civil penalties imposed by the registrar will not exceed £10,000. I would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister about how that figure was arrived at, and whether he is confident that the power to impose a fine at that level will act as a deterrent to would-be offenders. Given the profit margins involved in some of the most serious crimes, we must ensure that the threat of civil penalties is both real and sufficient in terms of its potential to take a meaningful chunk out of criminals’ assets. I am not entirely convinced that the threat of a £10,000 fine will be taken all that seriously by some of the intended targets, but if the Minister is aware of any convincing evidence to the contrary, I would be glad to hear it.

Even if we assume that the Government make rapid progress with the regulations enabling the registrar to impose civil penalties, we must then address—not for the first time in Committee—what happens to any funds raised from civil penalties. In amendments 84 and 80 and new clause 29, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has once again provided the Committee with an eminently reasonable and sensible answer to that question. Taken together, these amendments would require any fines paid to the registrar to be specifically designated and ring-fenced for the purposes of tackling economic crime.

The asset recovery incentivisation scheme, introduced by the previous Labour Government, provides a template of sorts, but given the scale of the threat that we now face from economic crime, we need to go further. It is surely a no-brainer that any fees paid to the registrar, together with penalties for those who break the rules, should be reinvested in broader cross-Government efforts to tackle economic crime. That would provide a stronger incentive for tougher enforcement and a more sustainable long-term funding model for Companies House and other enforcement bodies at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Opposition Front Benchers therefore fully support these amendments. We hope that Members on the Government Benches will do the same.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very sympathetic to the points raised by contributors to this debate, and I am fully signed up to making sure that our law enforcement agencies have a long-term funding solution. As the right hon. Member for Barking knows, I am very sympathetic to the need to properly resource enforcement agencies, and, indeed, to the need for clarity on what funding is in place, right across the piece. We could have various different debates about what level that should be and on whether it should be £30 million a year. It is an awful lot more than that, but I accept that there should be more clarity. Wherever we can, we should seek to raise the moneys that the enforcement agencies need to do their job properly.

We are developing a new funding model for Companies House, which demonstrates our commitment to tackling economic crime. The combination of last year’s spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the new economic crime levy will provide funding of £400 million over the spending review period. That applies to the AML regulated sector and will fund new or uplifted activity to tackle money laundering, starting from 2023-24. There will be a wide-ranging review three years later to provide transparency on how the levy is performing against its original purpose, including how the money is being spent.

In addition, as the right hon. Member for Barking set out, a proportion of assets recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are already reinvested in economic crime capability under the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. The figures that she quotes are interesting, because according to my note here, the receipts paid should be split 50:50 between the Home Office and the Treasury and operational partners, which should be the enforcement agencies. It should be an equal split. I do not know about the numbers that she gives regarding the situation in the US, but I am happy to look at that in further detail. I am very keen to make sure that resources are made available.

There is probably a difference here in relation to fines. The right hon. Lady acknowledges that POCA offences have been subject to the oversight of our courts. In terms of fines and civil penalties, however, there are strict guidelines on how that money can be spent. It is interesting to look at the examples she quotes, but I think that two of them concern reimbursement of victims rather than further resourcing of the relevant agencies. I also slightly worry about the unintended consequences of allowing the regulator to simply issue fines and keep them. Many of those fines may be issued not because of transgressions related to economic crime; they may be related to other offences and other things.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon, raised the issue of whether the level of £10,000 was appropriate. It is quite a lot of money, of course. The vast majority of businesses registered with Companies House are smaller companies. For a smaller company, £10,000 is an awful lot of money. It is, of course, an option. It is not that the registrar cannot refer this to law enforcement agencies. She can determine whether to impose a civil penalty or refer the matter to a law enforcement agency if it is serious enough. We felt that £10,000 was a reasonable compromise. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Member for Barking will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think that is a very sensible suggestion and I am happy to take that away. I would like to see a number of things in that report that are currently not there. If we look at the most recent report, we see a number of references to this particular legislation. It welcomes this legislation, and I think it is important that the body reports publicly and to Parliament, as would be the case with the measures that the right hon. Lady mentions.

Similarly, there may be reason to review the appropriate financial penalty amount, and interest or late payment amount, to deter misconduct against the register as effectively as possible. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will provide the appropriate amount of parliamentary scrutiny of any proposed further changes.

Clause 97 will strengthen the link between civil sanctions and director disqualification by amending section 3 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, which states that the court may make

“a disqualification order against a person where it appears to it that he has been persistently in default in relation to provisions of the companies legislation”,

and that

“the fact that a person has been persistently in default…may…be conclusively proved by showing that”,

in the previous five years,

“he has been adjudged guilty…of three or more defaults”.

Under proposed new section 1132A of the Companies Act 2006, the registrar will be able to impose a financial penalty on a person, if she is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has engaged in conduct amounting to an offence.

Section 3 of the CDDA will be amended so that the imposition of a financial penalty can count as a default. That will provide a greater deterrent to those who seek to circumvent legislative requirements. Not only will individuals face the risk of a financial penalty but the risk of being disqualified will become more likely when a financial penalty has been imposed. Clause 98 mirrors the provisions in clause 97 so that they apply in Northern Ireland, amending the current provision in article 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We are disappointed that clause 96 will go forward unamended, because we feel that there are real risks in not directly linking the moneys raised with reinvestment specifically into economic crime. It is important to put that disappointment on the record.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Of course, there is a link in the average scheme. I think £1.3 billion has been raised from asset recovery for law enforcement agencies since 2007, so there is a link. The point that we disagree on is fines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. The amendments were trying to require any fines paid to the registrar to be specifically designated and ringfenced for the purposes of tackling economic crime. It is the lack of a specific designation and ringfencing that is disappointing, but we are where we are, and we move forward.

I will comment briefly on the final two clauses in the group. They are largely supplementary to the provisions that we have already discussed, but are nevertheless important. I particularly welcome the clarification in clause 97 that individuals subject to civil penalties under the preceding clauses will be treated in a similar way to those with a criminal conviction for the purposes of determining whether they meet the criteria for disqualification from serving as company directors. Making it clear that the same standards of conduct apply to those with a record of civil or criminal penalties should buttress the new system for civil enforcement fines, and will hopefully increase compliance.

The provisions of clause 97 that apply within Britain would be extended to Northern Ireland under clause 98. As I have said before, ensuring that a common set of rules and regulations is applied across the UK as a whole can only be a good thing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 97 and 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99

Meaning of “limited partnership”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This is a very simple measure. The Government are seeking to tackle the misuse of limited partnerships while modernising the law governing them. The clause clarifies the meaning of the term “limited partnership”. The revised wording removes ambiguity and sets out that it is possible to be a limited partnership only by virtue of being registered as a limited partnership under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. Furthermore, the Companies Act 2006 provision relating to the index of company names is amended to refer to limited partnerships registered under the Limited Partnerships Act. That allows the registrar to remove firms from the index of company names if they are dissolved, cease to be registered under the Limited Partnerships Act, or both.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clause 68 amends section 1025 of the Companies Act 2006 to require that outstanding fines or financial penalties must have been paid for a company that has been previously struck off to be restored to the register. I thank the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberavon for new clauses 45 and 46.

First, new clause 45 seeks to ensure that before striking off a company, the registrar must check whether the named directors have had their identities verified or do not need to do so because are they are exempt. Secondly, there are two routes by which a dissolved company can be restored to the register: one is an administrative process involving application to the registrar; the other involves applying to the court to order restoration. New clause 46 would expand the categories of persons who can use the administrative route by allowing former creditors and former liquidators to apply to the registrar for a dissolved company to be restored to the register. At present, only former directors or members of the company can apply to the registrar. Creditors of the company at the time of its striking off or dissolution and former liquidators currently have access to the court application route under section 1029 of the Companies Act 2006.

While I appreciate that in comparison to the administrative route, the court route is more cumbersome and potentially costly, it exists for a reason. Where a creditor seeks restoration in an effort to prove a debt outstanding from a company, the court is best placed to determine the validity of the case. Opening the administrative restoration route to creditors would place the registrar in the position of having to judge the legitimacy of a creditor’s interest in a company. That is not and should not be the role of a registrar.

However, liquidators are a matter of public record and in many cases might be the official receiver. I appreciate that there may be instances where their interests in restoring a company might be in the wider interest of others, including potential creditors, and that there may be a case for giving them access to the less cumbersome administrative process. On the basis of our undertaking to consider the matter further, I shall be grateful if hon. Members do not press the new clause.

Although driven by good intentions, we believe that new clause 45 is unnecessary. As the Committee has heard, ID verification requirements will apply to all new and existing registered company directors, as well as to people with significant control and those delivering documents to the registrar. That means that directors and beneficial owners already on the register prior to the reforms coming into force will be covered by the ID verification requirements, although they will have a transition period within which to become compliant.

Directors of companies applying for strike-off under section 1003 of the Companies Act 2006 will therefore not evade verifying their identity before their company is struck off without exposing themselves to criminal liability. Crucially, anyone delivering an application to strike off a company to the registrar will also have to verify their identity. I hope that that explanation is appropriate, and provides such reassurance that hon. Members will consider not pressing the new clauses.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell.

Clause 68 makes welcome changes to the Companies Act and should make it easier to enforce penalties imposed in response to criminal breaches under it. The circumstances under which an application can be made for a company struck off the register to be restored to it are set out in section 1025 of the Companies Act. Clause 68 amends section 1025 to make it clear that, as a prerequisite for any such application, any outstanding fines imposed on the applicant and relevant company directors in relation to a criminal offence under the Companies Act must be paid in full. That is a positive step toward increasing levels of compliance with companies legislation in the UK.

The Minister may wish to clarify one point in relation to company directors convicted of criminal offences. In previous sittings, the Committee discussed the grounds on which someone can be disqualified from serving as a company director under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 and subsequent amendments. They include the disqualification of individuals guilty of persistent breaches of companies legislation. That appears to leave the door open for someone to serve as a director, even if they have committed a criminal breach of the legislation, provided they have not done so on multiple separate occasions.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government considered extending the criteria so that anyone with even a single criminal conviction related to companies legislation would be prohibited from serving as a director again? Does he believe that it might send a stronger message were the Government to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to these kinds of crimes? I hope that he will come back on that point. It has some relation to new clauses 45 and 46, and I look forward to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston on them.

Clause 69 establishes—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The clause introduces identity verification requirements for individuals delivering documents to the registrar. It also requires that when an individual acts on behalf of another, they must confirm that they have the authority to do so. That will enable the registrar to reject documents unless they are accompanied by a true statement that the identity of the individual filing the document is verified and that the person filing the document is authorised to file.

An individual who delivers a document to the registrar on their own behalf must have their identity verified, and the document must be accompanied by a statement confirming their verified status. If an individual is exempt from identity verification requirements under the clause, they must provide a statement to that effect when delivering a document. Documents delivered on behalf of another person must be accompanied by a statement that the filer is authorised to do so. A document delivered by an employee of an authorised corporate service provider must additionally confirm that they are acting in the course of their employment.

Ensuring that individuals are identity verified before they can deliver documents to the registrar and that they are permitted to do so provides greater accountability because the documents will be traceable back to a verified identity.

Clause 70 creates a prohibition on delivery of documents to the registrar by disqualified persons. Clause 71 enables the registrar to reject documents that have been delivered by people who are not within the categories permitted to file documents under clauses 69 and 70.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Clause 69 establishes a requirement for anyone delivering documents to the registrar to have their identity verified, subject to certain exemptions, which may be set out in secondary legislation. However, it is not clear in what circumstances the Government might consider an exemption appropriate. The requirement for any exemption to be set out in secondary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure is welcome, because it enables the relevant changes to be scrutinised by Parliament. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide an indication of what sort of exemptions might be expected.

Clauses 70 and 71 relate to the delivery of documents to the registrar. Clause 70 stipulates that disqualified individuals may not deliver documents on either their own or someone else’s behalf. As set out in the clauses, individuals delivering documents to the registrar will be required to make a series of statements confirming that they are not subject to any disqualification under companies legislation.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman asked me for examples of exemptions. We expect exemptions to be used rarely, but examples might include Government Departments, local authorities and international organisations where the identity and accountability of the organisation delivering the information carries little risk.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Assessing the meaning of “carrying little risk” is a subjective thought process, but he is right that not everything can be micromanaged in this process. We will probably never get absolute clarity on these issues, but it will be important that Parliament scrutinises the way in which exemptions are implemented so that we get to know what “little risk” means through their implementation. It will also be important for Ministers to keep a close eye on the risk management processes that need to be implemented. As the Minister rightly said, legislation without good implementation is not worth the paper it is written on.

In previous debates, this Committee has discussed issues involving the verification of information provided to Companies House and the enforcement of criminal penalties for those who fail to comply with requirements to provide truthful information. These clauses raise similar questions. For instance, could the Minister explain what actions the registrar will be able to take to verify that, if somebody delivering documents states that they are not acting on behalf of a disqualified individual, that is a true and accurate statement?

The clauses also relate to issues discussed by the Committee on authorised corporate service providers. We all want this Bill to make it much more difficult for the people who own or control companies to hide their identities behind layers of secrecy, which often take the form of corporate service providers or other individuals acting on behalf of those in control. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide more detail about how the Government plan to protect the system against abuse, particularly by third parties acting on behalf of criminal clients. Could he tell us, for instance, whether the Government have considered introducing a more proactive licensing system for corporate service providers—as is used by some other jurisdictions, including Jersey—and what assessment the Government have made of whether the Bill provides adequate safeguards against the submission of false statements to the registrar?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think the hon. Gentleman asked me to address two points. First, he asked how we will ensure that the documents filed are accurate. That goes back to the risk-based approach that the registrar should take on potential red flags and other such matters. Obviously, that role fits into the registrar’s wider objectives of ensuring that the information is accurate and minimising unlawful activity. It is a red-flag approach in terms of systemised and human intervention.

The hon. Gentleman’s second, wider point was on the penalties for false filing, which are up to two years in jail. I think most people will consider that to be a decent deterrent against abuse of the system.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Does he have a view on the question of a more proactive licensing system for corporate service providers, along the lines of what is done in Jersey? Have the Government made any assessment of whether the Bill provides adequate safeguards against the submission of false statements to the registrar, particularly by corporate service providers?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I fully recognise the concerns expressed across the Committee about our oversight of corporate service providers. As I say, we should not mix up the many bone fide companies and household name accountants and lawyers, but clearly there are concerns, for example about some company formation agents. We need to ensure that the system that supervises money laundering is much more effective—we know there are deficiencies. The Treasury is looking at that right now. It will report and say exactly what it will do to beef up the system and make sure it is more fit for purpose. I am taking a keen interest in that. I am just as keen as the hon. Gentleman and other Members that the system properly identifies people with shortcomings and identifies wrongdoing, and that we build a much better system of money laundering supervision.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned licensing. Let us see what the Treasury review says and then we can make judgment. In terms of oversight of the money laundering supervision system, I am as concerned as he is and as keen to make sure that that system is fit for purpose.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Will he assure us that he will encourage his colleagues at the Treasury to consider the option of a licensing system within the terms of reference of the review?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am keen to make sure that the system works, whether by licensing or by some other means. There are lots of different options for what might be described as a system that is fit for purpose. Of course, in common with all Members of this House, we are keen to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, but nevertheless we want a system that works and that we have faith in, so, in my view, all options should be on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I hope that the clauses are pretty uncontroversial, but let us see. Companies House systems are already enabled to receive digital account submissions. The clauses will help Companies House to become a fully digital organisation by 2025.

Clause 72 transfers the power to require delivery by electronic means from the Secretary of State to the registrar. Filing information digitally is easier, quicker and more secure for filers. The information can be more easily checked for accuracy and compliance, and is less likely to be rejected for basic errors or omissions. That increases transparency. Suspicious activity can be better identified, contributing to our efforts to detect and prevent economic crime.

Clause 73 will require companies to deliver to the registrar a copy of a court order confirming their share capital reduction, rather than the original document itself. Clause 74 does the same in respect of a declaration of solvency. Clause 75 gives the registrar an administrative power to specify, in registrar’s rules, where documents must be delivered together.

Requiring companies to file component parts together will make it easier for Companies House to check that companies are meeting their filing obligations. It will also reduce unnecessary errors. Where filings are made that do not meet the requirements, they can be rejected, helping to improve the integrity of information on the register.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The main purpose of clause 72 is to make it easier for future changes to registrar’s rules to be made by the registrar directly, rather than through the Secretary of State. The Government’s intention is to facilitate the electronic delivery of documents. Using quicker, more efficient electronic systems for delivery should play an important role in wider plans for the transformation of Companies House and the service it provides.

With that in mind, could the Minister say a bit more about how the provisions fit into the ongoing Companies House transformation programme, particularly in relation to the planned new IT system? When might the fully electronic system for the submission and processing of documents submitted to the registrar be in place? We would be grateful for the Minister’s comments, particularly about timing.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is mixing up two different things. I am not saying that some company formation agents are not shady—I have just said that. However, not all service providers are company formation agents. Many are bona fide solicitors or accountants that are household names. I think we need to keep this in perspective. The hon. Lady cites statistics on the capability of some of the sector in terms of proper supervision. According to OPBAS, 50% of professional body supervisors were “fully effective”. I think that figure should be much higher, but in its opinion 50% are fully effective, so it is not as if there are not some actors in this area that are doing the job absolutely right.

Many company directors and people with significant control that are currently registered at Companies House, all of whom will need to verify their identity under the transitional provisions post enactment, would prefer to do so by using their professional adviser. They will suddenly find that their long-established legal adviser is deemed fit by the Government to verify their identity for money laundering purposes, but unfit to report that to Companies House. The amendment would therefore create considerable inconvenience to individuals, as well as to corporate service providers.

I can assure the right hon. Member for Barking and the Committee that I will urge my counterparts at the Treasury to bring forward their consultation as quickly as officials can ready it. I also point to the powers in the Bill that will enable the registrar to keep an audit trail of the activity of agents to support the work of supervisors both immediately and following any changes from the Treasury’s review. I hope my explanation has provided reassurance.

Let me touch on one or two of the right hon. Lady’s other comments. On the light-touch financial services regulation that I think she was suggesting was responsible for the global financial crisis, this is not deregulation. This is the opposite of deregulation; we are making regulations about the verification of ID. I would also point to the penalties for wrongdoing. In certain circumstances, if someone is found guilty of the aggravated offence of false filing under these rules—I think some of the examples she gave would constitute that—the sanction would be two years in jail. That is not for fraud, but for the false filing. There are real teeth to this legislation, which will reduce the likelihood of this stuff happening in future.

The right hon. Lady’s amendment would effectively delay the whole regime we are talking about. She talks about Transparency International. As I said earlier, TI welcomes the reforms to the operation of Companies House that will effectively help to prevent money launderers from abusing the UK’s system. We need to ensure that this happens as effectively as possible. I agree with many of the concerns that she raises, but it is wrong to delay implementation as she suggests.

I turn to amendments 107 to 112. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The procedure for ID verification, including the evidence required, will be set out in secondary legislation under the powers in new section 1110B of the Companies Act 2006 inserted by clause 62 of the Bill. The regulations will set out the technical detail of ID verification procedures, which will reflect evolving industry standards and technological developments. The regulations can specify the process of ID verification and the evidence of identity that individuals will be required to provide when verifying their identity with the registrar. The amendments, particularly amendment 107, would limit the documents acceptable for the purposes of ID verification to photographic IDs issued by Government agencies and identity documents issued by a recognised official authority. That would exclude individuals who do not have a photo ID, such as a passport, from verifying their identity.

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is absolutely clear that our amendment 107 uses the words “to include”. We are not limiting anything. The amendment sets out what the minimum should be. Surely the Minister agrees that an identity document with a photograph of the individual’s face and an identity document issued by a recognised official authority should be the bare minimum we would want in the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Under the cross-Government identity proving framework in “Good Practice Guide 45”—GPG 45—a combination of non-photographic documents, including Government, financial and social history documents, can be accepted to achieve a medium-level assurance of identity. That includes birth certificates, marriage certificates and recent utility bills. The framework, which also recognises ID documentation from authoritative sources, such as the financial sector or local authorities, is routinely used to build a picture of identity. Restricting that process by defining a recognised authority as a Department or agency could therefore inadvertently disenfranchise individuals from meeting ID verification requirements. I take the hon. Member’s point that the amendment seeks to include certain forms of ID, but it might not serve the purpose that he thinks it would.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Once again, I find myself somewhat baffled by what the Government are trying to get into the Bill. The provisions set out under clause 63 in proposed new section 1098I of the Companies Act 2006 would enable the Secretary of State to allow foreign corporate service providers to operate in the UK, outside the scope of the UK’s money laundering regulations. There has been such extensive coverage in recent years of the risks that that would entail that I am really quite amazed that this needs to be reiterated yet again, but, in a nutshell, any UK laws attempting to regulate the activities of company formation agents, some of which have been responsible for the most flagrant examples of money laundering and sanctions evasion according to recent reports, could well be rendered essentially meaningless by these few clauses.

I say that because, if enacted as drafted, the clauses would appear to hand the Secretary of State a blanket power to disapply the money laundering regulations to foreign agents, on no one’s authority but his or her own. We need not look too far for examples of how profoundly damaging that could be to our own laws, given how significant the divergences often are between anti-money laundering regimes in countries such as the UK, and those in overseas jurisdictions better known for their corporate secrecy than anything else. In fact, we need look no further than the UK’s own overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

Any Member who is either unaware of or in denial about the scale of the problem would be well advised to read an enlightening, although also alarming, article published by Forbes on 9 March 2022. It had the somewhat provocative title of “Evading Sanctions: A How-To Guide For Russian Billionaires”. The piece documented the use of opaque offshore corporate structures to launder literally billions-worth of assets held by Russian oligarchs in the last few months and years. What is most troubling about the account is that most of the jurisdictions that it specifically mentions as hotbeds of money laundering and sanctions evasion are UK-linked territories. It will surprise nobody that the list includes the Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands—in other words, the usual suspects.

I do not wish to dwell too long on the overseas territories, because I am sure there will be further discussions in the Committee when we come to debate later sections of the Bill. The point the Opposition are trying to make is simply that if we are going to allow businesses of any kind to operate in the UK, we should expect them to abide by our laws. If we start letting them off the hook, for reasons that Ministers have entirely failed to make clear, we are complicit in their actions. In short, the proposed new section 1098I would have us trust in the infinite wisdom of the Secretary of State to allow corporate service providers to operate outside the law, on the basis that those powers would be used only in cases where the relevant overseas jurisdiction has a regulatory framework with “similar objectives” to the UK’s own rules.

I frankly do not trust the wisdom of the Secretary of State to use those powers for good. I do not believe that it is at all appropriate for such sweeping, ill-defined powers to be conferred on the present or any other Secretary of State. Although amendments 99 and 100 are probing amendments that give us the opportunity to seek answers from the Minister on these extraordinary provisions, amendment 98 is intended quite simply to remove the powers from the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Once more, I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendments. They are driven by concerns that AML supervisory regimes outside the UK may not be robust. That is why the Government are specifying that authorised corporate service providers must be subject to the UK’s AML regime. Nevertheless, it is possible that in the future the UK may become a party to an agreement—a trade agreement, for example—that would require it to accept applications from abroad where that regime is equivalent to that of the UK. I do not think the example the hon. Gentleman gave of Russia would qualify in that regard.

The power in the Bill would facilitate such an agreement and remove the need for primary legislation to implement it. I draw Members’ attention to the wording already in the Bill, in proposed new section 1098I(2), introduced by clause 63. The UK would only become a party to an agreement if it could be assured that the regime was no less effective than its own. To be confident of that parity, the Secretary of State would need to establish that a regime was the equivalent of the UK’s by considering evidence and advice from a range of sources, including the National Crime Agency. That would include the consideration for whether prospective authorised corporate service providers are disqualified under the relevant legislation.

As the legislation makes clear, the power would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and parliamentary scrutiny. While I understand any concerns expressed, I hope that Members will withdraw the amendment.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for his response. As with the previous debate, I am not particularly happy with the position, and we will look for opportunities to return to the issue during the further passage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

General exemptions from identity verification: supplementary

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We debated the clause at length in the previous groupings. I do not propose to repeat the arguments, and I hope the Committee agree with the Government’s position.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have no further comments to add on clause 64.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott.

Government amendment 1 is one of six amendments that the Government have tabled to clauses 32 and 34. Before I discuss the Government amendments and those tabled by the Opposition, it is worth explaining what clause 32 does in order to understand better the purpose of the Government amendments.

Currently, individuals subject to an asset freeze—designated persons under the regulations that contain prohibitions or requirements of the sort referred to in section 3(1)(a) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—can continue acting as a director. They can also be involved, directly or indirectly, in the promotion, formation and/or management of a company. It is not appropriate for asset-frozen individuals to be company directors. It would be perverse for a person who is forbidden from dealing with their own funds or economic resources none the less to be free to direct a company.

Clause 32 prohibits individuals subject to an asset freeze from acting as directors, and does so by amending the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to prohibit individuals subject to an asset freeze on or after the day the provision comes into force from acting as directors of companies or directly or indirectly taking part in or being concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company. Such individuals will only be permitted to take part in such activities with the leave of the court.

An individual in breach of that prohibition will be committing an offence, the maximum penalty for which will be two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. It will be a defence for the person if they did not know and could not reasonably have known that they were subject to an asset freeze at the time that they acted as a director or were involved in a promotion, formation or management of a company. The provision will take effect in England and Wales, and Scotland; clause 34 makes the equivalent provision for Northern Ireland.

Government amendments 1 to 6 all work to the same purpose. Collectively, they will ensure that new director disqualification measures impact those who should be prevented for public policy reasons from acting as directors, namely individuals who are subject to an asset freeze. The amendments will also ensure that we do not disproportionately and unnecessarily extend measures to categories of people whose sanction status has no bearing on whether they are fit to act as company directors. The narrower definition introduced via the amendments includes only designated persons subject to asset-freeze measures of the sort described in section 3(1) (a) of SAMLA.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Could I trouble the Minister to explain a little more about what categories of people who are sanctioned should therefore allowed to be designated as unqualified as directors under the legislation? He has said that amendments are an attempt to narrow the definition to assets-based, but is he therefore saying that someone who is sanctioned for human rights abuses should nevertheless be able to be qualified as a GB director?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

On the point about the FCDO not sanctioning anything apart from asset freezes, does it not impose travel bans? Is a travel ban not a non-asset freeze type of sanction?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, that is right. What we are focusing on in the Bill is people who are subject to asset freezes, not travel bans. Hon. Members can argue that other people should be banned from being the director of a company, but we do not think this is the appropriate place to make that restriction.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Are the Government saying that if somebody has been sanctioned and given a travel ban but not an asset freeze, they are still a fit and proper person to be a director of a British company?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The point is that they may be or they may not be. Putting a broad ban in the Bill just because somebody is subject to a travel ban is not the appropriate way to do it, in terms of whether they are a fit and proper person to run a company.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Are the Government seriously arguing that somebody who has been sanctioned by the FCDO and given a travel ban but not an asset freeze is still a fit and proper person to be a GB director? If the Minister is saying that the Bill is not the proper place to deal with that issue, where in our legislative framework will it be made clear that somebody who has a travel ban under FCDO sanctions is not a fit and proper person to be director of a British company?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a fair point and it is covered in the Bill, which seeks to make it easier for Companies House to share information proactively with other organisations or, indeed, commercial organisations and vice versa. Here, we are talking about specifying the exact circumstances in which that should happen, which we think is the wrong approach.

I now turn to amendment 93, which seeks to expand the criteria for disqualifying individuals from being company directors to include people suspected of facilitating evasion of UK sanctions by sanctioned individuals, in addition to the sanctioned individuals themselves. Any person enabling or facilitating the evasion of certain sanctions would already be committing an offence, for example, under regulation 19 of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The maximum penalty on indictment is seven years in prison or a fine. Those are already dissuasive measures to ensure compliance with sanctions.

It is not appropriate and proportionate to apply director disqualification and offences to an individual who is only suspected of facilitating the evasion of sanctions. It is not clear what would constitute such suspicion and at what point a person would be prohibited to act. That could mean exposing an individual to criminal liability in circumstances reliant on suspicion alone, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Barking would not want to see. The uncertainty of what would constitute the criminal offence and potential interference with presumption of innocence has implications for the rule of law. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendment.

I will now speak to clause 33. New section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, introduced by the Bill, prohibits individuals subject to relevant financial sanctions, such as asset freezes, from acting as directors of companies. The clause limits the scope that prohibition by disapplying it for building societies, incorporated friendly societies, NHS foundation trusts, registered societies, charitable incorporated organisations, further education bodies and protected cell companies. The Secretary of State may, by regulations, repeal any of the subsections in the section, therefore applying the prohibition on individuals subject to an asset freeze from acting as directors in any of the organisation types in the clause. That allows the Secretary of State to apply those measures only to company directors in line with the policy focus of the measures in the Bill, without that unnecessarily applying to other entities currently not in scope. That will take effect in England and Wales and Scotland. Clause 35 makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Clause 32 raises important questions about who we should and should not allow to hold positions of power and responsibility in UK companies.

Currently, under the 1986 Act, the circumstances in which a disqualification order can be imposed are strictly limited. For the most part, they involve individuals with a criminal record for breaches of company legislation involving UK companies. Clause 32 expands the disqualification criteria to provide an explicit prohibition on any sanctioned individual serving as a company director. That is entirely proper, but the Opposition’s question is: why are the Government not going any further? They have considered who should be banned from serving as a company director, but the decision to add only those specifically designated under UK sanctions legislation feels like a missed opportunity.

We tabled amendment 93 to better understand and probe the Government’s thinking and to explore how additional changes could contribute to the Bill’s aims. The amendment is largely self-explanatory: it would add to the criteria those who aid and abet sanctioned individuals, or so-called “enablers” who help sanctioned individuals to evade our laws. The Minister will be aware of the army of lawyers, accountants and other so-called service providers who are in many ways doing Putin’s dirty work in London. In our view, it is crucial that they are caught in the net that the Bill seeks to cast.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to clamp down on the enablers of dirty money, but does he understand the point behind the provisions? There are serious penalties for somebody convicted of breaking sanctions—up to seven years in jail—but his amendment seeks to penalise somebody who is not convicted but merely suspected of facilitating that kind of activity. Does he understand why that is a difficultly for the Government?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I do understand that; the Minister makes a valid point. As I was saying, this is what one might describe as a probing amendment to try to get from him a sense of the proactive action the Government are going to take to go after those enablers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely useful and eloquent intervention. That is absolutely the case, because the enablers are, by definition, experts in knowing how to play and game the system. We know it is going on, but they are notoriously difficult to track down. If we put the onus on industries to act proactively to prevent this sort of activity, that changes the game and makes prevention much more of a duty. I agree with the Minister that we cannot punish people if they are only suspected, but we can have a proactive ex ante approach. I would be grateful to hear his thoughts on that. In many ways, the amendment was designed to illicit a response from the Minister on what my right. hon Friend has just so rightly described.

The Minister has already pointed out that specifically designated individuals represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the scale of economic crime in the United Kingdom. There are any number of others who seek to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our ability to enforce them—for example, by creating opaque corporate structures to hide kleptocrats’ assets. Adding to the criteria those who help to facilitate the evasion of sanctions by designated individuals—not necessarily as our amendment suggests, but through a more root-and-branch, proactive ex ante approach—is one way the Government could really improve the Bill. I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on that. Restrictions on company directorships, as envisaged by amendment 93, should go much further.

Clause 33 extends the provisions of clause 32 to sectors other than companies—for example, building societies—and clauses 34 and 35 extend the same provisions to Northern Ireland. We support those clauses and, of course, amendment 83, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking.

At various points in recent years Ministers have outlined a number of specific proposals, which now appear to have fallen by the wayside. It seems reasonable to expect that all companies should have at least one director who is an actual human being. We do not have to be experts to intuit how easy it is to abuse the existing system, which allows a company to name another company as its director provided that at least one human being is on its board. In the Government’s own words in a 2021 consultation paper:

“Evidence suggests that the use of corporate directors can muddy the waters around ownership and provide a screen behind which to conduct illicit activity…More generally the opacity they create can weaken corporate governance by preventing individual accountability.”

The Government even went so far as legislating in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 to enable the Secretary of State to impose a ban on corporate directors. After more than seven years, however, regulations to implement that have yet to be published. In fact, clause 37—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston will speak shortly—makes some changes to the relevant section of the 2015 Act. The apparent intent of the changes, which is to make it easier for corporate directors to be held to account for their action, is certainly welcome, but what is not clear to Opposition Members is why the Government have decided to amend the primary legislation—namely, the 2015 Act—when, as we understand it, the secondary legislation to implement the ban on corporate directorships under that Act has still to be introduced. Perhaps the Minister will shed some light on that.

Another glaring omission is the issue of nominee directorships. As long ago as 2013, the Government raised that as an issue that company law reform should deal with. Again, the Government’s own words provide us with a useful summary of the problem:

“Where a company is being used to facilitate criminal activity, the individuals who really control the way that the company is run will likely want to avoid making this information public. They may use ‘nominee directors’ to do this. Nominee directors are individuals who go on the public record as the director of the company to be, effectively, a ‘straw man’ or ‘front man’ for the company. The beneficial owner ‘stands behind’ the nominee and controls the way that the company is run”,

de facto. The failure to address that in legislation remains a cause for serious concern.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not sure I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Irrespective of who the directors are, if people of significant control are exerting such influence, they will have to be named and have their ID verified under the Bill.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My understanding is that the regulations under the 2015 Act have not yet been put in place. Our question is: why are the Government not implementing those regulations but instead seeking to introduce the provisions in the Bill? That is simply a point for clarification and explanation. We welcome the fact that ID verification is provided for, but we are trying to get to the bottom of who a nominee director is and who actually controls a company. It would be useful to understand what happened between 2015 and 2022 to prevent the implementation of the regulations.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Two separate things are going on. The Bill enables regulations to ban corporate directorships unless the corporation itself has all its directors named and they are all actual persons and ID-verified. It will do exactly that. The other point that I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about is people who sit behind companies and influence them but might not be named in those companies. If people do that, they are persons of significant control; under the definitions in the Bill, someone does not have to own 25% of the shares of a company to be a person of significant control, but they have to be named and ID-verified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will now stand up and allow the Minister to intervene on me.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are two separate things going on here: ownership and directors. We were talking about directors, and the right hon. Lady is now talking about ownership, which is a slightly different thing, but we will talk later about ownership and how that information has to be made public under this legislation.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister; I think he has just provided clarification that he is confident that there is now a ban on the use of nominee directors as a front to obscure true beneficial ownership. We are grateful for that absolute reassurance. There was perhaps a misunderstanding on our side of some of the technicalities in the Bill that I am seeking to probe, so I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.

It is worth noting that the World Bank published a report just a few months ago that explained how, under current UK law, nominee directors of UK companies can neglect their duties by failing to submit accounts and certify companies as dormant, even though tens of millions of pounds are passing through those accounts. A crucial point is that the impunity of delinquent nominee directors is especially pronounced if such nominees are not UK residents. On the rare occasions that they are questioned, such directors tend to make the legally false argument that because they are only nominees they have no responsibility to know anything about the company, let alone control its actions.

The lack of progress on this issue—certainly until the Bill’s introduction—has raised concerns with us. Again, perhaps the Minister will say a little more about the Government’s thinking. What does he think has been the impact of not implementing the regulations from the 2015 Act? Can he reassure us with absolute confidence that the issue of delinquent nominee directors will be eradicated by the passing of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not think this is a case of micromanagement, and nor are we asking for hundreds of things. We are making a specific request, based on specific research. I think an automatic alert could be triggered, and perhaps the Minister—

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will my hon. Friend give way just on that point?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is intervening on me.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Sorry. Good point, well made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I have already said, such information-sharing is exactly what the Bill facilitates. It may well be that Companies House decides that that is exactly the right trigger to share information with the OFSI. Our view is that we should not direct Companies House in that level of detail as to how the registrar should perform her wider duty. We will continue to disagree on that point if the hon. Lady presses her amendment.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene where I should have done in the first place. On the quantum that we are considering, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has just said, 1,200 individuals and 120 businesses have been sanctioned since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We are not talking about a huge number. Perhaps the terms of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking could be more tightly drawn to make it clear that it is not about every movement of assets and everything a company has done, but simply designed to ensure that if there was a change of director or change of address, the registrar should share that information with the other relevant agencies. The quantum is quite small, so would the Minister consider that proposal?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think we need to move on, and I think the hon. Gentleman is missing the point as well. This is not about my deciding whether the proposal is right or wrong, or whether Companies House has or has not got the resources. For me, it should have the resources that it needs. However, it is for the organisation itself to determine the best way to alert other authorities to the risk. That is the principle at issue here, and it is one to which I will strongly adhere.

The argument about enablers has been well made, and we have referred to corporate criminal liability and the failure to prevent that. As the Committee is aware, I have been a key advocate in introducing such liability for fraud and other offences. Members may have noted the details of a case this morning, in which the current offence of failing to prevent bribery was a key element in the case against Glencore, which has pleaded guilty to that offence. The Serious Fraud Office launched a successful prosecution against Glencore and, although the number of times it has proceeded against a company is far too few, that prosecution shows that the current legislation can be effective. I am keen to discuss that further in our proceedings.

On travel bans and securities, Committee members might find it useful to sit down with officials to discuss those measures, so that they then understand why those things might not mean that a person is not a fit and proper individual to be a director of a company. I would be happy to extend that opportunity to members of the Committee.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central spoke about nominee directors and associated abuses. Under the terms of the Bill, any director, nominee or otherwise, who acts outside the terms of the legislation and is subject to the control of another undisclosed person could be put in jail for two years. That is exactly what we are seeking to do and to clamp down on such inappropriate use of companies.

In terms of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said—is it right hon. or hon?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

Up to and including clause 27, finishing, and then moving on to clause 28. Thank you for that clarification, Ms Bardell.

The National Crime Agency estimates that £100 billion of dirty money flows through the UK every year and that fraud is causing £190 billion of damage to our economy. According to PwC, 64% of businesses have experienced fraud, corruption, or other economic or financial crime within the past two years, which is up from 50% only four years ago.

The Labour party believes in stronger action to defend our national interest, our economy and our national security from the organised criminals, fraudsters, corrupt oligarchs and kleptocrats. Indeed, as the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said on Second Reading:

“Ours is a country that has long prided itself on the rule of law and on strong economic institutions, which is what traditionally made it a good place in which to invest, but that is being undermined by economic crime”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 291.]

It is also being undermined by the illicit money flowing through what many call “Londongrad”. As much as that brings shame, it should also bring pride that we are coming together as parliamentarians to debate and scrutinise this important Bill.

We support the Bill, but the devil is in the detail. With 250 pages, a huge amount of detail needs extensive discussion. Part 1 is critical, because it aims to get to the crux of one of the major barriers to tackling economic crime. That problem is the underfunding, lack of regulation and lack of teeth at the heart of Companies House.

Clauses 9 to 22 cover legislation on changes to company names. I have moved amendment 87 and tabled amendments 72, 88 to 90, and 73 to clause 14, as well as amendment 91 to clause 17 and amendment 92 to clause 18. We are surprised that the Bill states that when a company is directed to change its name under the Companies Act 2006, including in cases where the name is considered misleading or might facilitate criminal activity, that company must comply with the direction in “at least 28 days”. That requirement would replace the provision to provide the company with a potentially unlimited period of time to comply with the order. In a moment, I will pause to allow the Minister to clarify whether that provision is deliberate, because it appears to be both rather confusing and rather too generous. Surely, it should say that the company must comply with the order within 28 days. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve—as opposed to “at least” 28 days, it must be within 28 days.

The Bill includes lengthy provisions on company names, and sets out how and for what reason a company may be required to change its registered name. The aim of those provisions is to enable companies’ names to be prohibited in cases where they may be intended to facilitate dishonesty, deception or another criminal offence. Although that aim is laudable, there appears to be a disconnect between the seriousness of the offences that the Government are seeking to prevent, and the lengthy periods of time that Ministers are prepared to allow for a company to comply with an order to change its name.

Given that such an order will generally be made only when a Minister has identified a clear risk of harm in relation to a company’s name—including a risk of fraudulent or other serious criminal activity—it is hard to understand why a company would then be given potentially limitless timeframes to comply with that order. The Opposition believe there should be, at the very least, a time limit on orders to change a name believed to be intended to deceive the public of the company’s true purpose. Companies that fail to comply with such an order within a reasonable period of time, and a 28-day limit seems reasonable to us, should also be penalised if they cannot provide a good reason for any delay or refusal to comply. I am happy to pause here if there is anything that the Minister would like to clarify.

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

I am happy to do that. The issue is in the drafting. I had to read this on a number of occasions and speak to officials before I got my head around it, but the provision achieves the purpose that the hon. Gentleman sets out. Clause 14(5)(2) states:

“The direction must be in writing and must specify the period within which the company is to change its name.”

It is a fixed period of time. It sets out the ability to give a company more time in certain circumstances, but the intention is to do exactly as the hon. Gentleman wants: a company has 28 days to comply. It will be told how long it has to comply, and that may well be 28 days.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that response. As he pointed out, he had to read the provision several times in order to be clear on the drafting. Clause 14 (5)(3) says:

“The period must be a period of at least 28 days”.

Our intention is to make it clear that it has to happen within 28 days. There is a clear difference between “at least” and “within”. “At least” gives the impression that a company could have an unlimited period of time beyond those 28 days, whereas if we clearly state that it must happen within 28 days, then there is no room for doubt whatsoever. Would the Minister like to come back to me on that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Again, if the hon. Gentleman reads that in the context of clause 14(5)(2), he will understand that it is a fixed period of time. That is what companies will be given.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Maybe the Minister and I are just not seeing it through the same lens. I agree that there should be a fixed period, but I think it should be clearly defined that the fixed period must be a maximum of 28 days. Does the Minister think that the Bill as drafted makes that clear?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The point is there may well be valid circumstances where a company might take longer than 28 days, for example if it needs to seek a resolution from its shareholders or directors. In those cases, a company might then apply to Companies House or the Secretary of State to extend that time period. That is where the “at least” comes in, and it must be seen in the context of the “within”. Listen, I am not a lawyer. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. The lawyers have chosen to draft the legislation in this way. I do think it serves the purpose, but I can understand why the hon. Gentleman is seeking clarification.

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.

Moving on to clauses 15 to 22, we are content with clause 15, which would allow for objections based on the company name being misleading outside the UK and for the shareholders and directors of said company to be joined as respondents or defenders in the claim. In their February 2022 White Paper, the Government explained the rationale for expanding the grounds for objections to be made to a company’s name. It was broadly accepted that the current restrictions, for instance on names that imply a link to the UK Government, were too narrowly drawn.

Responses to the consultation reflected widespread concern about the impact company names that are clearly deliberately misleading might have on legitimate businesses in cases where rogue companies try to suggest they have a connection to a well-known business and thus benefit from wider public recognition of, and perhaps even loyalty to, an established brand. Such appropriation of company names is now understood as a means of scamming would-be investors out of their money. Earlier this year, for example, there were high-profile reports of a scam involving a company calling itself Diageo Partners Ltd. It attempted to solicit an investment by presenting itself as an arm of the well-known drinks company of that name. Another case flagged by the Financial Conduct Authority in January involved similar attempts by scammers to link themselves with the financial institution Wells Fargo.

Clause 15 is a welcome recognition of those issues and should go some way toward addressing them. However, many legitimate companies that raise objections via the Company Names Tribunal are currently facing delays of three months or more before they can get a decision. I wonder whether the Minister could explain what steps the Government will take to help speed up the Company Names Tribunal process and ensure that fraudulent company names are corrected as quickly as possible.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points in my full response. There are some amendments we have tabled that address his exact points, and I would like to speak to those in detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I apologise. I will not do it again.

Clause 15 makes a set of changes in how objections to a company name are to be considered by the company names adjudicator, established under section 70 of the Companies Act 2006. In cases brought before the adjudicator under section 69 of the Act, the company complaining over another’s misuse of a name is known as the applicant, and the counterparty to that complaint is the respondent. Clause 15 amends section 69 in several ways. First, in recognising that the activities of companies registered in the UK are not constrained by our borders, it removes the geographic scope of complaints that the adjudicator can consider. That allows the adjudicator to consider the ability of a company name to mislead members of the public in jurisdictions other than the UK.

Secondly, the clause plugs a loophole in the existing legislation that allows directors of respondent companies to resign their position to avoid being joined alongside the company itself in the adjudication proceedings. Finally, at present it is the case that unless it can be demonstrated that the respondent registered a name in order to obtain money from the applicant, an application must be dismissed if the respondent has begun trading under the name or has incurred substantial start-up costs. That defence will no longer be available.

Clause 16 amends the Companies Act to lower the bar in terms of the harm test. Currently, section 76 of the Act allows the Secretary of State to direct a company to change its name if, in his opinion, the name gives such a misleading indication of its activities that it is likely to cause harm to members of the public. In future, the Secretary of State will form a view on the basis of whether the name poses a risk of harm, instead of considering whether the name is likely to cause harm, thus giving the Secretary of State greater discretion in the exercise of that power. The clause also clarifies that the potential harm at issue need not manifest itself in the UK alone, but might do so anywhere in the world.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The issue with clause 16 is the term

“pose a risk of harm to the public”,

which seems to be very broad. Can he expand on how that risk might be more clearly defined? Can he give a practical example of how the proposed powers might be used?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If I may, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that point once I have some information on it from my officials.

Clause 17 will give the Secretary of State the ability to direct a change of a company name where, in his view, it has been used, or is intended to be used, to facilitate the commission of an offence involving dishonesty or deception, such as fraud.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Briefly on clause 17, I would just like to mark the card because, again, there is an issue with the use of the phrase:

“The period must be a period of at least 28 days”

in proposed new section 76A(3) of the Companies Act. I suggest that that phrase should be replaced with “This period must be a period of no more than 28 days, beginning with the date of direction”, because I think it would be so much clearer and tighter.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come to that, but the hon. Gentleman’s solution to that does not give any discretion should a company need more time. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is the reason why the clause is drafted in that way, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point before the end of my remarks.

The ability to direct a change of a company name recognises that there may already be some companies, among the 4.5 million or so companies already on the register, with names that are facilitating criminal conduct or have the ability to do so. In order to address those instances that may come to the Secretary of State’s attention, the clause will give him the ability to direct a company to change its name. The clause also sets time frames for compliance, penalties and methods of appeal.

I turn now to clause 18, which gives the Secretary of State the ability to direct the change of any company name already on the register of companies that appears to them to contravene any requirement of part 5 of the Companies Act 2006. The Secretary of State can also direct a change of name if, at the time of registration, they had proper grounds for forming an opinion on whether the name was in itself an offence or was offensive, being used for criminal purposes or contained computer code. Without the ability to take action to address such names once incorporated, undesirable impacts can go unchecked. A consequential amendment applies this section to provision on overseas companies.

Clause 19 complements clause 11 of the Bill. Clause 11 makes it unlawful for a company to be registered with a name that contains or comprises computer code. Clause 19 addresses the possibility that computer code lurks among the names of the 4.5 million or so companies already on the register, empowering the registrar to determine a new name.

Clause 20 provides the registrar with the power, by her own action, to change a company’s name where it has not followed a direction to do that itself. Where she does so, she must inform the company and annotate the register accordingly.

Clause 21 makes a consequential amendment related to the administrative aspects of the company name-changing powers contained within the Bill, specifically the duty of the registrar to issue a new certificate of incorporation following a change of a company’s name.

Clause 22 introduces a section into part 5 of the Companies Act that gives the Secretary of State discretion to disapply any prohibition on naming a company or operating under a company name where, in his view, that is justified in the interests of national security or for the purposes of preventing serious crime. On the point about the exercise of national security, commitments to transparency on security exemptions might well by their nature defeat the purpose of the exemption’s use.

I turn now to amendments 87 to 92, tabled by the hon. Members for Aberavon and for Feltham and Heston. The amendments concern clauses 14, 17 and 18, which I have just taken Members through. I thank the hon. Members for the amendments, as they have helpfully highlighted a gap in the Bill. We acted on that yesterday by tabling amendments that address the issue and, I hope, resolve it, albeit in a different way. I refer hon. Members to new clause 34, which effectively allows the registrar to instantly suspend the material on the register referring to the name. In that way, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a new range of powers to direct companies to change their names that supplement and strengthen the existing powers under the Companies Act. [Interruption.] That is on page 65 of today’s amendment paper.

In respect of the existing provisions, it is at the Secretary of State’s discretion to determine the period within which a company must comply with directions. Clause 14 of the Bill seeks to regularise that period across both existing and new direction provisions in part 5 of the Companies Act. That period would be a minimum of 28 days from the date of direction. These amendments seek to make the period no more than 28 days.

I have sympathy with the view that companies should not be afforded longer than necessary to take the steps to comply with a direction. I would, however, draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, in respect of the new classes of prohibited name, the Bill is drafted to provide the registrar with the discretion to remove the name of the subject of the direction from the publicly accessible register where a direction has been issued. I assure hon. Members that where there is potential for harm to be caused, the registrar will exercise that discretion and, therefore, the harm will cease at the point the direction is issued, regardless of the length of the compliance period.

Where a name is removed from the register, it would normally be replaced with a company registration number. I anticipate that we will legislate in secondary legislation for the registrar to annotate the register, explaining that the name had been changed because it was the subject of a direction. The Opposition’s amendments have highlighted that the suppression capability is not at present available to the registrar in all circumstances where a direction might have been issued. The Government amendments will ensure that in future it will be. Members can see those amendments in the amendment paper and will have the chance to debate them in a future sitting.

Clauses 23 to 27 comprise a chapter on business names. Clause 23 mimics clause 10, which I explained earlier, in the context of the use of business names in the UK. It builds on existing safeguards in part 41 of the Companies Act 2006, which makes it an offence for a person to carry on business that gives the impression of a connection with the UK Government and public authorities. The clause supports that framework by making an amendment to the 2006 Act that provides safeguards in the international sphere. The clause also contains the same safeguards for those conducting business with legitimate connections.

Clause 24 amends section 1198 of the 2006 Act to lower the threshold for the likelihood of harm required to satisfy the legal test. Currently, it is an offence for a person to carry on business in the UK under a name that gives such a misleading indication of activities that it is likely to cause harm to members of the public. In future, the offence will be based on whether the name poses a risk of harm to the public.

Clause 25 closes a loophole in existing legislation. At present, there is nothing to prevent a company that is the subject of a direction or order from carrying on business in the name that it has been directed or ordered to change. The clause makes it an offence to do so. There are exceptions to that where the period for complying with the direction or order has not passed, where the company has since been registered with the name following approval under proposed new section 57B of the 2006 Act, or where the direction or order was given before the clause commences.

Clause 26 introduces a proposed new section in the 2006 Act and builds on what is done in clause 25. Clause 26 makes it an offence for a company to carry on business in the UK under a name that another company has been directed or ordered to change where both companies share, or have shared, the same officers or shareholders.

Clause 27, the final clause in the group, introduces a proposed new section in the 2006 Act and gives the Secretary of State discretion to disapply any restriction or prohibition on carrying on business under a name, if it is in the interests of national security or for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime. Where such discretion is exercised, the Secretary of State must give written notice of confirmation to any relevant person. It is necessary that sufficient flexibilities exist in all areas to take the steps most appropriate to safeguard security and target serious crime.

Amendments 72 to 76 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish details of instances where he had extended the deadline for companies to comply with directions that he had issued to them to change their company name. I am not sure, however, that it would achieve what the Opposition really intend it to. It is of course always dangerous to make assumptions, but I suspect that what those who have tabled the amendment really want is for information to be published about each and every direction that the Secretary of State has issued, and that is not what it would do. I reassure hon. Members that we will consider how that information might best be made available—potentially, for example, through annotations of the companies register, which would of course be available to view through the Companies House online service.

I thank Members for their patience. I have taken them through a technical but important part of the Bill. I hope that they will appreciate that their amendments perhaps do not have the desired effect, particularly taking into account the Government amendments that have been tabled.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for coming back in such detail on our points. We certainly look forward to studying new clause 34. We have not really had an opportunity to look at it yet, but it is great to see that the Minister and his team have taken our amendments on board and come up with something that will hopefully enable us to find common ground.

I want to make two additional points. The first goes back over the ground of “at least” versus “within” debate. I spoke earlier about proposed new section 76A(3), on page 10, as introduced by clause 17(4), which says that the period must be a period of “at least” 28 days; our amendment suggests that it should be “no more than” 28 days. The Minister said that making that change would give no leeway to the Secretary of State to be able to override in certain cases. We accept that there are certain cases where further direction is required to extend the period; there may well be extenuating circumstances, and we certainly do not want to create a straitjacket for businesses—we take that point. However, proposed new subsection (4) does precisely that. That is why we should lay out in proposed new subsection (3) that the basic principle is “no more than” 28 days. We have no desire to change the provisions of proposed new subsection (4)—with extenuating circumstances, the Secretary of State should be able to extend the period.

We would be more than happy with that change. It only requires the insertion of “no more than” in proposed new subsection (3), and no change to proposed new subsection (4). That would give the right balance between the need for a basic, tightly defined standard and still having the ability for the Secretary of State to extend the period where required.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said before, I think the Bill achieves the same objective; it might not be with the words of the hon. Gentleman’s choosing, but I think the objective is served by the drafting we have. It may well also be served by the drafting he suggests, but I do not see the point of changing the wording when it already does the same thing.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that response.

My second point is on clause 15, which considers changing names. As we have said, the clause is a welcome recognition of the issues around name changes and companies using names for fraudulent purposes—trying to give themselves connections to well-known brands and so on. Many legitimate companies that raise objections via the company names tribunal are facing delays of three months or more before they get a decision. I asked whether the Minister could assure us that the Government are alive to the issue. What steps might they be taking to speed that process up?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to. I think we would all acknowledge that, due to various reasons beyond any of our controls, tribunals have fallen behind in the cases they are hearing. I am very happy to look at the timeframes that the hon. Gentleman refers to, as I was not aware of specific issues. The important principle behind the clauses is that they allow the Secretary of State, via Companies House, to bear down very quickly when there is the risk of harm to individuals, companies or others.

[Stephen Kinnock]

In the light of the fact that new clause 34 has been tabled, which we have not yet had the opportunity to study, we will not press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Gentleman may think a duty to check 4.5 million addresses is proportionate. I think it would be disproportionate. The vast majority of those addresses are bona fide addresses of bona fide companies. We have to take a risk-based approach; I think we would both agree on that.

The right hon. Gentleman returns to resources. We have already had a long debate on resources. He knows that I agree that the registrar, and the law enforcement agencies for that matter, must have sufficient resources to ensure that the registration of persons of significant control is undertaken. That body of work is ongoing now with Companies House.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Would the Minister consider a PO box address to be an appropriate address—yes or no?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, and I will come to that point shortly.

Clause 29 provides an important new power for the registrar to deal effectively with those abusing our systems. As we have discussed and all agree, for too long criminals have acted with impunity, providing fraudulent addresses for companies set up deliberately to scam people, many of them vulnerable. We know the distress and inconvenience that can cause to many constituents, including when bailiffs arrive at the door in connection with a matter with which that person has no connection.

Subsidy Control Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Just zooming out for a second, I know that you all have an interest in this levelling-up agenda. The stated priorities of the Bill are to be able to drive forward both the levelling-up agenda and the transition to net zero. Mr Rose and Mr Branton, do you think it is possible to achieve the levelling-up agenda without an assisted areas map or some way of actually focusing resources? There is also the issue that relocations are prohibited. What impact does that have on the levelling-up agenda?

We will achieve net zero in this country only if our steel industry transitions towards it. Mr Warren, what kind of state aid support do you think would be needed for that? Do you think there should be more explicit guidance in the Bill about how to achieve the transition to net zero as part of this overall strategy?

Jonathan Branton: I will start with the levelling-up question. I think you were asking whether it is possible to do something there without the equivalent of a regional aid map. The short answer is yes. You do not have to have a map of the country with shades of different colours for different levels of qualification in order to do something similar. The point is to give some form of preference or favouritism to areas based on some kind of measure of comparative disadvantage.

You could quite easily do that if you established a series of criteria. If you found that a given area had exhibited one or more of those criteria—and there would obviously need to be quite some thought given to what they were—that would be a means establishing that somewhere is regionally disadvantaged. Obviously, you can layer that with all sorts of different complications and grades of disadvantage, if you wish. That might be complicated or overly political, but you can establish the fundamental point of something being disadvantaged or not by reference to, I would like to think, a set of criteria, which would not be too hard.

For the relocation point, the wording in the Bill talks about something prohibiting subsidy that was given as a condition of relocation. In some ways, to my mind, that invites somebody to give a relocation that is not a condition, but achieves it anyway. Maybe that is just lawyers being cynical. Perhaps it is not fit for what it seeks to achieve, but is that a good thing anyway? I have seen a number of situations where a relocation has taken place, which has been positive for several reasons—perhaps someone relocates to make physical space for an infrastructure project, for example. Linking that back to levelling up, relocations can be advantageous and good in the grand scheme of things, and definitely positive for redistributing wealth. Having a prohibition in the Bill, even a badly worded one, is potentially too blunt a tool, which might backfire.

Alexander Rose: I have a slightly different position on clause 18. I think the way to resolve it would be to put in a value figure—maybe £20 million. I also agree that relocations can be hugely beneficial. Schedule 1 outlines the common subsidy principles and paragraph F is designed essentially to avoid competitions developing within the internal market.

I think that the issue trying to be resolved here is avoiding what would be regarded as a distortive subsidy. The way to deal with that is to define distortive subsidy and say that that would then be referred to the CMA, or however that works. That leaves you with the potential to include a replacement additional principle—you mentioned levelling up and net zero. I note that the strategy announced last week requires all civil servants to take account of net zero, yet these rules will be used by more than 550 public bodies. That is a great opportunity to instil that kind of thinking in every single subsidy.

Jonathan Branton: Without necessarily preventing them.

Richard Warren: To answer very briefly, yes, undoubtedly decarbonisation of the steel sector will require considerable subsidy or state aids, however we wish to term it. In sectors such as the power sector, we see billions of pounds’ worth of subsidy to decarbonise, and the steel sector will need precisely the same. Net zero or low-carbon forms of steel production will add anything from 30% to 50% to the costs of steel production, depending on which route you go down. If other countries are not moving at precisely the same speed or putting the same constraints on their industries, you will need some sort of intervention to correct that market failure.

There are two key areas where we would like to see additional movement. Again, I come back to competitive electricity prices. Fixing the issue there will require some sort of intervention. Secondly, we need pretty hefty support for capital investment in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen or even new electric arc furnaces. That will require hundreds of millions of pounds of investment.

On your final point about whether we need anything further in the Subsidy Control Bill to direct us towards that, I think that the light-touch approach is the right way to go. It does not exclude the Government from doing anything and it leaves open a huge number of options.

For example, the clean steel fund of £250 million that we hope will be confirmed in the spending review tomorrow is perfectly legitimate under the current regime. Maybe under the EU system, which says, “You can do this, you can’t do that”, you would have had to go through a more complicated approvals process. By the time you start introducing explicit requirements for certain industries, you will get a bunfight where everyone wants something mentioned in the Bill. You may end up down a route of, “If it’s not mentioned, maybe we shouldn’t be doing it”, so I think that the light-touch approach is the best way to go.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q In terms of the thresholds for reporting—I think it is £500,000 and the minimum financial assistance threshold is £315,000—are they the right level to achieve the transparency you are looking for?

Jonathan Branton: I think probably yes. In terms of the small amounts of financial assistance, it is basically double what the EU’s de minimis has been. The feedback I have had so far across the piece is that the doubling has been a sensible, long overdue move. Frankly, that has been set by reference to what the TCA sets anyway, so we do not have a lot of flexibility to play around with that. Setting it at a fixed, sterling level is immediately sensible. There can be no debate about that.

In terms of the transparency, yes, you have to draw the line somewhere and the £500,000 seems like a sensible, rounded figure. I certainly do not have a strong view that it should be put at a different level—not yet, anyway.

Alexander Rose: The £500,000 is for schemes. I think that the question ultimately is that if you amend clause 70(2) in order to address this gap in terms of, essentially, accountability, you will need some level of incentive to use schemes. It appears that transparency has been chosen as that route.

Personally, I think that the £500,000 seems quite high, but you do need some kind of incentive; otherwise, people will not go down the route of using schemes, when clearly a decision has been made that that is a good idea.

Subsidy Control Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kevin Hollinrake and Stephen Kinnock

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Q I have a question for Professor Fothergill about aid intensity. As we know, under the previous state aid regimes, there were upper limits on the percentage of state aid that could be given. There is no guidance on what the aid intensity percentages should be in this legislation. Could you briefly set out what your thoughts on that are —I would certainly assume that aid intensity should be higher than was the case previously—and why that should be?

Professor Fothergill: The detail is not there in the legislation. It is all to be determined; it will follow in the guidance, one presumes. Under the old EU rules, the aid intensity ceiling varies from scheme to scheme and from place to place, but if we were talking about regional investment aid, for example, the maximum aid you could give in the top tier of assisted area was 30% for a larger business. It actually rose to 50% for a very small business, but the problem that we had under the old EU rules was that in the lowest category of assisted area, which covered most of the assisted areas in England, the ceiling for regional investment aid was only 10%. Frankly, at 10%, that is very marginal and very unlikely to make much of a difference to business decisions. If a decision is that marginal, really, come on: is it going to tip the balance? Incidentally, the EU has recently raised that lower threshold to, I think, 15%.

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

Q Are you talking about the turnover?

Professor Fothergill: The 10% to 15%?