Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to the information-sharing regulations, I shall also speak to the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Protection and Disclosure of Information and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024. These regulations are part of a series of statutory instruments designed to implement the reforms introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 Act.

This Government are committed to holding accountable those who exploit our open economy. For instance, in the past few weeks, we have outlined our new anti-corruption agenda and our goal to make the UK a hostile environment for all forms of corruption. Corporate transparency is vital in tackling such corruption and economic crime. The 2023 Act enhances corporate transparency in the UK by reforming Companies House, granting it greater powers to verify information, tackle economic crime and improve the reliability of the companies register. At the same time, the Act introduces reforms to Companies House processes and increases protections for individuals at risk of fraud and other harms.

Work to implement the changes at Companies House is well under way. Since March, stronger checks on company information have allowed the organisation to cleanse the register of false and suspicious information. In parallel, Companies House is undergoing a significant organisational transformation to support the delivery of these reforms. Although considerable progress has been made, there is still much to do. We are here today to consider the next set of regulations to the Companies House reform programme. I will start with the Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024.

The 2023 Act enhanced the registrar’s ability to share non-public information with enforcement agencies and other public authorities to support their functions. Additionally, the 2023 Act empowered the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the registrar to share information with designated persons for specified purposes. For example, there may be situations where it would be advantageous for the registrar to share information with certain officeholders tasked with managing insolvency proceedings. These officeholders are typically insolvency practitioners but could also include the official receiver or, in Scotland, the Accountant in Bankruptcy.

While the Companies Act 2006 permits the registrar to share information with agencies when carrying out a public function, the work of these officeholders generally pertains to private matters. These include identifying and recovering assets during insolvency proceedings. Therefore, the registrar currently lacks the power to share information with officeholders for such purposes.

These responsibilities often extend beyond asset sales to legal actions. They could involve applying to the court to reverse transactions made before the insolvency took place that disadvantaged creditors. Where a director has allowed a company to continue trading while insolvent, this could also involve seeking an order making that director liable for the additional losses incurred by creditors. The information-sharing regulations will enable the registrar to share crucial information with insolvency officeholders, enhancing insolvency processes and helping to maximise returns for creditors.

I turn to the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Protection and Disclosure of Information and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024. It is key that individuals running companies and other entities register their details so that they can be held accountable for the entity’s affairs. However, having one’s personal information publicly displayed can increase the risk of harm, such as fraud, identity theft or cases of domestic abuse.

Currently, an individual can already apply to protect their residential address from the public register in certain cases. Protection means that the address is not publicly visible. However, the law does not allow protection of a residential address that was previously used as a company’s registered office address. Companies House regularly receives requests for protection of these residential addresses from many individuals. These include those at risk of harm because of the public availability of their residential address as a registered office address—for example, those in witness protection, judges and parliamentarians. These regulations are the first of several reforms to enhance the protection of personal information. They will allow applications to protect a residential address where it was previously used as a company’s registered office address.

The regulations also make specific provisions for the scenario of dissolved companies. There are a number of reasons why a party would want to apply to court to restore a dissolved company to the register: for instance, to claim assets or pursue legal claims. To do this, the applicant requires the company’s former registered office address. To support this, these regulations ensure that an application to protect a residential address that was a dissolved company’s last registered office address can be made only from six months after the company’s dissolution. The registrar will also be able to disclose a protected residential address to certain persons who require the dissolved company’s registered office address to make a restoration application.

Lastly, the instrument amends legislation that applies company law to limited liability partnerships, following changes to company law made by the 2023 Act and this instrument.

In conclusion, these regulations strike the right balance between privacy and transparency. Individuals will benefit from greater protection of their personal information, while protected information will be available for law enforcement, public authorities and others with a legitimate reason to access it. Together, these instruments build on the 2023 Act, strengthening our commitment to support legitimate business and tackle economic crime. I hope the regulations will be supported, and I beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, we will support both of these instruments, and I will be brief. The first instrument is a straightforward and necessary increase in the disclosure powers of Companies House and, as the Minister has made clear, the SI extends disclosure powers to cover non-public organisations and specifies to whom information may be disclosed and under what circumstances. All this seems clear and with obvious benefits, although I confess that I am not at all clear what a “judicial factor”, mentioned in Regulation 3(g), is or does. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.

We are generally happy with measures that improve the utility or performance of Companies House. Appropriately increased and targeted disclosure powers are definitely a good thing, but arguably more important is the ID-checking regime at Companies House. In that context, it was good to see Companies House quoted in last Wednesday’s Times, saying:

“We take fraud seriously and all allegations are fully investigated. We are preparing to introduce compulsory identity verification checks. This will provide greater assurance about who is setting up, running, owning, and controlling companies”.


That is welcome news, if a little overdue. Can the Minister say when Parliament will see these new and obviously vital proposals?

The second SI essentially, as the Minister said, deals with the disclosure of residential addresses on the public companies register. It proposes new circumstances in which these addresses may be protected from exposure via Companies House registration details. Here, I declare a kind of interest: I have, for the past nine years, benefited from a Companies House exemption, under the existing regime, from disclosure of my residential address. The circumstances surrounding my exemption were clear and compelling enough to qualify for non-disclosure, but they would not serve to protect from exposure any address currently or formerly used as a company’s registered office.

This instrument will allow an application to protect a residential address when it was previously the registered address for the company, and this will apply, mutatis mutandis, to LLPs. There are appropriate protections against using this new power to frustrate challenges to the dissolution of a company, as the Minister mentioned. This all seems very sensible, and the EM notes in paragraph 5.8:

“Companies House has for a long time been inundated with requests for this kind of protection, as the previous law prevented many people from protecting publicly available address information that put them at risk, for example in cases of domestic abuse”.


In paragraph 6.5, the EM says:

“Further regulations will be made in due course to introduce additional measures preventing the abuse of personal information on the companies register”.


I encourage the Minister to make rapid progress on these new proposals. Companies House needs all the help it can get.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for missing the first SI. I meant no discourtesy; it was an administrative error entirely of my own making, and I particularly apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leong. However, I would have welcomed the regulations because, as Conservatives, we believe in good governance, personal responsibility and safeguarding our economy from exploitation. We believe that the measure delivers exactly that.

On information-sharing and companies, we welcome the Information Sharing (Disclosure by the Registrar) Regulations 2024. This legislation is a clear and necessary step in strengthening the integrity, transparency and security of our systems. At its core, these regulations empower the registrar to share critical information with designated bodies. This will enhance co-operation between government departments, regulatory agencies and enforcement authorities, ensuring a more joined-up approach to tackling crime, fraud and misconduct.

For too long, bad actors have exploited the gaps in our information-sharing framework, hiding behind outdated systems and fragmented oversight. The result has been criminal networks, fraudulent companies and rogue entities syphoning off resources, undermining fair competition and eroding public trust. We owe it to law-abiding businesses and citizens to level the playing field and close these loopholes.

Furthermore, these regulations are proportionate and pragmatic. They strike the right balance between enabling necessary disclosures and protecting sensitive data. Conservatives have always championed individual freedom and privacy, and this legislation respects those values while enhancing national security and economic resilience. This is not just a technical reform; it is about ensuring confidence in our institutions, trust in the free market and the rule of law. By empowering the registrar, we are sending a clear message that the UK will not be a haven for those who flout our laws and/or exploit our systems.

I also welcome the draft Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Protection and Disclosure of Information and Consequential Amendments) Regulations. This legislation marks an important step in safeguarding our economic landscape, while enhancing the transparency and integrity of our corporate structures. These regulations are critical for addressing two fundamental challenges: the protection of sensitive information and the facilitation of responsible disclosure.

By ensuring that data held by companies and limited liability partnerships is appropriately safeguarded, we are protecting businesses, individuals and the integrity of the UK’s economic infrastructure. At the same time, targeted and necessary disclosures will empower regulators, enforcement bodies and government agencies to act decisively in identifying wrongdoing and preventing abuse.

Criminal Finances Act 2017 and Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here today, with the interest in the instrument before us, and I am pleased to see members of the Front Benches here with us this afternoon.

I shall give a little background to the regulations, if possible. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 contained a wide range of measures of reforms to reduce economic crime and increase transparency over corporate entities conducting business in the United Kingdom. That included a range of measures enabling targeted information-sharing, tackling money laundering and removing reporting burdens on businesses. Additionally, the Act introduced new intelligence-gathering powers for law enforcement and reform of outdated criminal corporate liability laws. It also introduced reforms to unexplained wealth orders, corporate liability laws and targeted information-sharing, which are already in force.

More recently, guidance for the new offence of failure to prevent fraud was published last week, and I was pleased to support that on 6 November. The offence itself comes into effect in September 2025, helping to support fraud prevention measures before this offence comes into force. The Act also introduced the new regime to tackle criminal and terrorist crypto assets; this is relevant to the debate today. The use of crypto assets in illegal activity is sadly increasing and, when introducing and reviewing legislation, we want to consider the emerging technologies and how they can be harnessed by criminals to commit crime or indeed hide their illegal gains.

The previous Government introduced a bespoke regime to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which allowed effective seizure of both criminal and terrorist crypto assets. This regime was introduced in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 to make it easier to confiscate crypto assets from criminals and to forfeit crypto assets obtained from, or indeed to be used in, crime or terrorism. On 26 April, the crypto assets measure that this debate relates to came into force. The powers are operational in England and Wales and, as of the end of October, over 80 cases have exercised the new powers, including crypto asset seizures or confiscation cases involving crypto assets.

I want briefly to outline the purpose of this instrument, however. The regulations here will make a set of amendments that are consequential on the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The regulations make consequential amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and will ensure that the investigative powers of that Act include, for example, reference to crypto asset investigations in all the necessary sections for the powers to function properly and in accordance with their policy intention.

This draft instrument is required to complete that commencement of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and will ensure that all the necessary legislation is now in place and there is legal certainty about how cases will be dealt with. I hope that noble Lords will see that this is an important aspect in the fight against crime, and particularly in the use of crypto assets. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

We support this statutory instrument but have a few observations and questions. It is clear that more needs to be done to combat fraud, now our most frequent crime. Fraud accounts for around 40% of all crimes in England and Wales, with an estimated 3.2 million offences per year, and was said by the previous Government in February to cost society about £6.8 billion a year. There are, in fact, much larger estimates. The Annual Fraud Indicator estimated that UK annual losses to fraud could be £219 billion in total, with £8.3 billion coming from individuals.

It is also clear that our current armoury needs extending. Both POCA and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act are either defective or inadequate, or both. It is not surprising that POCA 2002 requires updating—22 years is an aeon when it comes to the more exotic and newer means of being scammed. However, it is rather surprising that the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which received Royal Assent on 26 October last year, did not incorporate some of the variations introduced by this SI. The Act did, after all, deal with the seizure of assets, including crypto assets, in its Schedule 8. The Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 5.1, says that,

“a huge rise in the use of digital technologies in crypto assets has provided new methods to conduct crime and deposit gains from criminality”.

Paragraph 5.3 says that,

“consequential amendments are required … so that search and seizure are exercisable and effective for the purpose of crypto asset investigations”.

Could the Minister expand on all this? Where were the provisions of the ECCT Act inadequate? What events or information triggered the realisation that the amendment was needed? The fact that the amendments were needed raises the question of what else was wrong or missing from POCA or the ECCT Act. What reassurance can the Minister give us that all the defects in these Acts are remedied by this SI? Do further aspects of either Act need at least an attempt at future-proofing?

I would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister of some of the detailed provisions in the SI. The term “substantial value” is used as a qualifier four times in Regulation 2(4); it is obviously an important qualification. What is the test for

“is likely to be of substantial value”,

and is it the same test—or tests—in all four appearances of the phrase in this instrument? Who decides what the threshold is in each case?

I have a couple more questions about interpretation. Regulation 2(4)(b) inserts new subsection (7G)(a), which refers to

“any other question as to its derivation”.

Does “derivation” here mean provenance, or has it some alternative meaning? The same question applies to the use of “derivation” in Regulation 2(6). Is not the phrase “any other question” in itself extremely wide in scope? What questions, if any, are excluded by this phrasing?

I was pleased to see the attempt at an impact assessment incorporated in the EM. I wondered, however, what weight to give to the assessment of benefits. The range offered is very large, even if the lower bound quoted in the EM, of £107.60, is a misprint of £107.6 million. The difficulty in assessing the usefulness and reliability of these estimates is exacerbated by the qualifying sentences in paragraph 9.2 of the EM, which say:

“The data and assumptions surrounding cryptoassets are limited due to the technology being relatively new and rapidly changing. It is also sensitive, and many figures and police data are not suitable for the public domain”.


This seems rather opaque. Can the Minister say whether enforcement authorities are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to dealing with likely crypto asset issues? Can he be a little less mysterious about that final sentence in paragraph 9.2 of the EM—in particular, is it reasonable to rely on unspecified and apparently secret data whose reliability we cannot estimate or properly qualify? After saying all that, I should repeat that we support this SI.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not attending promptly. I am glad to say that I welcome these regulations and I very much hope that they will allow the police to act decisively against criminals who abuse our corporate frameworks, ensuring that Britain remains an inhospitable environment for illicit financial activity.

The regulations extend two previous pieces of legislation designed to cover crypto asset investigations. Under the regulations, search and seizure powers will be able to be exercised for the purposes of investigating crypto assets. This is an entirely necessary move, born of the fact that many criminals use new and innovative ways to avoid detection in their illegal activities.

The National Crime Agency’s national asset centre estimates that illicit crypto transactions linked to the United Kingdom are likely to have reached at least £1.2 billion in 2021 and are surely even higher now. Recent figures from the law firm RPC and Action Fraud show that losses from crypto asset fraud increased 41% last year. Can the Minister provide the latest figures on the cost to the UK economy of crypto asset fraud and the number of illicit transactions estimated to be taking place?