Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a chartered accountant—which I hesitate to do after the last speech, I have to say. Like most noble Lords, I welcome this Bill, although I greatly regret the Government having to introduce these measures in such circumstances and in such a rush. We have tolerated for far too long the UK—and London in particular—becoming a haven for the ill-gotten gains of criminals. Of course, we need to get this Bill onto the statute book quickly, so that we can effectively sanction those responsible for the atrocities taking place in Ukraine.

Economic crime, however, is a much wider subject than Russia, and we have a lot of work to do to remedy the laissez-faire attitude to economic crime that has pervaded government policy—or, perhaps, lack of policy—in the last decade. The resignation speech of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said it better than I ever could. There is much more to do than is covered in this Bill, and I was pleased to hear the reassurances about the follow-up Bill.

In my comments, I will concentrate on the overseas entity register, but I have one observation on the unexplained wealth order clauses. The Government have blamed the aggressive use of legal action by oligarchs as the major reason why UWOs have not been successful so far. I am sure that there is some truth in that, but I am unconvinced that it is the main issue. More likely, the major problem is the lack of a properly resourced enforcement agency—something we also see in the wider issue of fraud more generally. I understand the reason for introducing legal costs clauses, but I do feel uncomfortable that someone who is entirely innocent will not be able to recover the potentially huge legal costs to defend themselves.

The overseas entity register is a good start, but I am afraid I do not expect it to make much practical difference. Innocent people will provide the required information—which is useful in itself—but those who are using offshore structures dishonestly to hide their identity will still be able to do so. There are many other ways of hiding ownership, including discretionary trusts, undisclosed nominees, complex corporate structures and so on. The current alleged situation of Graham Bonham-Carter and Oleg Deripaska is a good example of how this can happen.

So, in the spirit of being helpful, how might we improve this? First, while the reduction from 18 months is welcome, the time period of six months is still too long. In fact, the period is more than six months, because these clauses do not commence until such date as the Secretary of State decides. Can the Minister say when that will be? Six months still gives a lot of time for people to rearrange their affairs to avoid the rules. I would have favoured 28 days, but perhaps the three months that the Institute of Chartered Accountants has suggested might be a good compromise.

Secondly, while the new rules will prevent a property being sold once the rules are in force until the entity is registered, this does not stop the sale of the company, or, indeed, of a company further up the chain. The Bill will therefore not prevent a criminal realising the value of the property. Frankly, there is probably not a lot we can do about that, but I note that the register will only have to be updated annually, so it may be a very long time before we discover the change. It would be better if the changes to the beneficial ownership had to be updated on the register immediately after the transaction takes place. The Companies Act 2006 requires the persons of significant control register to be updated within 14 days. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the overseas entities register is different from that?

Thirdly, the register will be pointless if there is no real verification of it. One way to improve that would be to leverage the due diligence that should already be happening under anti-money laundering legislation, although clearly this does not always happen as well as it should do. At the moment, we rely on the passive, risk-based requirement to report suspicious activity. It would seriously concentrate the minds of lawyers and accountants who advise those using offshore entities if there was an active requirement for them to place a statement on the register that they have carried out their due diligence and are satisfied that the beneficial ownership is correctly stated, and if we also made sure they were liable for that statement under Clause 15. As well as improving the integrity of the register, this would have the additional impact of making those who are enabling the hiding of assets to think very seriously about it. The requirement for such a statement could easily be included in the regulations to be made under Clause 16. Is that something the Minister would consider?

This Bill is a start, but it is a rushed Bill, issued to deal with an emergency situation, and scrutiny is being substantially curtailed. It is not without flaws. As I said, the subject of economic crime is much wider, and deserves much greater work and consideration. I was pleased to hear the details of the follow-up Bill, which needs to be comprehensive. Can the Minister please make a clear statement that the follow-up Bill—given the curtailed nature of the scrutiny here—will allow the matters covered in this rushed Bill to be looked at again, with the more detailed scrutiny the subject needs and deserves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I said there was a robust system in place under the money laundering regulations in response to the various points that were made about financial services professionals, estate agents, et cetera. That is not to say that we cannot improve the system; we certainly look to do that. Providing information and transparency on property ownership, unexplained wealth orders and the sanctions regime, which is what we are doing, will help to supplement that system.

In July 2021, the CPS amended its legal guidance on money laundering offences for prosecutors to make it clear that it is possible to charge someone under Section 330 of POCA, which relates to the failure to disclose money laundering in the regulated sector. This closes a long-standing gap in law enforcement’s toolkit, which will better enable us to tackle the small minority of complicit professional enablers.

In addition, the Solicitors Regulation Authority—the largest legal PBS which supervises approximately 75% of regulated legal service providers in the UK—undertook a broad range of enforcement action in 2021. This included issuing 14 fines totalling £163,000, suspending membership three times and cancelling membership 13 times, effectively preventing an individual conducting regulated activity.

To take another example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—the largest accountancy PBS—undertook a broad range of enforcement action. This included issuing 59 fines, totalling £178,000, and cancelling the membership of firms six times—again, effectively preventing an individual conducting regulated activity.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested that we should consider how we can make legal professionals report matters relating to national security in a structured way and without the benefit of legal professional privilege. This is a complicated matter and not for this Bill, but I certainly welcome his contribution and his engagement, and we will certainly look at that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised an important point on protecting whistleblowers. We recognise how valuable it is that whistleblowers are prepared to shine a light on wrongdoing and believe that they should be able to do so without fear of recriminations. The whistleblowing regime enables workers to seek redress if they are dismissed or suffer detriment because they have made a so-called protective disclosure about wrongdoing. It is right and proper that the Government review the whistleblowing framework once we have had sufficient time to build the necessary evidence of impact of the most recent reforms. We are considering the scope and timing of a review.

A number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, in particular— raised an important point concerning the wording “knowingly and recklessly”. The wording is drafted on precedent, coming from the Companies Act. This clause is intended to provide a necessary and proportionate deterrent to those who may otherwise provide inaccurate or misleading information on the register of overseas entities. This was debated at length in the other place and the Government have already made a commitment to reconsider the drafting. I also welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, on the sanctions proposals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, asked about the issue of the register and trusts. If the assets are owned via an overseas legal entity, then this entity is within the scope of the draft Bill and will be required to register the trustees as beneficial owners with Companies House and state the reason that they are the beneficial owner—that is, because they are the trustees of that trust.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs introduced a register of trusts in 2017. Trustees of trusts that acquire UK land or property are required to register and provide information on the beneficial ownership of the trust. The information on the register can be shared with law enforcement authorities and enables them to access information on the trustees and beneficiaries of all trusts. Reforms to unexplained wealth orders will also allow law enforcement to investigate the origin of any property held via trusts.

I now turn to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Eatwell, on verification. Clause 16 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the verification of information before an overseas entity makes an application for registration, complies with the updating duty or makes an application to be removed from the live register. To ensure that regulations are laid in a timely way, we have added a requirement for regulations to be made before applications may be made for registration in the register of overseas entities. We expect that UK anti-money laundering supervised professionals may have a part to play in this, and we will set out details on the verification scheme in regulations. Overseas entities will be required to update their information annually, and Companies House will be given broad powers to query information it holds via the further legislation to come later in the year. Also, the very public nature of the register means that there will be many eyes viewing the data, which will of course aid in identifying any inaccuracies. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for his comments on whether we are capturing the ultimate beneficiaries of property. This is an important point.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The Minister has not answered the question about why the register is updated annually, not 14 days after a transaction in the way that the PSC rules have to be updated.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will come to that in a second. The new register is designed to allow investigators to get behind opaque companies. Whether a title is held by a company or an individual, the noble Lord is right that there may be a different beneficiary of the property. That is something investigators may explore further. The task of this register is to look through the company, and that is where we are focused in scope. The question of recording the ultimate beneficiaries of property is a far wider point and would apply to properties held by individuals and UK companies too.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for sharing his experiences with Companies House. We have outlined in the White Paper, published last week, what we are proposing to do under register reform. We are seeking to limit the risk of the misuse of companies by ensuring more reliably accurate information on the companies register, reinforced by identity verification of people who manage or control companies and other UK- registered entities. We will give greater powers to Companies House to query and to challenge the information it receives, and we will give enhanced protection of personal information provided to Companies House. There will be more effective investigation and enforcement and better cross-checking of data with other public and private sector bodies. Companies House will be able to proactively share information with law-enforcement bodies where they have evidence of anomalous filings or suspicious behaviours.

I move on to unexplained wealth orders. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Carlile, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for the points that they raised on the use of UWOs. The threat of substantial legal costs has been a barrier to the use of UWOs. Likely subjects of UWOs are the most litigious persons. To ensure that unexplained wealth can be investigated in the maximum number of cases, we are reforming the cost rules to ensure that agencies will not be burdened with high legal costs if they act with integrity. If an agency acts dishonestly, unreasonably or improperly, it may still be ordered to pay the costs of those subject to a UWO, which is to ensure fairness. An important point to raise regards the changes to the cost rules to limit law-enforcement liability following an adverse court ruling. Protection from costs means that the court has discretion to award costs against an enforcement agency only if it acted dishonestly, unreasonably or improperly. This will remove a key barrier that has discouraged the use of UWOs, while of course providing a safeguard against arbitrary use of the powers.

The noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Carlile, expressed concerns relating to resourcing for law enforcement agencies. The Government have developed a sustainable funding model that demonstrates our commitment to tackling economic crime. The combination of this year’s spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the levy will provide economic crime funding totalling around £400 million over the spending review period. That includes the £63 million that I mentioned earlier for Companies House reform. Since 2006-07 nearly £1.2 billion of the assets recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act has been returned to law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and the courts to fund further asset-recovery capability or work that protects the public from harm.

Account freezing and forfeiture orders are a hugely impactful tool in the law enforcement toolkit. AFOs have proved their worth in a wide range of cases and are seen by law enforcement agencies as a quick and effective method of disrupting criminals and recovering their assets. In 2020-21 just under £219 million of the proceeds of crime were recovered within England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This continues the general trend of improved performance since 2016-17.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised an important point on Clause 18 of the Bill and the exemptions for which it provides. The phrase used in the draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, published in 2018, was that the Secretary of State may exempt a person from the requirement to register only for “special reasons”. This was intended to mirror the wording used in the Companies Act 2006 in respect of the persons with significant control regime. However, the pre-legislative scrutiny committee that examined the draft Bill in 2019 was of the opinion that the reasons why an exemption could be granted should be explicit in the Bill. The Government accepted the committee’s concern that otherwise the power may be too wide, and we amended the Bill accordingly—I think that also addresses some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The circumstances outlined in the Bill have been carefully considered to provide clarity but also flexibility for unforeseeable but legitimate scenarios. Given that the key objectives of this register are to improve transparency and combat money laundering, these exemptions will be used very carefully, and only for evidenced and legitimate reasons.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Kramer, raised the subject of freeports. Throughout the bidding prospectus and subsequent business-case processes, prospective freeports were required to set out how they would manage the risk of illicit activity. Those plans were scrutinised by officials in Border Force, HMRC, the National Crime Agency and others. The Government already require each freeport governance body to take reasonable efforts to verify the beneficial ownership of businesses operating within the freeport tax site and to make that information available to HMRC, law enforcement agencies and other relevant public bodies. Given the nature of the information, we do not think it would be appropriate for the freeport governance body to release that information publicly because it is a third party and does not have the locus to release such information about a business to the public. Furthermore, the requirement would also partially duplicate the people with significant control register at Companies House, where there is already an onus on the company itself to provide information.

I fear that I am running out of time—

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the theme of what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, just said, which is the general weakness of the definition of beneficial ownership in this Bill. It is very striking that in other jurisdictions within the British Isles that hold registers of beneficial ownership and have done for some years, the beneficial owner is always defined as an individual and never as a firm or a trust. An individual who ultimately owns or controls the entity must be identified. The Bill as currently constructed has significant weaknesses, which will prevent the identification of individual beneficial owners in the way that the Government apparently intend but have not as yet achieved.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, we find ourselves in an unusual position. Normally, this House is trying to knock the edges off overzealous legislation and limit the powers the Government have a tendency to give themselves. In this Bill, we are trying to achieve the exact opposite: to strengthen the powers and close the loopholes so that the powers are as effective as possible.

We are trying to move quickly because of the awful situation in Ukraine. As the Minister said at the outset, the overseas entity register is not an emergency measure—although it will be useful in this situation. In normal times, it would be subject to much more detailed scrutiny, and we would not normally debate such wide groups as we are today. At Second Reading, I asked the Minister to confirm that the follow-up economic crime Bill would be sufficiently wide in scope to allow the matters we are covering now to be considered further, if necessary, as part of that Bill. While the Minister nodded vigorously at the time, he did not give that confirmation in his response. The House clearly accepts the need to move fast, and matters which would normally be voted on will not be pushed to a vote. I hope that the Government will reciprocate that flexibility. Speaking for myself, it would be much easier to accept the flaws and gaps in this Bill, if it were clear that there will be the opportunity to give the more detailed scrutiny which these important issues deserve in due course. Will the Minister please provide that confirmation today?

We all welcome the additional clauses that the Government are proposing on trusts, one of the more common methods to obscure ultimate ownership. Of course, trusts can be—and, as the Minister said, they usually are—perfectly legitimate. However, they can be misused. As such, I commend the Government for introducing these new clauses. That said, and in addition to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, there is still one area where an important gap remains: the classic way of camouflaging the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner is by the use of discretionary trusts. These will often have a stated beneficiary, such as a charity, but, because they are discretionary, the benefit can be passed to others who are not identified. That might be under a formal agreement, but it is often something less formal or traceable. In such situations, it can be difficult to ascertain who the real beneficiary is. The identity of “the settlor or guarantor” is one clue— government Amendment 15 rightly requires those to be identified.

The Minister kindly wrote to me yesterday afternoon—I apologise for spoiling his weekend. He said that HMRC already has access to information about beneficiaries through new data-sharing gateways and existing exchange of notes mechanisms. However, this is true only for UK resident taxpayers and for situations where money actually flows. It does not cover all jurisdictions, so the gap remains. Many of the ultimate property owners are not UK residents, and value can pass in different ways—for example, the simple right to use the property rent-free would not be picked-up by HMRC.

One other way of trying to see through such discretionary trusts is to identify who has benefited in the past, including those who have had the use of the underlying property at less than market rent. It would be relatively easy to add a subsection to the Government’s Amendment 15 to cover that, and it would not be difficult information for innocent parties to provide. Is this something which the Government could consider, even if it is in later regulation?

As a general theme, we should not be allowing overseas entities to register unless they are fully transparent. To be honest, the Government’s apparent reluctance to accept clauses which would improve that transparency is somewhat concerning. On that theme, I also wholeheartedly support Amendment 17. It seems rather pointless to have information on the overseas entity, if that still fails to show us who owns the property. I urge the Minister to look at that seriously.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his Amendment 17. I recognise that the Government have made big strides in the last few days to listen to the concerns which are so widely held. However, given all this effort, and given that the Bill has sat almost ready for four or five years, I feel that we could go further today and do the job properly.

There is no point in legislating for a Bill that leaves huge gaps for more anonymity. I am really sceptical about the need for endless anonymity. The people who strive to have anonymity do not always have it for the right motives. We need to recognise that. I said to the Minister before we came to the Chamber that we spend our lives being entirely reasonable in this country while trying to deal with very unreasonable people. Of course, we must stick to the law, but we need to have the levers in the law which enable us to tackle these bad actors. This is why, in my own slightly layman attempt with Amendment 23, I have tried to bring more focus on the promoters of these organisations. This is to ensure that there is much more responsibility taken by directors who promote organisations, and that they help to provide proper due diligence when working with the sorts of people they are busily defending anonymity for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to a number of amendments in my name in this group—there are eight of them—and I will be fairly brief.

First, Amendments 5 and 13 basically ask the beneficial owners and various other parties to provide their former names. In Part 4 of Schedule 1, the Bill requires managing officers who are managing the beneficial owner’s interest to provide their former names. But the same is somehow not required for registerable beneficial owners where they are persons other than individuals—which could be companies that are forever changing their names, or other parties. What I am seeking to do through Amendments 5 and 13 is to, as it were, align the various provisions in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will be agreeable to that.

Amendments 8, 12 and 14 require the beneficial owners, or their managing agents et cetera, to provide a list of any criminal convictions and sanctions against them. At the moment, the Bill does not ask for that kind of information, so it is perfectly possible for somebody to look at this proposed register of property ownership and not know that the ultimate beneficiaries have various convictions, which may well be abroad. It really exerts pressure on them to either come clean or to avoid the UK altogether—which perhaps would be more preferable. Again, it is a fairly straight forward suggestion asking the Government to act upon that.

The meatier part of my eight amendments relate to Amendments 18, 19 and 20, which take issue with the Government’s provision of the definition of registrable beneficial interest, generally taken to be 25% of the shares or voting rights, or somebody having significant influence or control. As it is now defined it is too wide. Indeed, the provision of any number is too wide. If you say it is 25%, it is not inconceivable that half a dozen people will get together and make sure that nobody gets to 25%. If you specify 20%, that will be exactly the same. So four, five or six drug traffickers can get together and own a fraction of a company, and through that they can invest their proceeds in a property. Under this kind of approach, none of them would be identified as a beneficial owner or count as a person of significant control, because they do not meet the thresholds specified in the Bill.

The Bill as presently drafted leaves open the possibility that companies holding UK property would continue to hide the identity of true owners by claiming that there was no beneficial owner. This is already a major problem at Companies House for the companies already registered in the UK. That has been identified by a number of whistleblowers and a number of leaks that we have had. However, rather than tackling the issue, the Government have imported these problems into the Bill, and it is quite likely that the Bill will not achieve its assumed objectives.

So I suggest that there should be no numerical specification of the beneficial interest definition; rather, any interest should be disclosable. It is not every day that ordinary individuals want to buy UK property through opaque offshore companies. They have a reason why they want to do this, so we must make sure that absolutely no door is open to them. By leaving this definition, the danger is that the Bill simply will not achieve its objectives. I therefore recommend my amendments to the Government in the hope that this will help to end the abuses.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I support most of the amendments in the group, including the government amendments, which are generally very helpful.

I will speak to Amendment 24 in my name and to the similar Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, both of which are intended to address the possibility of there being a very long period between a change in the ownership of the entity and that change being reported in the annual update. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his support in this. Amendment 23 would require an update to be filed within 14 days of when a person has become or has ceased to be a registrable beneficial owner. My Amendment 24 is slightly wider, requiring any changes in registered information to be reported within 14 days. However, both amendments seek to bring the overseas entity regime into line with the persons of significant control regime that UK companies must follow. To be honest, I would be content either way.

As the Bill is currently drafted, an overseas entity could register and then immediately change its beneficial ownership and we would not get to know about that for a full year, during which time any number of actions could take place, including the sale of the property to an innocent third party who unwittingly might find themselves enriching a criminal or someone subject to sanctions.

The Bill rightly puts restrictions on the disposition and registration of property, but it does nothing to deal with the more likely scenario of the overseas entity itself, or indeed an entity further up the ownership chain, being sold; indeed, this 12-month grace period almost wilfully ignores that. It seems rather perverse that the overseas entity regime should be more benign than the regime that applies to persons of significant control for UK companies.

In his helpful all-Peers letter of Friday, the Minister explained that the reason they have done it this way is to protect innocent third-party buyers from not being able to register the purchase of a property if the overseas entity turns out to be in breach of the requirement to report a change. That is obviously extremely important. However, a very simple solution is already built into the Bill. The overseas entity has the ability, under Clause 7(8), to shorten the update period and file an update immediately before it sells. Any innocent buyer would simply insist that this happens before the sale is completed, and that would deal with the problem that the Minister explained. Accordingly, I see no reason why one of Amendments 23 or 24 should not be accepted, so that overseas entities would have the same reporting requirements as UK companies have. The whole point of the overseas entity register is that we should know who beneficially owns UK properties. Allowing that information to be potentially up to 12 months out of date cannot make sense. I cannot think of any other corporate register that would allow such a long period to notify changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Yes, but they would have to be tabling notices to any potential beneficial owners in order to update the register. We think that if we have a yearly update, any third party transacting with that entity would then have sufficient legal certainty to be able to proceed. The point is not that the entity might not register the change of ownership but that the third party, and indeed Companies House, have no way of knowing whether it has. Therefore, a third party could engage in a transaction thinking that the original entity is compliant and then discover afterwards that it has not updated its register and is non-compliant, and therefore potentially lose its money and be unable to proceed with the transaction because it cannot register the property. On balance, we think the better option is to have a yearly update cycle, but I realise that this is a point of debate and I am happy to discuss it further. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is engaged in this.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The Minister has not addressed the point that this can easily be dealt with by bringing forward the annual update, which a company has the ability to do under—I think, from memory—Clause 7. If that were done as part of the property transaction, that solves the problem completely. Does the Minister disagree with that?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

No, I do not disagree with that. It is, of course, perfectly possible—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Lord often suggests setting up special Committees of this House. He will know that it is way above my pay grade to dictate to the House authorities what committees they wish to set up for examining particular Bills. I know from appearances that there are some extremely good and effective committees already in this House examining all parts of the Government’s legislative agenda and all departments—but, if the noble Lord can forgive me, I will not get into instructing the House authorities on what committees to set up to future scrutinise our work.

Relevant firms, including financial institutions, law firms, accountancy firms and estate agents, under the anti-money laundering framework, must inform Her Majesty’s Treasury as soon as practicable if they know, or have reasonable cause to suspect while carrying out their business, that they have encountered a person subject to financial sanctions, or a person who has committed a financial sanctions offence. They must state the information on which the knowledge or suspicion is based, and any information they hold about the person by which they can be identified. It is already an offence to fail to comply with this reporting obligation. I understand that the noble Lord does not think that the legislation is applied properly—perhaps we can look at that—but there is already an offence on the statute book.

Activity which seeks to evade these new beneficial ownership reporting obligations should be taken into account in the course of these firms taking a risk-based approach to anti-money laundering, and any suspicions of sanctions evasion should be reported in accordance with their legal obligations. I am pleased to say that Treasury Ministers will be writing to the anti-money-laundering supervisors of the relevant professional enablers on this matter, highlighting that the Government will be expecting everyone in these sectors to be particularly vigilant.

I hope that, with the reassurances that I have provided on this important issue, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The Minister was kind enough to offer to meet with me about my Amendment 24. I actually asked about meeting regarding the verification regulations in Clause 16. Is he prepared to do that, probably with others, as it is very important that these regulations get the input of all these highly intelligent people around the Committee before they are issues, rather than afterwards?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Yes, I am happy to meet with the noble Lord and his colleagues to discuss that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Before the Minister tries to answer that, we need to recognise delivering what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, wants would be absolutely transformative to Companies House. There is no tinkering at the edges here; this would be a massive transformational change and, unless we get that, this amendment will not deliver what is being asked of it.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I will quickly add to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Clause 16 sets out the regulations must

“make provision … about the information that must be verified … about the person by whom the information must be verified … requiring a statement, evidence or other information to be delivered to the registrar for the purposes of sections”

et cetera. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to what he has in mind there.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Eatwell for moving Amendment 42. As we all know, he has a huge amount of experience in this field, having overseen many of these matters in another jurisdiction. He has long pressed the Government to introduce a register of this kind, but Amendment 42 calls for proper data verification. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cromwell, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others—it is essential to the credibility of this Bill to ensure that any data is verified and accurate, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell put it.

The Government moved a little on this topic when the Bill was in the House of Commons, passing what was then Amendment 49, as we heard from other noble Lords, requiring the Secretary of State to lay regulations outlining the verification process before the register goes live. We welcome that move as it provides greater certainty, but as we have already heard, it prompts a number of supplementary questions and, in our view, does not go far enough. That is what Amendment 42, which we support, seeks to address.

When will we see the regulations? Will the process be based on previous consultations or require a separate engagement exercise? What if they are brought forward and the envisaged process is deemed inadequate? What if we end up getting the Bill before the SI has been laid? As with the earlier group on the transition period, we need greater clarity on process and timescales. Surely, accurate, verified data as required by my noble friend Lord Eatwell’s Amendment 42 is essential; without it, the Bill simply will not succeed.