Lord Flight
Main Page: Lord Flight (Conservative - Life peer)Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Lord Flight Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Flight
“( ) This section and Schedule 3 do not apply to small companies as defined in the Companies Act 2006.”
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
At Second Reading, I expressed some unhappiness and concern about the compulsory public register provisions. One of my main objections is to the inclusion of, and the impact on, small companies. Generally, I think that it is a wonderful thing that this country has had an explosion in entrepreneurship over the past five years, the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime, with lots of young people happily getting on with setting up their own businesses—and, as I have said before, that is not just confined to London and the south-east. One of several reasons for that is that, compared to other countries, the Government have made it relatively easy to set up your own business: forming a company is extremely easy; the nature of the financial accounting returns has been made simpler for small businesses; and, whereas there are major hurdles in setting up a new SME in, for example, Italy, in this country it is pretty straightforward. That has been a huge success.
Prima facie, I am not happy with additional regulatory burdens, particularly on small businesses, unless they add some clear advantage. Here I cannot see that a small business, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, will have the resources to be engaged in terrorist funding, nor do I see much prospect for at least material avoidance or for a security risk. Therefore, my Amendment 37A calls for the exclusion of small companies as defined in the Companies Act from the application of compulsory public registers. One of my concerns is that there are huge numbers of new small companies—1 million last year, I think, and nearly 2 million over the past two and a half years—and they are almost invariably run and controlled by the entrepreneur who set them up, so he will almost certainly fall into the category of having control through owning 25% or more of the company. I think it extremely unlikely that small businesses will know about this legislation, as it is pretty unlikely that they will be employing lawyers who could warn them about it, so I also see the danger that large numbers of entrepreneurs will quite innocently not keep this register and thereby commit a criminal office. I do not think that any Members of this Committee would want to see entrepreneurs prosecuted for the criminal offence of not keeping their public register.
I believe that this is an unnecessary piece of additional bureaucracy on small businesses. I believe that it will be substantially ignored out of ignorance of the requirements. I really do not see that there is any need to include small businesses within the public registers legislation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
Can the noble Lord assure the Committee that taking small businesses out, as he requires under this amendment, will not take out shell companies, which are the major tool by which major international and, indeed, national frauds are effected?
Lord Flight
It depends on whether a shell company falls within the Companies Act definition, so it will depend on what funds there are—what the shell company is capitalised at—and the other issues in the Companies Act that determine what is a small business. There is not necessarily a black-and-white answer, but I would have thought that if the Government graciously accepted my amendment they could add to it significantly by carving out that shell companies are not excluded.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am rather puzzled by one of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has advanced in favour of his amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just said, it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has not read the impact assessment on this Bill. It was highlighted in the impact assessment that the majority of shell companies, which are often the vehicles of choice for money laundering and other criminality, would be classified as small businesses. To exclude them would, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, leave the door wide open and not solve one of the major problems that this legislation is looking to solve.
The noble Lord, Lord Flight, mentioned burdens on small companies. Of course I do not want to create burdens on any kind of company, but I believe that when a law is justified and has been implemented, small companies have a duty to keep on top of that legislation and make sure that they are not caught out by having failed to identify their person of significant control. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, the vast majority of the companies are small companies owned by the people that run them, so they will have nothing to declare; they will have simply to say that the managing director or the chief executive is the person of significant control and that will be the end of it. The burdens on small companies, I suggest, are actually very slight and for that reason I would argue against this amendment and hope it will not be proceeded with.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, this is Committee and it is perfectly in order for noble Lords to speak as many times as they wish. I also remind noble Lords that it is customarily the case that they address the whole Committee and not merely the noble Lord who asked the question.
Lord Flight
My Lords, on the specific point, I just add the following. First, it would be perfectly possible to operate a non-UK shell company as the Bill stands so the Bill is completely avoidable for those intent on doing evil. Secondly, with regard to UK companies, it might be possible to include a definition. The point of a shell company is that it does not have a business. I am very clearly talking here about small companies that have an active business. Finally, anyone with evil intent will not register a small company, even if it is a UK company, for the reasons the noble Lord just pointed out: the chances of being discovered are very small.
Therefore, I beg to suggest that the Bill is ineffective in this area as it stands. What would be effective is a significant burden on the innocent—the runners of small family businesses. As my noble friend Lord Leigh pointed out, the issue of who has control is sometimes quite debateable because there may be more than one person holding 25% and the way family affairs are organised may be complicated.
For some reason, my Amendments 48 and 49 are also included within this group. I did not really want to combine them with Amendment 36A, which is very different in nature, but nor did I want them not to be aired by default. These two amendments, together with Amendment 51, are practical proposals which emanated essentially from the BVCA, which I believe has had some practical discussions with government about possible ways of handling the points raised.
Amendments 48 and 49 extend the provision in the Bill applying to English limited partnerships to include other limited partnerships without a legal personality which are comparable to an English limited partnership. Many overseas limited partnerships invest in UK companies and, unless there are arrangements along the lines of Amendments 48 and 49, the effect would be to require information on all limited partnership investors to be put into the register. This would create confusion about who was the controller of the English company the partnership was investing in as well as creating unnecessary and costly administration. The main relevant overseas companies to which this applies are Channel Islands limited partnerships which are frequently used by private equity firms to invest in UK companies. This is a practical issue which it is necessary to deal with, or where there are non-UK limited partnerships investing in UK companies we could end up with a wealth of unnecessary and quite confusing information.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
I, too, shall speak to Amendments 48 and 49, as they are grouped together, and express the same reservations as my noble friend Lord Flight about not wishing to have the two connected. The reason for my amendment is principally to ensure that the policy objectives of the Bill are met. I seek to manage and mitigate unintended consequences as much as possible, in this case by making sure that only individuals who meet the criteria set out are disclosed and not many others by dint of legislative accident.
It is worth noting here that the Bill has already been improved in this regard. The original draft would have missed out partnerships entirely, because they have no legal personality, and forced the disclosure of hundreds of investors, none of whom owned 25% of the business, but all of whom would have been deemed to have owned that amount through their investment vehicle.
A particular concern is private equity, as my noble friend Lord Flight said. Funds raise money from many investors of different types and different geographies, but normally none of their investments as individuals would be anywhere near 25% of the fund. The private equity fund, typically known as the general partner, takes responsibility for investing that fund in a portfolio of businesses and managing those businesses. It is the fund run by the general partner and not any individual investor who exercises significant control. It is right that the public and, indeed, Governments know who that is. It is not necessary for them to know who the individual investors are behind it.
The merits of this point were accepted in the other place and there is an exemption for English limited partnerships. This amendment seeks to apply that to other limited partnerships that are similar to English limited partnerships in structure but are governed by other laws. I am thinking in particular of partnerships structured in the Crown dependencies. It is very important that we offer a level playing field in this context. Funds structured particularly in the Channel Islands and elsewhere are direct drivers of inward investment into the UK. To be clear, we are not talking about tax avoidance or tax evasion. It is simply a mechanism for investment. It is typically used by pension funds, which would not pay tax in any circumstances. My amendment would allow any partnership deemed similar in structure to an English limited partnership to be treated the same as one and not have to disclose the hundreds of investors underneath it.
In his excellent Budget in 2013, the Chancellor commendably launched a new initiative to make our asset management industry as competitive as possible. It was about encouraging our financial services industry to be drivers and attractors of inward investment in the real economy. These partnerships are great channels for such investment and must be encouraged. That is why they should be treated the same as English limited partnerships. If the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Flight is accepted, investors in partnerships, which are of huge benefit to the UK economy, will be treated as if they had invested in an English limited partnership or one that is similar in spirit.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I think the issues have been well raised. I hope the Government are able to come up with some ideas to lessen the burden on small companies, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, in moving Amendment 37D, I shall speak also to Amendments 44HA, 47A and 44 and will be returning to the central themes that I marked out when speaking to the amendments in the previous two groups: the need to ensure that the boundaries and scope of the provisions that we are talking about are adequately drawn so as to ensure that no loopholes remain and the need for appropriate transparency to make sure that the register serves the purpose that it was intended to serve. As before, I will often be probing rather than criticising the measures, which have our support.
Our Amendment 37D, the first in this group, would provide for the explicit circumstances when it will be necessary to exclude otherwise necessary information from the register. Clearly, it is understandable that, where there is a danger either to an individual or to national security, companies can be exempted from providing information. However, it is important that those circumstances are explicitly in the Bill, otherwise there may be exemptions for less important reasons in the future. The amendment also provides for any such decision to be challengeable through judicial review. Despite the fact that this Government have recently set about attempting to damage and degrade judicial review, it remains an important mechanism for holding the Government to account—hence its provision here.
I have also added my name to Amendment 44. My noble friend Lord Watson will no doubt be able to give a more complete explanation of it in a moment, but the essential point is that the Bill as drafted appears to preclude the possibility of a journalist using the register to investigate a potential impropriety. New Section 790O(4)(d) says that any request for information should include whether or not the information is going to be passed on to another person. In an age where open data are providing insight in a variety of fields, appearing to want to prevent them being passed from one person to another seems—to me, at least—to be a rather odd decision. I am keen to hear the Minister’s explanation for that subsection.
Amendment 44A is a probing amendment. New Section 790P sets out the process through which a company, upon receiving a request for information, can either provide it or go to court. However, subsection (4), which sets out when a company does not have to comply with a request, appears to have no time limit attached. Our amendment requires it to be reviewed annually.
Amendment 47A follows on from Amendment 37D in marking out the extent of the exclusions. Circumstances where a person’s details could be suppressed from a register are to be laid out in regulations by the Secretary of State. Amendment 47A would make it possible to challenge any such decisions. Taken together, these amendments would improve the clarity of these provisions and improve their ability to increase transparency about ownership of companies. I beg to move.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. My various amendments in this group are all part of the same process and seek to change the proposed arrangements so that, although there would still be a register and companies would still need to know their shareholders, there would be no requirement to send details to Companies House. If the company in question did not wish to give access to the register, access would be by way of an application to the court, which would then be limited to security, taxation and law enforcement reasons—implicitly by those three categories of bodies. The Bill thus amended would comply with the G8 commitment, which I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, read out. It specifically did not commit to a public register but committed to making the information on share ownership able to be accessed by security, taxation and law enforcement authorities.
As I argued at Second Reading, the Bill’s proposals for a public register as they stand are, in my view, flawed on several counts. I think we all agree on the need to address the issue of anonymously owned companies having connections with terrorist groups or evading tax—I might add that the same goes for charities, where the record of involvement is under some question. My amendment addresses this by allowing security, tax and criminal law enforcement bodies access. Indeed, the provisions in my amendments could be adapted to simply obliging companies to provide the information on controlling interests to those three bodies.
My point is that there is really no need for public access, which is potentially open to abuse. The Bill as it stands overturns 200 years of the right to privacy under UK company law without really debating it. Transparency of ownership relates to whether a company is public or private under British law. As has been pointed out, publicly listed companies have to make an announcement that goes right down to a 3% shareholder, but for a private, family business, privacy has generally been accepted.
The categories of privacy that are protected are contemplated in the BIS October 2014 consultation, and the Government have since responded further to that. Those categories relate to people who are at risk of intimidation or violence, but there are many other areas in which protection of ownership should be justly considered. The measures, as they are likely to evolve, would be expensive to operate and, at the end of the day, decisions about where people need protection are relatively subjective. The Government’s recent advice on secondary legislation suggested that they would confine protection to situations risking violence or intimidation. I suggest that that would be far too narrow to be just. There are a number of situations where families would be open to press vendetta, for example, should they be thus exposed.
Lord Flight
Lord Flight
My Lords, Amendment 51 seeks to address the issue of the duties of shadow directors and to limit the extension of their duties to what is fair, reasonable and appropriate. The current wording in the Bill goes too far in making the condition that the duties apply,
“where … they are capable of so applying”,
whatever that actually means. The territory relates to the doctrine of avoiding conflicts of interest and, in particular, the situation for full directors, but unfortunately the ground rules there do not apply to shadow directors who sometimes may not even be aware, subjectively, that they are shadow directors. This amendment seeks to tie the conditionality of the duties of shadow directors to what is reasonable, just and equitable. I understand that the Government are sympathetic to these issues but may prefer to address the territory via regulations. As the Bill stands, I suggest that the position of shadow directors is not reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
My Lords, Amendment 51, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Flight, is to Clause 86 and concerns shadow directors. Shadow directors are individuals who influence a company without actually being a director. I do not think I have to declare an interest as being a shadow director of any company, as far as I am aware, but—
Lord Leigh of Hurley
That is the point. Shadow directors can be significant shareholders who have chosen not to sit on the board—in particular, a lender who has become active in the affairs of a business—or simply someone in whose interests and according to whose instructions the directors act, without the person actually being a director. The Bill seeks to clarify the rules governing shadow directors so that people do not deliberately assume that status in order to avoid a lighter touch corporate governance regime. Indeed, the definition of shadow director is not changed by the Bill, only the extent to which they should enjoy the same duties as directors.
At present, the duties of directors apply to shadow directors to the extent permitted by common law rules and equitable principles. These are set out in Section 170 to 177 of the Companies Act and offer up a code of conduct. Clause 86(3) would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to apply any duties of directors to such shadow directors. The Bill makes provision for the duties of directors to apply to shadow directors,
“where … they are capable of so applying”,
as my noble friend said. This wording, quite apart from adding certainty, will do the opposite and leave the courts little discretion to allow them to apply said duties in a proportionate manner. This wording, “capable of so applying”, amounts to some sort of blanket application of duties from one to the other since it is difficult to conceive of a situation where the duty would be incapable of applying.
Of particular interest is the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. It is not often possible to prevent a conflict from arising, and therefore the prima facie duty to avoid conflicts is typically addressed by having some mechanics: for example, one frequently sees a director excusing himself from any meetings considering such matters which might present a conflict and thus being prevented from voting. The Companies Act specifically considers these mechanisms but, of course, it will not be possible to apply them to shadow directors, who may not seek to be shadow directors and may not even be aware that they are. This could result in an automatic breach of the duty by entirely innocent shadow directors, so I would argue that more flexibility is required.
This is why the amendment offers up an alternative wording, which says that duties will apply,
“to the extent it is reasonable, just and equitable for any such general duty to apply”—
it certainly sounds reasonable to me—and caters for examples such as conflicts of interest. It still allows for the Secretary of State to make an intervention, as well as giving the courts the requisite discretion, but it will prevent the inherent unfairness in the situation that I have just described.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, in responding to Amendment 51, I thank my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Leigh. Like my noble friend Lord Leigh, I have been a director in the past, but never a shadow director. It may be helpful if I set out how directors’ general duties currently apply to shadow directors and how Clause 86 will improve this position.
The current provision in Section 170(5) of the Companies Act 2006 states that the directors’ general duties apply to shadow directors to the extent that the,
“common law rules or equitable principles so apply”.
This makes it confusing for anyone who may be acting as a shadow director to know whether any duties apply to them and the extent to which those duties apply. Clause 86 clarifies that the same standards of behaviour are expected of shadow directors as of appointed directors, wherever possible.
I am sympathetic to the intention behind this amendment that shadow directors should not be put in a disadvantaged position compared to appointed directors. The Government recognise that there may be circumstances where the directors’ general duties may not be capable of applying to shadow directors in the same way as appointed directors. One example could arise in the context of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, as set out in Section 175 of the Companies Act 2006. In principle, we would expect any director to avoid a conflict of interest wherever possible. However, Section 175 of the Companies Act also recognises that there are cases in which a director should be able to act in cases of conflict. It therefore allows for authorisation by the company for a director to continue acting on a matter where they have a known conflict in certain circumstances. A shadow director may not be able to seek authorisation in this way.
Clause 86 does not introduce a blanket application of the duties to shadow directors. A shadow director will be able to rely on Clause 86 to demonstrate that, in their circumstances, a duty or part of a duty is incapable of applying to them. Officials have discussed this with the British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, and in light of the points that have been made, I now wish to consider the issue more fully and reflect on whether there is a need to adapt the way the general duties of directors apply to shadow directors so that they do not find themselves in a worse position than directors. This would be achieved by using the power already included in Clause 86(3). I will write to noble Lords before Report to give an update on my conclusions. I hope that my noble friends are reassured by this explanation and that, on this basis, my noble friend Lord Flight will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Flight
I thank the Minister for what she has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Flight
Lord Flight
My Lords, the amendments here in my name—as I made clear when I was speaking to Amendments 44A to 44F—go together. They are all really part of the same argument that the register should not be public but should be available to the police, and the taxation and security authorities. Therefore, it would be redundant to repeat the points that I have already made. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for so graciously moving his amendment and to the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for his remarks. The confirmation statement in Clause 89 is a replacement for our friend the annual return to Companies House. It will contain important information about the company, in particular about the register of people with significant control, which we have just been debating.
Amendment 54B would increase the criminal penalties we provide for not filing a confirmation statement at Companies House. It is important that penalties should be sufficient to deter and sanction those who do not provide Companies House with a confirmation statement. However, I do not believe that increasing the penalty is necessary in this case, which I think is what the noble Lord may be seeking. Enforcement activity by Companies House is focused on ensuring that information is delivered to it and put on the public register in a timely way. Companies House sends reminders to the company in good time before the company is due to file the current annual return. If a company fails to deliver information, the first aim of Companies House is to seek compliance. In the event of continued non-compliance, Companies House prosecutes the company and its directors. Last year, Companies House prosecuted almost 2,000 companies for failing to file the annual return. This approach to enforcement works. Compliance rates for the annual return are currently running at 98%.
The penalties in Parts 7 and 8 are designed to be consistent with the level and approach of existing Companies Act penalties. The penalty for failing to deliver a confirmation statement to Companies House is equivalent to the existing penalty for failing to deliver an annual return. The Government do not consider that there is a case to increase these penalties. Of course, we take the failure to file information at Companies House extremely seriously. It is important that people should be able to obtain up-to-date information about companies with which they may wish to do business. A continuing failure to deliver a confirmation statement could incur a daily default fine of £500. This would quickly add up to a significant amount. I understand concern that there should be sufficient incentives to ensure that information about people with significant control is put onto the public register. In practice, however, we judge a prison sentence to be highly unlikely to be proportionate to failing to deliver a confirmation statement, even were the law to permit the judiciary to impose such a penalty. It is, of course, important that people should have confidence in the public register. When necessary, enforcement includes the prosecution of criminal activity. Consequently, we consider that the sanctions set out Clause 89 are sufficient. I hope that explanation helps to clarify issues and that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.