Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has a huge amount of expertise and has achieved a huge amount in Parliament to crack down on fraud and economic crime. I will come to the Bill’s anti-money laundering measures, so I will have to detain him a bit longer until I get there. I agree, however: we have to make sure that we can build on the regime, powers and law enforcement frameworks that are in place. We can go further.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

If the Home Secretary does agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), with whom I have worked closely on these matters, why is she not reforming corporate criminal liability in the Bill to bring into effect the very change that he has promoted?

[Suella Braverman]

I accept what the right hon. Lady says, but the Government have already taken steps to establish the case for change on corporate criminal liability. In 2020, we commissioned the Law Commission to undertake a detailed review of how the legislative system could be improved to appropriately capture and punish criminal offences committed by corporations, with a particular focus on economic crime. The Law Commission published that paper on 10 June 2022. The Government are carefully assessing the options that were presented and are committed to working quickly to reform criminal corporate liability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), who has been a passionate and strong advocate on behalf of whistleblowers and the very important part they play in fighting economic crime, money laundering and fraud.

Many of us have waited with eager anticipation for the Bill that the Government promised would enable us to rid Britain of the influence of oligarchs and kleptocrats and of the cancer of money laundering, fraud and other economic crime. That is particularly true of the large and ever growing group of Back Benchers who are working together across the House on these issues. Although we all welcome the fact that the Bill is now before us, many of us deeply regret that, yet again, the Government have failed to demonstrate the strategic vision, determination and ambition that are plainly needed if we are to translate our shared aim into reality on the ground and convert our warm words on economic crime into real action. The Bill contains good and important changes, but it does not allow us to make the big leap forward that we need to systematically drive this pernicious and pervasive illegal activity out of our economy and our society.

Let me remind Members why tackling economic crime really matters. Bluntly, the cost to the UK economy is immense. People have talked about the figure of £290 billion a year, but a recent study by the University of Portsmouth gives us a figure just short of £350 billion. The mind boggles. That is somewhere between a quarter and a third of total public spending every year. It is the enormity of the sums that gives the UK the shameful and dubious distinction of being the jurisdiction of choice for oligarchs, kleptocrats and criminals around the world—people who choose us to hide and launder their ill-gotten gains.

Governments of both the main political parties have long championed the UK's financial services, and the success of our financial services has contributed significantly to economic growth over recent decades. We boast of our professionals, our institutions, a trusted legal jurisdiction, the English language, an attractive property market and the lure of London as a place in which to live and work—all things that help to create a vibrant financial services sector. At the same time, though, our weak regulations, our woefully inadequate enforcement capability, our relationship with the UK tax havens in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, our lack of transparency and our deficient accountability protocols have meant that it has become all too easy to wash the dirty money along with the clean here in Britain.

The human impact of this is beyond awful. We have all seen the horrific, heartbreaking images of Putin’s vicious assault on Ukraine and the effect that it is having on innocent Ukrainians. However, we must face up to the understanding that the dirty cash is laundered and cleaned by Putin and his kleptocratic friends both in and through the UK. Ukraine is now paying the price for corruption and economic crime. We are helping to enable Putin’s assault. Our corporate structures, our lawyers, bankers, company service providers and accountants, and our links with places such as the British Virgin Islands all facilitate the accumulation of stolen wealth and power that helps to fuel the criminal onslaught on an independent nation and its people.

We have allowed that to happen. It is an utterly appalling truth that, since Putin came to power more than 20 years ago, there has not been one single prosecution for economic crime launched against any individual Russian oligarch—not one. Similarly, the explosion of fraud in Britain has led to endless instances of misery and harm, which other Members have cited. The authorities, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, reported 5.1 million incidents of fraud in the year to September 2021, and we know that much fraud remains unreported. The published figure means that at least one in 11 adults were the victim of fraud in that year. People such as Len, who, at the age of 96 and with a proud record of service in the Army and a successful career as a chartered surveyor, was getting 600 scam communications a month. Although he did not keep track of his total losses, he knew that in one 10-day period he had spent and lost £600. It is the lack of enforcement action that contributed to Len’s misery and that has allowed fraud to spiral into the most common crime in Britain today.

The Government are absolutely right to bring forward legislation. In fact, I would argue that if we do not eradicate money laundering, fraud and other economic crime we will cause lasting damage to our financial services sector, because we will lose our reputation as a trusted jurisdiction, and the plentiful supply of clean money across the world will go to other more reputable countries. We will lose business, not attract it. Britain can never enjoy sustained economic growth on the back of dirty money.

I welcome the good and important changes the Bill will bring about when it is passed into law. The reform of Companies House, which other hon. Members have talked about, is warmly welcomed and hugely important. None of us wants more regulation, but we do need much smarter regulation, and that is what these provisions aim to achieve. We need to tackle and stop scandals such as the Danske Bank scandal, where an Estonian branch of the Danish bank allowed $8.3 billion of suspect payments to move through the bank using British registered companies. Many of those companies were limited liability companies, and we now know that 90% of the more than 800 limited liability companies involved in the scandal were set up by one rogue company service provider and registered at the same address in Birmingham. We need to stop the practices that meant that in the FinCEN files leaks 3,267 UK shell companies were named—more than in any other country. We need to tackle the reasons that led to Transparency International’s finding in a 2017 investigation that 766 UK shell companies were involved in corruption and money laundering cases worth up to £80 billion, with half of those 766 companies registered at just eight different addresses.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady is making a fantastic speech, and it is always a pleasure to listen to her and to work so closely with her from our respective positions on the Back Benches. She refers to Danske Bank; the total amount of money laundering through that Estonian branch was €200 billion, much of it Russian money from kleptocrats moving the money out of Russia. The bank has not been fined yet. It will probably get a fine of £2 billion or £3 billion, but the likelihood is that not a single individual will be held to account. That is absolutely wrong. Fines are seen as a cost of doing business. I know she agrees that we need to extend the failure to prevent an offence to include economic crime and things such as false accounting, and we must have individual directorial responsibility.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Hear, hear! I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman, and it is a real pleasure to work with him on all these matters. He is completely right. The interesting thing about Danske Bank is that, were there to be any prosecutions, they would not happen in the UK. They might happen in other jurisdictions, particularly America, but they will never happen in the UK because of the weakness of our enforcement agencies.

The provisions in the Bill are essential to help tackle some of the wrongs in the examples I have given, but I hope the Minister will assure the House when he winds up the debate that he will seriously consider amendments that we intend to table to strengthen the reform of Companies House and prevent potential loopholes. I also welcome the proposals to allow organisations such as banks to share information where that could help to prevent or detect wrongdoing, and the proposals to treat cryptoassets just like cash or any other assets for the purposes of seizure and enforcement.

However, the Bill too often tinkers with the challenges at the margin instead of boldly adopting a more holistic and systemic approach to bearing down on dirty money. For example, instead of proper and much-needed reform of the supervision of the professional enablers who are responsible for implementing anti-money laundering regulations, we get new cost caps for the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and new powers for the Legal Services Board—piecemeal reform, not systemic reform.

Instead of reforming the present outdated criminal offences in relation to the responsibilities of companies and their directors to prevent economic crime, which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) referred to, so that we can really hold those who enable, facilitate or collude with economic crime to account, we get new pre-investigation powers for the Serious Fraud Office—important, but piecemeal reform. Instead of a systemic reform of the broken suspicious activity reports regime, we tinker at the edges by reforming part of the regime, the defence against money laundering SARs—again necessary, but yet another example of the piecemeal approach being taken.

Not only does the Bill tinker at the edges; it also fails to address key matters that are all vital to a comprehensive approach to preventing, detecting and punishing money launderers and fraudsters. Where are the proposals to seize, as well as freeze, the assets taken from sanctioned individuals and states? We want the money that Putin and his kleptocratic cronies stole from Russia to be used to fund the reconstruction of Ukraine. We need similar powers to those that already exist in other European countries such as Italy and in nations across the world such as Canada.

Where are the proposals for a sustainable funding regime for the enforcement agencies, so that they can use the powers they have? For instance, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) stated, the cost of registering a new company with Companies House is a mere £12. It would still be a bargain at £50 or £100, with the extra income ringfenced to fund Companies House properly.

Where are the proposals to do away with the requirement that our enforcement agencies pick up the tab for the legal costs incurred by individuals who succeed in resisting a prosecution for economic crime? The US enforcement agencies, which are far more successful in securing convictions, do not have to pay the costs of the person prosecuted if they lose a case. We should follow that example. Our system acts as a brake on our enforcement agencies. They fear the financial costs of losing, so they fail to prosecute aggressively, and because of that fraudsters, criminals and money launderers get away with awful actions.

Where are the proposals, which the hon. Member for Cheadle called for in her contribution, to protect the brave whistleblowers on whom we are so dependent? Where are the proposals to ensure accountability to Parliament and the public, so that we can see whether our reforms deliver? Where are the proposals to tackle the abuse of our defamation laws by oligarchs who want to silence those of us wanting to hold them to account? Where are the proposals to close the loopholes on transparency for trusts and the ownership of land, which continue to act as secret ways to launder money into or through the UK? Where are the reforms to the SARs regime, to the supervision of AML supervision or to corporate criminal liability laws?

In the wake of the 7/7 attack in Britain, we treated the reform of counter-terrorism as a mission requiring strong and comprehensive action, and we are now rightly proud of our capabilities in that area. The war in Ukraine should be our 7/7 moment in the battle to eradicate dirty money. It has helped us to understand the horrors that allowing illicit finance to infect our financial services sector, our economy and our society can bring, both at home and abroad.

This Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put things right. We cannot and must not waste it. I look forward to working with my colleagues across the House and with Ministers in Government to achieve our shared and crucial objective: to show that we are a country that consistently demonstrates zero tolerance for all illicit finance and is determined to grow a strong, trusted financial services sector in a jurisdiction that boasts the smartest regulation, first-class enforcement of the rules, maximum transparency and strong accountability. There lies the way to economic growth.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (First sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Dame Margaret?

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Q Gurpreet, your written evidence is very negative. At one point, it states:

“We do not think these proposed changes support the Bill’s central aim of reducing the use of limited partnerships for money-laundering, since criminal users of limited partnerships will simply ignore them.”

That suggests to me that we are not going far enough. We are aiming to catch the people who are guilty of economic crime. Attached to that, somehow I cannot see any investor wanting anything other than to know that they are putting their money into a kosher investment. Even if you are just a pension fund putting your money into a scheme, it does not seem a bad idea to check that the person behind it is legitimate and not a drug or people smuggler.

Gurpreet Manku: Absolutely. We agree with you that it is not in our interests to have our limited partnership fund structure abused by criminals for all those reasons. We believe that the introduction of annual confirmation statements, the requirement to have authorised corporate service providers register limited partnerships and the power for HMRC to obtain accounts will deter criminals and prevent them from using the vehicle—we hope that they have stopped using it now given that these reforms are finally going through Parliament.

On how those points link to the evidence you quoted specifically, which was actually about some niche requirements on passive investors in a limited partner- ship fund, a worry there is that those investors might be deterred from using the UK limited partnership structure because they feel that their liabilities are being increased, that they are being asked to do the job of management and that criminal sanctions are attached to that. That part of our evidence applied not to the Bill as a whole but to those specific areas.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Q I have some questions for UK Finance about verification at Companies House. What would it take to have confidence in that verification system? You said in written evidence that Companies House should avoid over-reliance on UK-registered trust and company service providers. Can you tell us a bit more about that and what you would like to see put in place?

Nick Van Benschoten: We think that the Bill’s provisions for Companies House reform definitely point in the right direction. The question for us is, “Are they going far enough and will they be implemented fast enough?” Companies House abuse is, as I am sure you are all aware, a significant problem that we in the regulated sector have been trying to compensate for, but we cannot. We need Companies House to act as a proactive gatekeeper.

On the verification measures, one of the key points is that they fall short of minimum industry standards. Verification of identity is necessary but not sufficient. A key thing we have noted is that the Bill does not provide for order-making powers to allow Companies House to verify the status of directors or beneficial owners, and for that sort of requirement on company information agents and so on. That seems an odd gap. We understand that it may be a matter of phasing or resourcing, which can be dealt with in the implementation, but not if we do not have the order-making powers in the bill.

I have spent 12 years arguing for Companies House reform in my various roles. I do not have another 12 years in me, to be frank. We need to make sure that the Bill gives the powers so that the debate can be had during implementation and, if necessary, a phased or risk-based approach. What I mean is that there is a real risk of nominee directors and abuse thereof. Companies House needs to be able to verify that and therefore bring other things within its realm of power, querying and amending the register.

The how is maybe another question for more detail, but a risk-based, reasonable approach is also minimum industry standards. We have not yet seen it, but I note that the international body FATF—the Financial Action Task Force—agreed last Friday that it was going to consult on best practice guidance on implementing new standards for company registers. These are the same reforms that the Government pushed for as part of their G7 presidency. It has been part of the change: the US is setting up a register; Switzerland is moving. The UK cannot fall behind these new standards, so it is important that the Committee takes cognisance of that.

Trust or company service providers is one of those cases where we know that there is an issue; the banking sector and other industry partners in the joint money laundering intelligence taskforce and another four along with the National Crime Agency did a study of the risks of abuse in the UK trust or company service provider sector. We found shortfalls. There was a remediation exercise agreed. I understand that the remediation exercise is still ongoing. It is one of those sectors where there are concerns. We are doing other work that I am not at liberty to discuss, but it is about that sector.

That means that Companies House needs to be careful and cautious. There need to be strict legal undertakings with proper penalties, not just that they have met the standard of verification but that they have done everything they should be doing as a regulated sector. There needs to be access to the evidence of these checks, and that evidence needs to be something that, on a risk basis if necessary, can be queried—not just the information in the register but the actual checks undergoing. There needs to be the ability for Companies House to take sample checks and do also risk-based reviews. That may be something we can come to later on in terms of the querying power. I am sorry for a long answer, but it is an important point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

Q Thank you, Chair. You talked about the impact on SLPs from the changes in legislation. Have you looked at the issue of Irish limited partnerships? Bellingcat has found that over a thousand ILPs were created between the early 1900s and 2014, but 2,400 were set up from 2015 onwards. Are those who are looking to exploit the system just chasing round for the structures that they need?

Gurpreet Manku: We have not looked into that. I do know that Ireland has set up a new funds limited partnership, so that could be part of the reason for their growth—but that was very recent, so I do not know why that has happened. Again, it is quite worrying if people are just moving around, exploiting different structures.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q It is interesting that in this sitting, we have got rather contradictory evidence. On the one hand, you, Nick, are saying that we are not getting enough information on the basics, such as identity checks, and that we need information about more people; on the other, Gurpreet, you are saying that there is too much data, and it will damage business formation and prosperity. I wanted to give you the opportunity to think again, particularly you, Gurpreet. Have you got any figures? In your evidence, you say that you have to set up a tertiary body somehow. Is that just your guess? I think Alison Thewliss will agree that all our evidence is that the structures we are dicussing are among the most abused, and have facilitated more money laundering and economic crime than almost anything else. If we do not sort this out, it will just add to our problem, rather than enabling us to do what the Minister wants.

[The Chair]

May I ask for a brief answer?

Gurpreet Manku: We are commenting on different parts of the Bill. On the limited partnerships part, we think that a number of the new provisions being introduced will deal with the issues you have outlined. To reiterate, we are really unhappy and shocked to see the amount of abuse of this fund structure, because it has been in place for decades and is used for legitimate purposes on our side.

When you read the paper cold, you are right—it does look quite negative; we probably should have reinforced our support for the provisions that will work. Sometimes we have a tendency to go into the detail and start thinking about how things will be implemented in practice. We want to ensure that we use the tools and implement the most effective measures in the Bill. If there are other points that, on balance, would not necessarily help with the overall aim of the Bill, perhaps we should look at whether they need to be implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Q That is very helpful. It feels to me that we have got to a position with GDPR where the practical implementation has gone beyond that safeguarding, actually, but we could tackle this by, perhaps, a much fuller statement and guidance about how we expect people to respect the protections but also the obligations that exist in terms of tackling crime.

Nigel Kirby: I think it would be very helpful to have, on the obligations, clear guidance from somewhere like the Information Commissioner’s Office—it has got good guidance, to be fair—as we move through this. Should the Bill be enacted and become legislation, guidance across the industry and from the relevant Government sectors or law enforcement sectors on how we do this and come together in the same way as we came together through the Bill, would be important and give clarity, because, as I am sure you are aware, Minister, there are different interpretations of things, different views and different risk appetites. That is normal in business. The views, legal interpretations and risk appetites will always be different, but where there is guidance to help us through this, with a positive intent from Parliament, that is always really helpful.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q That has been really helpful on the information. I think that a slight amendment to what we are doing would help the GDPR issue.

I want to take you back—I could not quite hear what you said to Alison—to the SARs regime, if I may. It may not be your area of expertise, but it is a very important instrument for informing the enforcement agencies of where there may be a problem. The system is clearly broken—hundreds of thousands of SARs are landing on the desks of enforcement agencies. And we had the idea that they could be put into categories—risk categorised. I wonder whether you are able to comment on that at all, because if currently there is just a tick box—you send off your SARs and you have done it—too often the banks then carry on doing business with a suspicious person. Is there room in the Bill for doing something more on that regime, to ensure that the enforcement agencies are more effective in rooting out economic crime?

Nigel Kirby: I think the SARs regime and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 itself actually need—well, not necessarily to be turned upside down, but to be looked at as a whole. I think an individual focus just on some aspect of SARs probably would not change the system in any particular—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q So you think SARs are okay.

Nigel Kirby: Just to be very clear, I am here from Lloyds Banking Group; I will answer this question from my former role at the NCA—from that perspective. SARs do have huge value in what they do; the idea that they just go to a box and are not used is not entirely correct. One of the things the UK has done with SARs, which is world leading and others are quite jealous of, is that they are accessible to a wide range of investigators. It is not about following each one up. There is a database. A wide range of financial investigators can see them and they are held there for six years, as legislation allows. So there is a huge use there.

Also, Dame Margaret, we need to think about this. There is the SARs regime and there is the SARs reform work that is being led; investment is going to be put forward there. I would suggest that we need to see what differences the SARs reform makes first.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Okay, I hear that. I have one final thing to ask. Looking at your background, I see that you have spent a lot of time in the public enforcement realm. From that experience, and looking at the Bill today, do you think that there are any glaring gaps that we ought to be reflecting on?

Nigel Kirby: Reflecting back and particularly focusing on this area, as I am sure you do, we need to build and are building on the public-private relationships we have had. One Member mentioned Singapore and Holland, but actually, from the perspective of a private-public partnership, how we operate together and particularly the joint money laundering intelligence taskforce, we are seen as world-leading in that space. There is something there about building on that as we move forward and bringing in other sectors, which I know the NCA does. In this particular space, the enablers, as they are sometimes referred to—the telcos, the ISPs, the social media companies—being brought into that public-private partnership and building on what we have is important.

The Bill brings forward private-private relationships, and I think that is important. Hitherto, the information-sharing provisions have all relied on the NCA gateways. There is a throttle there, in terms of capacity. Widening that out so that private-private can share and be the frontline, in many ways, to help to prevent and detect is an important way forward.

Broadening out, there are a couple of elements in the legislation that we need to look at. For us, one is about friction in the system. We have a very quick payment system in the UK; when you pay, you press the button and off it goes. That is something we have got used to as a public and as a banking industry. It is unhelpful when you are looking to put legitimate targeted friction into a system to temporarily stop what I will call economic crime, because it is not just fraud, although it includes that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q So crypto is a bad thing, is it? It goes very quick. There is no friction.

Nigel Kirby: Respectfully, I think that is a different question.

You asked me to put my other hat on, Dame Margaret. Looking at the scale of fraud—you know, you have got it here; you are familiar with it—and the number of victims and the cost to the UK, it is time for the UK and those with the power to do so to either think about fraud as a strategic policing requirement or, going even further, ask whether it is now a national security threat. I do not just mean with that label—that is really important. You can put a label on these things, but if it could be classed as a national security threat and have the available resources brought together from our national agencies and national policing, that might have a greater impact for the public.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Thank you, Mr Kirby. You have used terms such as “world-leading” and spoken quite positively about what is happening in the UK. I have to say, as an interested observer, it does not look like that to me. London has generally become known as the laundromat for dirty money, particularly from Russian oligarchs and others. Money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% over the past five years in the UK. In March 2022, the budget of the NCA’s international corruption unit was cut by 13.5% to £4.3 million, leaving corruption investigators massively outgunned by the oligarchs.

I have two questions. First, I am trying to understand why you have this sense of optimism, because it looks like a pretty dire situation to me. Our enforcement agencies have been starved of the resources and capabilities they need. Secondly, you have had a long career in the NCA and in enforcement; I am sure you are still in touch with some of your former colleagues. If you had to define the resources they need, what extra would they need to be able to turn this situation around? It would be great to hear from you on that.

Nigel Kirby: For clarity, I used “world-leading” specifically in reference to private-public partnerships and what we are doing for voluntary information sharing. Look at the joint money laundering intelligence taskforce and the facts in that space: it has supported 950 investigations that have led directly to 280 arrests, with £86 million secured. There are some hard figures around here that are different. When I was in law enforcement, we had law enforcement from other countries coming to ask how we did it, including Singapore and Holland. I am in the private sector now, and we have private sector colleagues coming to ask us how do we do that part. That is just a part of the ecosystem that is important—

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

That was not the question. Are we investing enough?

Andy Gould: Well, as a police officer, I will always say that you are never investing enough.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Lots of us are trying to get our brains around this. I had a session yesterday with a whole load of people in the crypto industry who tried to convince me that there is actually better transparency because it is open—you can go in and see it—and there ought to be a way in which, with the right algorithms, you could follow the money more easily than in other ways. Is that true? Were they conning me, or is that vaguely true?

Andy Gould: No, there is definitely an element of truth in that. If you have a public blockchain, you can see where it is moving, and that is very open—Bitcoin is the most obvious open public blockchain and the most popular crypto. However, that does not mean that you necessarily know who it is that starts and finishes. That is the issue, and with a lot of the different criminal services available, it is becoming harder and harder to manage. It is becoming more tricky. So, the answer to your question is probably yes and no.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q We welcome the Minister’s attempts to start bringing this into a regulatory framework. However, looking at the other aspects of money laundering and economic crime, the so-called enablers are often the bad guys. In this world, those who establish a new form for crypto are presumably the ones who, if they are not properly regulated and supervised, could create a system for facilitating economic crime, fraud and money laundering. I do not think that we have proposals in here, really, for the supervision and regulation, have we? Are those badly missing?

Andy Gould: The Financial Conduct Authority has taken on regulatory powers in this space. I am not an expert in that area, but that is looking pretty promising. A lot of UK-based entities that were offering those services are no longer able to do so, so there has definitely been a clean-up of the market in that space, which is positive.

The challenge is that international regulation, and a lot of the recent work we have seen in that space, has driven a lot of overseas exchanges and providers, which might have been operating in a bit of a grey space, shall we say, to suddenly look to become more legitimate and comply because they want to come into the mainstream financial system. I would use the analogy that the tide is going out on a lot of the more criminal providers. They are effectively being left as “clearly not engaging, clearly criminal”, and a lot of those that may be operating in the grey space in international jurisdictions are becoming more and more legitimate as they clean up their acts.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q This is really Liam’s question, but, because it is digital, the answer must be global, must it not?

Andy Gould: Absolutely, yes.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q And that is really hard.

Andy Gould: Yes.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q I want to follow up on what you were saying about how you can follow the flows, but you do not always know who is sending and who is receiving. I want to understand a bit more about crypto accounts. I understand that you do not need an account in order to make a transaction, but if you do have an account you can see who is making transactions. Is there more that can—or needs to—be done to say that everybody must have an account? Is that practical and how could it happen? Secondly, what is the current level of identification and verification checks when setting up a crypto account, and what level should there be?

Andy Gould: The average member of the public using cryptocurrency will probably be using an account through one of the legitimate exchanges. They will go through the whole “know your customer” process that they would go through for a bank. Regulation pretty much covers that; I think we are in a good place with it. It is the criminal exchanges and criminal service providers that regulation would not affect. You would not be able to build an infrastructure that stops them being able to create their own wallets, as you could for those accounts with what are effectively crypto banks.

Arianna Trozze: There has been research that some of the KYC processes, especially in some of the higher-risk exchanges, are quite easy to fool with fake documents and other such things. There are companies serving UK customers that are still not registered with the FCA and do not meet its KYC or AML requirements, despite its best efforts. For example, none of the Bitcoin ATMs operating in the UK is registered with the FCA, even though they are supposed to be, and they tend to have quite lax KYC requirements. They may require you to put in a phone number. Some of them have more requirements, but whether it is a rigorous process remains in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Q I will be brief in asking this question, and then I have to leave. Do you think the NCA has sufficient resources to make use of the new recovery powers in the Bill, and do those powers go far enough?

Jonathan Hall: I do not know about the resources of the NCA, but in terms of whether the powers go far enough, I think there are some areas where they perhaps go too far, or at least where I think, from a fundamental rights and individual rights perspective, some attention may need to be drawn. There is the simple question whether you should be able to seize cryptoassets on the basis of the fact that they might be used by terrorists. Of course you should. Then you have the complicated question of how you bring about a seizure regime where assets are not physical. It is one thing if you seize a jewel or some cash, but it is another thing if you are effectively seizing information. What you have here is a very lengthy set of provisions to allow you to do that.

Generally speaking, I think it works, but there are one or two areas I want to draw to your attention. The first, which I think is acceptable but worth thinking about, is that the power is a power to seize not just cryptoassets but crypto-related items. In practice, you are not seizing a thing; you are seizing a code and that can be written down on a bit of paper or on a computer. What these provisions do, unlike all the other seizure powers that say you can seize the jewel, the cash or the contents of a bank account, is that they allow the police to seize any item, which could be a computer, or a piece of paper. So, it is quite a wide seizure power. I think it is kept effectively within bounds, but it is something that is worth drawing attention to, which is different from other aspects of seizure in this field.

The next point is that you have to be able to convert crypto and there are several reasons for that; one is because the prices may go massively up or down. Individuals whose assets are the subject of seizures may never be prosecuted—and this is a civil remedy—and, in fact, no final application for forfeiture may ever be brought. That is particularly true in the context of terrorism, because often what counter-terrorism police will want to do is disrupt the transfer, but they will not necessarily want to go on and apply to forfeit. The figures from last year show that there is a disparity between the number of accounts that are frozen and the amount of money that is finally the subject of forfeiture.

The Government did listen to my views on this issue. It is important that the Bill has provisions such that both the police can apply to convert the cryptocurrency into, say, pounds sterling, and that it is also open to the individual from whom it is seized, who might say, “Look, I bought this crypto. It’s gone massively up in value. You’re never going to apply to forfeit this. I don’t want to lose out on the rise of value.” There is provision in the Bill for the individual to go to court and say, “I’m a person from whom the crypto has been seized. Please can you convert it?” That will be decided by the court, but it is good that that provision is in the Bill; I think it works.

Is this too boring and long? I mean, there is a third bit, which I think is the most difficult bit. It is the power of a magistrates court to require a UK-connected wallet provider to freeze the cryptoassets and, even more significantly, to require that the UK-connected crypto wallet provider should actually pay the money over to the court. It is slightly in the weeds, but what the Government have done—and I understand it—is to try to be quite novel. They are really trying to push the law here, because they realise that many of crypto wallet providers will not be based in the UK, but this comes with a consequence regarding how the Bill is currently worded. I will just give you the bit that I think may need a bit of attention; it is clause 10Z7B—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Can you give that again?

Jonathan Hall: Yes, I will. It is clause 10Z7B(7).

[The Chair]

Q Have we a page number?

Jonathan Hall: I am not sure I have got the same document; I have got the Public Bill Committee document for 30 September and it is on page 10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

Thank you. I will leave it at that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I want to follow on from that, because I am taking it a bit wider than crypto in two areas. After the 7/7 horror, we put our all into counter-terrorism and we now have a strategy that is well resourced, and can respond to and has responded effectively to terrorism threats down the years. When I look at this, I feel that Ukraine ought to be our 7/7 moment in relation to dirty money. I wonder whether we are ambitious or comprehensive enough. I take the point about resources; there is no point doing anything if you do not have the resources. However, are we doing enough here to give you the confidence that we can really start turning around this big tanker?

Jonathan Hall: Do you mean the Russia-Ukraine aspect?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Ukraine gives one a sort of focus on the worst aspects of dirty money, but are we really being as comprehensive as you were when you did the counter-terrorism stuff there?

Jonathan Hall: The one thing that I think would make all the difference would be to resource Companies House. I follow Graham Barrow on Twitter—I think he is giving evidence—and occasionally I look at the overseas entities register, and, as he has pointed out, there are these anonymous chip shops in Barnsley, which have about 57 British Virgin Islands companies attached to them. It seems that that is the low-hanging fruit: having a well-resourced Companies House that can tackle the entries, verify them and prosecute them.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I will ask you just one more question, which is a little bit off piste. The Bill puts new duties on lawyers to ensure that they can be fined if they engage in work that facilitates crime, or they fail to prevent crime. I gather the Bar Council is a bit iffy about this; I wondered whether they thought it was interfering with access to justice. Where do you stand on that? Lawyers certainly come up constantly as facilitators, giving opinions that underwrite either unlawful behaviour in the tax field or illegal behaviour elsewhere. I do not know if you can help us on that—it is a bit off piste.

Jonathan Hall: The funny thing is that there is a principle in law that, if someone is giving advice to someone in order to commit a crime, legal professional privilege does not apply. It is quite hard to find examples of cases in which that doctrine has been applied, so I do not know whether it is about law enforcement having the confidence, when they have a lawyer who is deeply engaged in advising someone to break the law, to say, “We don’t care that you are saying this is privilege because we are going to run the case and say it is for a criminal purpose”. Beyond that, I do not know. I am a lawyer and I completely support maintaining access to justice—of course I do. But you are also completely right that lawyers and trust companies are at the heart of this issue, and I am afraid there are professional enablers.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q This is the same question that I asked our previous witnesses: if you had the opportunity to amend the Bill, what would you do? You have flagged up one area in which you are worried the Bill goes too far, so obviously we need to look at that, but my question is more about how you would make it go further to achieve the outcomes we are looking for in terms of the role that crypto plays, particularly in financing terrorism.

Jonathan Hall: I have not got an answer beyond the one I gave before, I am afraid. I am sorry; I have not thought of a positive thing. I would just remove that subsection (b) from the definition of UK-connected cryptoasset service provider.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Second sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[James Daly]

Q I am assuming, Mr Searle, that as somebody in your position, you want to see the transformation of this organisation from a passive organisation to a partner that will work with law enforcement to do what we require.

Adrian Searle: For sure. It is a really fundamental change. I already have folk from my intelligence and investigative teams in the National Crime Agency working with colleagues in the Companies House teams to help them to set the road map for how they will transform.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Q Martin Swain, I think that many of us on both sides of the Committee think not that it has to be more regulation, but that it has to be smarter regulation. If there are businesses operating that are pursuing economic crimes, that does not help business creation or the wealth of the economy. I am a bit concerned that you think the new regulatory measures are more burdensome. Are they not just smarter? [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. You will have 15 minutes in which to prepare your answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now resume the evidence session. Mr Swain is going to answer the question that was put to him by Dame Margaret Hodge.

Martin Swain: The question was about the balance of burden against tackling economic crime. I think you asked about the need for smarter regulation. I totally agree. Part of the challenge is how we use our powers in future. I would say that the way in which we use our powers will be around the integrity of the register; we will focus our activity on where we can have the most impact to improve the integrity of the register. In doing so, we do not want to create a burden for legitimate businesses.

The benefit of focusing on the integrity of the register is that we create value. As Adrian said, we already contribute a significant amount of money to the UK economy. If we can improve the integrity of the register so that people are making better decisions based on the data, and people are not being defrauded because of the way in which we are improving the integrity of the register, to me that is what smarter registration should be about.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I agree. May I just ask you about the authorised corporate service providers who are going to do a lot of this work for you? We have concerns, because although they are theoretically regulated by HMRC, there is pretty much zero supervision and very little regulation. How do we know that we are not just opening a loophole that will enable people to use companies simply as a way of laundering money and committing other economic crime, such as fraud and so on?

Martin Swain: We will not be replacing the AML supervision, which rests with the AML supervisors. The Bill introduces a number of measures around ACSPs which we currently do not do. For an ACSP to file with us, they will need to register with us.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q With you or with HMRC?

Martin Swain: With us. This is separate to their AML supervision. In order to file with us, they will need to register. We will verify the identities of the people who run the agency—the agents—and we will require them to confirm who they are supervised for for AML purposes. We will cross-check that with the AML supervisors. There are also some new offences in the Bill, so people will be required to maintain their records of their supervision with us. If they are suspended from their AML supervisor and do not tell us, that will be an offence. They will also have to maintain records of verification, which we will have the power to check. None of that exists at the moment. An agent can file with us without any of those things happening.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q But the AML supervision still remains with HMRC.

Martin Swain: Yes.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

But it does nothing.

Martin Swain: I am not going to answer from HMRC’s perspective. If we are talking about smarter regulation, the benefit is that we will have a power and an ability to go back to HMRC and raise flags where we see activity from agents that is not consistent with what we want.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That is very helpful, thank you. I have a quick question for Adrian.

Adrian Searle: Can I come in on that earlier question? The requirement that the company service provider has a UK footprint is a significant shift. Prior to this Bill, overseas-based service providers could provide that third-party service to registered companies. That is a fundamental challenge. When there is a UK footprint, whether it is the supervisory bodies or, potentially, the investigative agencies, we have got a starting point that we can go after, which you cannot do when there is an overseas base.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q They have to go after them, but that is for another day.

Adrian, with your wider remit, there has been a huge decrease in the number of cases that have been taken by the SFO and indeed by all the agencies. One reason is the fear of costs landing on those agencies—for example, the NCA—if they lose the case. Can you give us a view? Do you think we should have a cost cap, in the way we have with unexplained wealth orders? Do you think we should have the American system whereby no costs at all are given to the litigant or the person accused of wrongdoing at the end? What is your view of that?

Adrian Searle: We are certainly very keen to continue to look at that. The cost capping in the UWO regime is attractive. I understand that other colleagues and Government, in particular the Ministry of Justice, have had conversations. They are having concerns raised that that undermines the core principle of loser pays. There are different views on this issue.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I think there is a difference between civil and criminal. The UWO is a civil offence, so it is easier. Some lawyers will say that if you end up convicted of a crime, you ought to have the right to a full defence, with the cost paid for.

Adrian Searle: We find cost capping an attractive proposition, but we also understand that it is challenging. In addition, we are speaking to colleagues in the Home Office and the Treasury about the establishment of a regime that will help us to manage the risk associated with potential big financial costs if we were to lose a case. There is a governance system that they are proposing to put in place that will help us to manage those risks. It is still early days, and conversations are ongoing, but at least colleagues in Government recognise the challenge that we face. There is no doubt a chilling effect on the agency from the risk associated with financial costs.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Are you also talking to the Treasury about keeping some of the fines that you manage to secure in the cases that you take?

Adrian Searle: I assume that is a reference to the ARIS system—the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. As it currently stands, we get 50%.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Does that go through all the agencies—the NCA, the SFO and HMRC? If they have a successful litigation, can they keep 50% of the fine they secure?

Adrian Searle: It is certainly true for the NCA and policing. I would need to check whether that runs across the whole system. I can come back to you on that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

It would be really helpful to have that.

[The Chair]

We have to move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q The challenge that we have is that money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% over the last five years in the UK, and the number of crimes being investigated—[Interruption.]

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will read out the two figures. The number of crimes under investigation has halved in the past three years, and convictions for fraud offences, according to national crime statistics, have decreased by 67% since 2011. What you are talking about is theoretical; it is not what is happening. At the same time, fraud is going up and up.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will you say a word about why that is? The system seems not to be working, so what do we need to do to fix it?

Commander Adams: I will start and then bring in Simon, who is an expert on money laundering. The first thing to say is that fraud is getting increasingly complex. About 70% of all fraud emanates from overseas and, as Adrian touched on, it is very difficult for us to obtain prosecutions and convictions across jurisdictions. That is a real challenge for us, as are the growth in technology, the way in which fraudsters are now exploiting people and the changes in tactics.

Fraudsters are moving away from unauthorised payment fraud, where people’s details are stolen and used fraudulently—banks are now preventing somewhere in the region of 65p in every pound of that type of activity—and we are now seeing much more sophisticated frauds, where people are socially engineered, or manipulated, into physically approving transactions. That of course is much harder for technological solutions to prevent, when the target is a human being.

Of course, all that complexity requires a much more complex and sophisticated policing response. As I described, the growth that is coming down the line—in particular the proactive growth—will not start landing until the end of this year and then, of course, we are several years before we have fully experienced and really competent and effective investigators working on those crimes. All those things will layer on over a period. We anticipate that the technological advances will continue, both in support of us and in challenging us in how we can investigate and progress these crimes. Simon, do you want to comment specifically on money laundering?

Simon Welch: On money laundering, the amount of offences—detected offences—is going down. Criminals are getting a lot more savvy about our tactics and things like that, so we find that they are not having assets in their own names so much—vehicles, houses, things like that—and our opportunities for confiscation are probably going down a bit. However, what you can see from the seizure figures is that the cash value is up, but the volume is down. We are targeting and getting good results from the cases, but it is a smaller number of cases. In reality, POCA is now quite old, and people are used to us going after the money, so they take far more steps to protect that money from us being able to confiscate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

Ms Crotty?

Michelle Crotty: The same—anything that allows us to identify the people behind it and then to use that to follow up with lines of inquiry. Capacity is certainly something that we would be concerned about, but the work that the NCA and the NECC are doing with Companies House should help with that, in terms of training Companies House staff.

Simon Welch: It would also be nice to be able to data wash some of the registrations through law enforcement indices before they were actually registered. That is obviously another quantum leap from where we are now. I think we are looking at sharing that data, but that is another thing for Companies House to work out, in liaison probably with the NECC. I think that would be preferable for us. Then we could prevent these companies from opening up in the first place, and stop them being used as vehicles for criminality.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Michelle Crotty, what would you feel about the introduction of an offence of failure to prevent economic crime?

Michelle Crotty: We are very strongly on the record as saying that that is an offence that we would like to see. We have seen good results with it in relation to bribery and corruption since its introduction in 2010. Nine of our 12 deferred prosecution agreements have involved a failure to prevent bribery offence. We think that it not only punishes but helps to reform corporate behaviour. What we have seen with the Bribery Act 2010 is that companies have very much focused on putting adequate procedures in place because that is the defence that it provides them. The prosecution is one part of it, but actually the preventive work in terms of adequate procedures is as important, if not more important.

The other thing that we would say in terms of the impact on business is that for a failure to prevent economic crime offence many of the adequate procedures would already be in place in terms of anti-money laundering and other areas. Clearly that is something that the Committee, and guidance, would need to work through, but the impact on business may not be as heavy as some might fear.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Do the other two witnesses agree?

Commander Adams: Yes. Ultimately, as Michelle said, I do not think that the imposition on business would be that significant. There are lots of areas where we see unintended consequences of thresholds upon which, or below which, things are not reported to law enforcement. That sort of legislation would give us the ability to ensure that there are policies and processes in place in institutions to provide the sorts of checks and balances that identify patterns that might fall outside some of the clearly defined breaches of legislation. That, for me, would be the galvanising benefit of that power, in a not dissimilar way to financial institutions reimbursing victims, which helps to galvanise effort and investment into preventing crime, to avoid spending money out the other end. All those sorts of measures are really helpful. Particularly through Adrian’s role as director of the NECC, I think he would say that the things that help to galvanise the partnership and the whole-system response to fraud is where we will ultimately see our biggest successes.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q The other brake on pursuing the bad people is the fear of failure, and therefore the burden of costs on the public purse. Would you like to see the cost capping that has been introduced on unexplained wealth orders extended here, or do you have other ideas about how we can try to make that brake less solid?

Michelle Crotty: The SFO would like to see those. We understand the concerns that other parts of the system have in terms of how you ringfence a cost regime just for economic crime. In terms of what the SFO can recover in any one year, we can retain £900,000 of legal costs if we win. Clearly, it is the other way if we lose, and there are ongoing discussions with the Treasury. I gave evidence to another Committee last week that, where we do not have a fund available to us for that that sits within our budget, we have to go and negotiate one with the Treasury if we lose. We would certainly welcome some protections, but we understand the challenges around fitting them into the broader scheme.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q I want to come back to some comments made by DCI Welch, which were very instructive on the challenges—we have heard it in some of the data as well. I think you referred to criminals not putting assets in their own names, thereby making them harder to find and seize. Do you think that the Bill gives sufficient powers for tackling fraud, especially through the use of fraudulent names and addresses? If not, what else needs to be done to help you all do your work more effectively, but is missing from the Bill?

Simon Welch: Obviously, we are putting more resource into this area. If we are to go after them proactively, we are building up our intelligence around this. Historically, fraud has not been given the same emphasis as other types of criminality, so I think we lack in some areas. If we start to build that up, to get more intelligence that is actionable for us to work on, and to go after some of these people proactively as opposed to reactively, we will be getting ahead of the game, and then we will be able to arrest these people and prevent other people from becoming victims. It is important to invest in this area. It is a difficult time for us, because recruitment and retention of staff are challenging. We are looking to build, and are getting investment streams coming into us. We are looking to develop that all across the piece. We are looking at the intelligence and at the proactive capability and the investigative capability to take this on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

Q Yes. Finally, can I ask you, John, whether there is any particular recommendation that you would like to make on the register of overseas entities section of the Bill?

John Cusack: Not necessarily, because what I am most interested in is getting the Bill out in its current form with a financed and adequate registrar with obligations, and resolving that underlying issue. One of the reasons people use UK companies is not so that they can open UK bank accounts, because then you go through the gamut of UK obligations in the regulating sector, even though that happens occasionally when buying real estate and other things. Actually, people buy and acquire UK companies and Scottish limited partnerships so that they can open accounts abroad, because the UK is seen as a first-class jurisdiction. That means that when they open those accounts abroad, not many questions are asked, or not as many as would be if they were acquiring a Nigerian company, for example, which would ring all sorts of alarm bells. The interesting thing about the companies registry is that the abuse by foreigners does not necessarily translate into a UK economic crime issue per se, even though it is something that we also all want to address.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Indeed, it can sometimes lead to terrorism as well as other crimes. May I ask one short question of you all, and then a longer one? We have talked about the importance of looking at persons with significant control. Do you think that we should reduce the threshold of having a 25% shareholding to 5%? Would that help?

John Cusack: For my high-risk customers, I always had it at 10% in my financial institutions, and 25% for non-high-risk customers, because I really wanted to ensure that I had almost everybody who could possibly be interested in the company or a relationship. I stuck at 10%, but you can always argue it lower or a bit higher.

Thom Townsend: Yes—whether it should be 5% or not, it needs to be lower. There is an argument to be made between 10% and 5%. My sense is that we have a 25% global standard on this because it is a sort of round number.

Dr Hawley: It is really interesting to look at what Jersey and Guernsey are doing on financial crime. They have a 10% threshold, and they are introducing a lot of other very interesting economic crime measures that go far further than we have in the UK, including a failure to prevent money laundering offence. They also have a measure to forfeit accounts based on a suspicious activity report, so they are really looking at very radical measures in Jersey and Guernsey that will make the UK look quite behind.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Good. Thank you for that. I recognise that you have all made an incredibly important contribution to the debate, so thank you for that, and for the support that you have given us in developing our thinking. I sincerely mean that. I think we all see the Bill as a start, and we would like to add to it. The pragmatic reality is that we have to prioritise what we add in. For each of you, what are your three top priorities for what could be added to strengthen the effort against economic crime? It is a bit of a tough one. I have a list that is longer than three, but I would be interested in your top three.

Dr Hawley: I would say that that is the easiest. It is a great question and I will jump in, because I have my three. It would be really fantastic if Parliament signalled that its intention is not to pass a Bill that will just stay on paper; it needs to be properly resourced and make a real difference in terms of economic crime. There are three different cost-neutral ways of doing that, some of which you mentioned in earlier discussions. One is cost protection across civil recovery for law enforcement. The US-style system really works. If we want US-style enforcement, we need US-style rules.

Another way is to increase Companies House fees to match the scale of verification that we need. The other way is to invest far more. In the US, 100% of forfeiture goes into a central fund, and local police get up to 80%. We heard earlier that the NCA gets 50%; some police forces only get 18%. We also desperately need to find ways to match the money that law enforcement brings in. Law enforcement brought in £3.9 billion over the last six years. If that had been reinvested in law enforcement, we would have top capability in this country.

There are two other things. I have mentioned AML supervision already. If we could make the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision a body that genuinely raises the consistency of supervision across the board while the Treasury works out the bigger picture on supervision, it would make a really big difference. OPBAS could name and shame supervisors who were not performing, and that needs to apply not just to the legal and accounting sectors, but to HMRC and the FCA.

Finally, there is corporate liability reform, which you also referred to earlier. We have been waiting for it. It was in 2015 that there was the first Conservative party manifesto commitment to have a failure to prevent economic crime offence. The Law Commission has now spoken; we have been waiting a long time for it. Ideally, you would have a failure to prevent fraud offence, a failure to prevent false accounting offence and a failure to prevent money laundering offence, but you also need to bring in a change in the identification doctrine for the schedule 8 offences to make this work.

Thom Townsend: Unsurprisingly, verification—the first thing would be to think very hard about whether it is the trusts and service providers sector that we want to do that, to think much more broadly about what other mechanisms are available to us, and to cast the net widely around the world; there is a lot happening.

Secondly, the statements of beneficial ownership and significant control should be verified too. That is a far harder task, because the world has not figured out entirely how to do that. There are some really good examples; places such as Austria are doing good work, but it is largely about using data from across Government to make sure that you can red flag those statements.

Thirdly, we probably also need something in the Bill about having a more permissive data-sharing environment, to make sure that Companies House is getting what it wants. If you look at how the Bill is currently drafted, we have data that is “in the registrar’s possession” or “available to the registrar”. It is very unclear what that means, and it needs to be much broader than that.

A supplementary fourth point is to think long and hard about how we are using an identity, once verified, persistently in a lifelong way. Australia, New Zealand and India issue unique identifiers to directors—and, in Australia’s case, to beneficial owners—for life, which makes the investigation process much more straightforward. There is a lot of good practice out there. We need to look very hard at that and think about how we incorporate it into what the UK is doing.

John Cusack: As far as the Bill goes, I have mentioned one point already, which is the item in relation to beefing up the obligation on the registrar. The second piece is on the information-sharing provision in the Bill—I think it is clause 148. It is a limited information sharing item that essentially requires a SAR to be filed before private information sharing can take place. There is also the exit, pretty much, of the customer, which is potentially problematic. We are going to find that one potential bad actor leaving one bank cannot then open an account somewhere else, but we will also find that innocent people will be involved in that. I would rather have something broader, which allows the detection of unidentified financial crime, whereas, in this particular case, we are going to get identified suspicion being shared, which will potentially lead to some very serious unintended consequences, even though I am very supportive of the provision.

The last thing that I would say outside the Bill is that, ultimately, it is about asset confiscations and asset seizures. The UK is doing okay, but it is not doing anywhere near as well as it should be, and it is certainly underperforming compared with a number of important countries. I will give you one example. Italy not only seizes the amounts that Susan was talking about, but over four or five years it seizes almost £10 billion a year in asset confiscations, because it treats the Italian mafia as a matter of national security and targets its resources accordingly. I would like to see not a change in the law, but the rightsizing of the resources across the piece, whereby they are directed toward the tip of the spear, so that law enforcement FIUs in the UK and asset recovery can be prioritised and targets set, and we get close to the Italians, rather than being where we are today.

[Liam Byrne]

Q Susan, can I ask you to spell out what will happen if we do not align the verification procedures in the Bill with the obligations that currently bite on the AML sector?

Dr Hawley: I alluded to one point earlier, which is that if this is not a registry that companies and people can rely on, it will have been a waste of time and money. I alluded earlier to SMEs particularly not having the resources and having to rely on Companies House in a way that large companies would not; they would do their own intelligence. It will be bad for business and the business community, and it will be bad for the UK’s competitiveness. If you look at our competitiveness rating under the World Economic Forum measures, we are pretty good on quite a lot of things—in the top 10 —but for tackling serious and organised crime we are 70 out of 141. That is a competitiveness rating, so it will dent our competitiveness. Actually going for gold standard practice will be good for the economy, and will make us more competitive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Thank you both for taking the time to give evidence today. I have a broad question for you, because the contributions that you have already made and that I think we will hear from you will really enrich our discussions. Obviously the Bill makes progress on improving law enforcement bodies’ ability to identify fraudulent and criminal activity in our economy, but in the light of what you have just said, Mr Browder—on the lack of action that we have actually taken on the Magnitsky issue—where do we need to go further in identifying criminal activity and economic crime, and in seizing those assets? What can we learn from other countries about things that you say the UK does not do well, and where can the Bill be improved?

Bill Browder: Thank you. This is the crux of the whole issue. By the way, it was not just Magnitsky money that was not investigated. We have this problem; since Vladimir Putin has come to power, he and 1,000 people around him have stolen $1 trillion from the Russian people. This has been the largest destination of Russian money laundering. In 22 years since he has come to power, not a single money laundering prosecution has come out of Russia—not one—and we are talking about $1 trillion.

What is going on here? What I have learned is that the law enforcement agencies effectively refuse to open criminal cases unless they are 100% sure that they can win without any tough fight on the other side. Why are they so risk averse in opening cases? It comes down to simple risk-reward for them. Their budgets are very thin, as law enforcement does not have a lot of money, and when they go to court here on any type of civil case—it is not true in a murder case, but it is true in a civil case—if they lose at any point, not just at the end of the case, but at any point procedurally during the case, the loser has to pay the winner’s court fees, and there is no budget for that. Therefore, the UK law enforcement agencies will not take that risk.

I have seen it done differently. We presented the United States Department of Justice with the same information. They do not have that problem; they can open a case, conduct an investigation and build their case as they are doing their investigation, and if they lose, nobody loses their job, nobody is bankrupted, and no departments have to go back and beg for more money from the Government. Whatever money they have spent on their lawyers is the money they have spent.

What has to happen here—this is plain as day—is that you have to get rid of this adverse costs issue in a civil case brought by the Government. You could easily write an amendment to the law as it is written, because it is not here right now, to say that if the Crown Prosecution Service brings a money laundering case or an economic crime case, there are no adverse costs. If you make that point, it will change the whole dynamic—the whole risk-reward—for these people.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q You talked about civil cases, Bill, and I think we should publicly recognise the contribution that Bill Browder and Oliver have made in this space—it is brilliant. You talked about civil cases but say, fingers crossed, we get a criminal offence for failure to prevent, what would you do in those cases to ensure that costs do not act as a brake on the enforcement agencies taking action?

Bill Browder: The same thing.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q So you would do it for both civil and criminal cases.

Bill Browder: I was not even aware that in a criminal case, a murder case, nobody pays adverse costs. I am not sure if you bring a criminal case in these other—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I think in a murder case they would, actually.

Bill Browder: Would they?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I think so, yes. I am no lawyer—God, I am looking around the table for a lawyer.

[The Chair]

When I practised as a lawyer, if somebody was acquitted they would be able to ask for their costs to be paid out of what are called central funds, so the taxpayer would be paying for them, not the prosecuting authority.

Bill Browder: However you want to define it, what I would say is I have seen how it works in other countries and they do not have this issue. Therefore, there is no disincentive to bringing a case. It is just remarkable. In every single aspect of the Magnitsky case, we brought it to law enforcement. We brought it to the National Crime Agency; they refused. We brought the company formation agents that were involved in forming the companies during the stuff connected to the Magnitsky case to HMRC. They never shut down a single company formation agency, even though they regulate them.

Nobody brings any cases at all. There are three possible reasons. It could be the reason I have just stated, which is the most charitable one: that there are economic disincentives. I could also say “incompetence”, but I don’t want to say that, or I could say “corruption”, but I am going to stick with the fact that the economic incentives are not there for them. Whatever the reason is, this country should be ashamed of itself. It is an absolute shame, and nothing will change from this law unless there is actual law enforcement. What can we put in place so that the laws are enforced? At least get rid of the economic disincentives.

I will add one more thing, which is that in countries like the United States, if the Department of Justice wins a forfeiture case, they get the money and then they can fund future investigations from that money. When you are talking about a budget of the prosecution service being several billion pounds, you win one big case and you could fund the entire prosecution service.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q Mr Bullough, do you want to join in on that?

Oliver Bullough: I think it was Samuel Johnson who said, about a dog walking on its hind legs, that

“It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

I am happy that the Bill exists; I was happy that there was another one earlier in the year. I would prefer it, however, if Parliament sat back and, instead of passing two fairly minor economic crime Bills in one year, put them together into one with all the other things that desperately need doing, take a long time over it and, when passed, really ensure that the law, as passed, is enforced.

Bill mentioned unexplained wealth orders. Those were a fantastic idea—perhaps hugely overhyped when they were brought in, but a great idea—and a real potential silver bullet for tackling top-end economic crime by both organised criminals and kleptocrats. Sadly, after the failure of the case against the daughter of the former President of Kazakhstan, they have not really been used at all. That is because the National Crime Agency does not have the money it needs to do the job, and that is because politicians have not sufficiently prioritised fighting economic crime. That is where the money comes from.

Yes, by all means, it is good to have another Bill, but I would far prefer to see the existing laws properly enforced by properly-resourced law enforcement agencies with continuous political support than have another Bill. I say that as someone who has been banging on about the problems with Companies House for absolutely ages.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I would say, Oliver, that we need both. It is not an either/or, and if we can amend the Bill with even more powers, we can hopefully get even closer to that.

I want to deal with another issue, since you are both Russia experts. There is a mood across the House to tackle the issue of seizing Russian assets as well as freezing them. I know that you have both been working in that space, so could you comment on that? How do you think it could be done, do you think it is a good idea and how much is at stake, to the extent that any of us know the figures?

Bill Browder: Shall I go first, or do you want to, Oliver, since I have been hogging the first response?

Oliver Bullough: No, Bill, you can go ahead.

Bill Browder: We are on our third Prime Minister in seven weeks; there is an economic crisis going on; the purse strings are tight. There will be pressure here not to send as much money to Ukraine because we are worried about our money at home. There is also pressure in the United States. Some 30 Democrats wrote a letter to Biden saying, “Let’s just settle this thing and give the Russians what they want”—or something along those lines—“and not spend this money.” There is also pressure from the Republicans on the other side, saying, “No blank cheque for Ukraine”.

We also cannot let Ukraine go, under any circumstances, because, if we do, Vladimir Putin will be knocking at the door of Estonia or Poland. Therefore, how do we pay for it? Ukraine needs the money and the military equipment. Well, let us let the Russians pay for it. It is a simple thing: the Russians have started this war, created all this conflict, caused all this destruction and killed all these people, and we have $350 billion of their central bank reserves frozen, as a first step.

Why are we not using that money to support the Ukrainians? There are people who say, “That’s never been done before, and therefore we shouldn’t do it.” I would argue that it is pretty straightforward. In Parliaments around the world, what do you do? You make laws. If it has not been done before, make a law so it can be done. It is not a legal issue; it is purely a political issue. Should we dig into our own pockets, or should we let the Russians pay for their own war? We should start by letting the Russians pay for their own war.

I am having the same conversations elsewhere. I was just in Canada, speaking to the Canadian Parliament, last week, and I have been speaking to the US Congress. It is a no-brainer. It is a more complicated issue when you start going to the oligarchs, because you have to prove that somehow they are connected to the Government. But when it comes to the Government themselves, $350 billion is being held right now by the UK, the EU, Canada, the United States, Australia and Japan. That is an easy way to solve this financial problem and help the Ukrainians win this war.

Oliver Bullough: I would like to add to that. One of the reasons why it is complicated to take money away from oligarchs is that, once the money is here, it benefits from the rule of law that we have and so on. It is always harder to take egg out of a cake once it has been baked. It would have been a far better idea not to allow the money to come here in the first place. The lesson I would like to see learned from the current Ukraine crisis is that it is far more cost-effective and efficient not to allow kleptocrats to launder their money through the UK in the first place. If we do not support kleptocratic networks, those networks will not survive. They will not be able to come to such strength and vitality that they threaten their neighbouring countries.

Yes, it is important to confiscate Russian money to return it to Ukraine. Yes, it is important not just to freeze but to seize oligarchic property. But it is also important to put in place the powers, and particularly the law enforcement structures, that we need to prevent more kleptocrats from coming here. Next year, it might not be a threat coming from Russia; it might be a threat coming from China or somewhere else. We would find ourselves in exactly the same situation: trying to work out what to do with money that we had frozen when, if we had not allowed it here in the first place, we would not even have to have this discussion.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I think we all share the frustration that there are existing powers, and hopefully a few new ones, and they are just not implemented. We have discussed whether that is because of a fear of costs coming back to us, or because of the lack of funding for the enforcement agencies.

Let me put to you another issue. If we strengthened accountability, those working in the Executive agencies might work a little harder at putting into effect the laws that we parliamentarians pass. Bim Afolami has an idea of establishing a Select Committee of the House that would look at the regulators—the enforcement agencies—and could ask for individual cases to be heard by the Committee in private, to see whether there are systemic issues at play, which could lead to public reporting on those issues.

That is one idea. There are others around. Do you think the lack of accountability, particularly for the enforcement agencies, could be a contributing factor to the fact that we just do not do enough—that we do not use our existing structures enough—even without the money and even with the cost issue?

Bill Browder: I think so. This is not the first time I have had this conversation with Members of Parliament. I have been in front of many Committees—the Home Affairs Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, this Committee and others—to talk about this lack of enforcement, and I have talked with many Members of Parliament. There is no disagreement with me. Every political party supports the idea of not having London be the money laundering capital of the world. I think everybody agrees. Many good Members of Parliament have put pressure on different Governments, put questions to them and had conversations, and I have seen many Government Ministers agree. Then, all of a sudden, we get to this total disconnect: law enforcement cannot be instructed by Parliament or the Government to open or pursue a criminal case or explain why it has not done so. It is living in its own world.

The only thing the Government can do is replace the people in executive positions in law enforcement; that is the only sanction. There has to be a better way. There are arguments about not wanting to politicise law enforcement and I totally sympathise with those, but at the same time if it is completely failing it needs root-and-branch reform—whether parliamentary oversight, Government oversight or some other mechanism. It is just failing and it has continued to fail in a way that is totally unacceptable. I would hate to be sitting here a decade from now having the same conversation.

[Alison Thewliss]

Q Can I ask Oliver first whether the Bill could do more to deter the abuse of UK corporate structures such as limited partnerships, including Scottish limited partnerships, and shell companies? What more would you like to see in this area to deal with this issue? In your book, you talked an awful lot about the use of such structures for property and other things. Can more be done here?

Oliver Bullough: It is probably fine. Hopefully, if things are actually enforced and Companies House is given the money it needs to do the job and it is ambitious about that, this may work. Personally, I would like the threshold for a person with significant control to be reduced significantly: perhaps to 10% or 5%. Perhaps there should not be a threshold at all, but if you control you need to declare it.

The Bill is potentially an improvement. I still do not think it is the kind of root-and-branch re-evaluation of Companies House that we need. An amazing variety of corporate structures are available in this country. I do not think anyone has stopped to say, “Do we really need limited liability partnerships and limited partnerships? Why do we have both?” Does anyone stop to think about why they exist at all? Limited partnerships were created as a bit of a strange afterthought back in 1906 anyway. Why do they even exist?

I would like to see discussions like that, personally, but as it stands I think that bit of the Bill is probably okay—certainly if it is enforced properly. If there were an Oliver Bullough-ocracy, there would be all sorts of different changes to how companies could be used. I would not allow people to use foreign companies to own UK property at all; you would have to own it via British companies if you wished to use a company. But that is not going to happen so it is silly to talk about it.

On Margaret Hodge’s point, in the Oliver Bullough-ocracy I would definitely like to have something similar to the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, with the power to investigate whatever it likes and do really forceful, well resourced investigations into Government agencies or anything at all. That would really help to cut through some of the failures to understand why the failures are happening and to really bring accountability to these bodies, which have been able to hide behind the lack of oversight for a long time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am afraid that under the rules that we operate on, I have no discretion to allow this very interesting sitting to continue, so we have to finish. I thank both our witnesses for a really fascinating sitting. Their great insight and knowledge on this subject has been of immense value. Thank you very much indeed.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

On a point of order, Sir Christopher. May I ask whether our proceedings are covered by parliamentary privilege?

[The Chair]

The answer to that is yes, they are, but it should not be abused.

Examination of Witnesses

Professor John Heathershaw and Thomas Mayne gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

Yes, it is a gap in the Bill.

Thomas Mayne: Absolutely, and many thanks for bringing up the case. As you mentioned, none of the authors had any say in the matter and we did not think it was justified, as the evidence we put in the report is entirely accurate. This is a perfect opportunity for some kind of anti-SLAPP legislation to be put in the Bill. Dame Margaret spoke at a recent debate with David Davis; some other examples were given there. If we do not put it into this Bill, will it just be mothballed and we miss our chance? Meanwhile, more journalists are being threatened, and a lot of information is not being put into the public domain because of the threat of a SLAPP. The Bill is related to transparency, as you say, so is there an opportunity to put that sort of measure in the Bill?

Professor Heathershaw: Obviously, I would agree with that. Our report has been subject to these issues. We have also seen many threatening letters over the years. I think it is fair to say that we are some of the leading researchers in the UK on this specific area, at some of the UK’s leading universities. Professionally, it is shocking for me to find that we could be subject to such aggressive letters. The risks were so great, simply because the costs could not be limited.

I think there is a need to introduce a merits test early on to dismiss litigation. I think there is also a need to cap the costs for defendants, because at the moment you have to get very expensive libel insurance to protect yourself, which can be very difficult. Even then, there are huge costs involved.

The question about whether there should be specific legislation from the Ministry of Justice is interesting. At present, that has not been tabled to Parliament and so the opportunity that presents itself—to amend Bills, to provide certain measures, to introduce costs—would definitely be within scope. When you see these cases, many of the people from outside a Government service who have given evidence today—I am sure Oliver Bullough or Bill Browder would speak to this themselves—have been subject to those actions for things they have written that are entirely accurate and in the public interest. In that sense, such a measure is within scope.

It is also within scope because money laundering of this type is always accompanied by reputation laundering, which means seeking to clean the public record of questions about your sources of wealth and misdeeds of the past. It is very much within scope and it would be great for the Bill to consider things like a merits test and a cost cap for defendants in defamation counter-claims.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Can I follow that up? I am grateful to Liam for raising this point. I think it is in scope. The case in relation to Chatham House is shocking, because of the cost to you as an organisation, which you will have to bear personally. It is particularly concerning that in the case of a journalist like Catherine Belton, whom we are seeing on Thursday, six or seven attempts were made; Charlotte Leslie, who was a Member of Parliament, is also being challenged, as are existing Members of Parliament. You are the experts on kleptocrats. This reputation cleaning, or protection of reputation, that they go in for, is an element that we had not really studied in detail before, until it all hit us individually. Do you have any other ideas? We think it is within scope of the Bill. We think there are clauses that have been developed that could quite easily be added. Is there any other action that you think we should take?

Thomas Mayne: I mentioned earlier the PR industry. I think there is a debate going on, following the Russian invasion, about whether there should be transparency over who you represent. Should it be put on record and in what sense? There are membership organisations in the PR world, but you do not have to sign up to them, so there is an internal discussion going on about whether that should become mandatory. Do you somehow put PR under the scope of money laundering regulations? Maybe that is going too far, but some kind of oversight and transparency of such PR agencies, who sometimes represent the kleptocrats and use their wealth to threaten journalists, should certainly be considered.

Professor Heathershaw: It is my understanding that there was a consultation on a foreign influence registration scheme under an earlier, different Home Office Bill. That is where you may have something equivalent to what the US has in the Foreign Agents Registration Act. If you are looking specifically at kleptocrats linked to foreign regimes, or who are themselves part of foreign regimes, PR agencies are working on their behalf to clean their reputations, potentially in a wider public realm with public institutions, and, of course, to specifically target Government officials to potentially donate to political parties—a non-British citizen can do that while retaining overseas citizenship.

Those things would be in scope of a foreign influence registration scheme. Again, that crosses over into the territory of the Bill. It has previously been proposed as part of another Bill, but I think it is very much needed for the PR industry.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Under privilege, Liam Byrne, David Davies, Bob Seely and a whole range of us have raised issues of kleptocracy not just in Russia but in other jurisdictions such as Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, on which I have had debate—I think Liam has probably had debates on other areas. It is very frustrating that only under parliamentary privilege can we get a public airing of some of the examples of individuals stealing money from their people and then laundering it in other jurisdictions to buy themselves football clubs—as someone said—houses and other things. Have you any ideas about what legislative action we could take to support more public debate on these issues and to give voice to those deep wrongs, rather than having to hide behind parliamentary privilege?

Thomas Mayne: That is an excellent question; I am not quite sure how to answer it. As researchers—quite akin to journalism—we all play a game of self-censorship in what we say. Even when you have information about donations from people from overseas—kleptocrats or oligarchs—that is certainly in the public interest, there is always a tendency to draw back and not put it in the public domain. If there were some other forum that allowed that information to be put there without the legal threat, that would be fantastic. At the moment, we rely on you as MPs to bring to certain issues up under parliamentary privilege, because the way the libel laws are set up in the UK is stymieing that kind of debate, which needs to be able to continue.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Are there any international examples of that working better, or is everybody as constrained as we are?

Professor Heathershaw: On the Chatham House paper, two of our authors are Americans, and they have a first amendment right. They think the situation that has arisen with respect to Chatham House is extraordinary and absurd. You could have a first amendment right in some kind of British Bill of Rights, which has been mooted in the past. In terms of academic and journalistic freedom, you could have a specific statement setting out that anything within professional competence that is evidence-based and without malice is counted as free speech.

I think there is obviously a need to revise the Defamation Act 2013 to say that, unless you can determine that a statement has been made with malice, and if it is within professional competence and accurate, it should not even be considered admissible as a potential case of libel or defamation. As researchers, our work goes through ethics committees—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid I have to stop you there. I have no discretion to allow you to continue because under the rules set for the Committee, the sitting has to end now. I thank both our witnesses very much for coming along and helping us with our inquiries.

Ordered,

That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Nigel Huddleston.)

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Third sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am very sorry, but we are going to have to move on to other Members. I will come back if there is time at the end for further questions.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Q I hope the Committee will look at our amendments on information sharing, the funding of enforcement agencies, shareholder information, Companies House checks and AML supervision; we tabled them in a spirit of improving the situation. I agree with all that.

I am going to ask about another issue, just to get it on the table. People engaged in the debate over dirty money are very anxious that we should move from just freezing the assets, particularly of the Russian Government and Russian oligarchs, to seizing the money so that we can use it—particularly for the reconstruction of Ukraine, when that war comes to an end. Can I have your views on that, starting with you, Duncan?

One final thing: a big thank you to both of you for the work your organisations do in exposing a lot of the problems and for the very positive attitude you have taken to establish solutions. Thank you to both of you, individually and to your organisations.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Hear, hear!

Duncan Hames: Thank you. I think it is important that we should continue to respect the rule of law and have a judicial basis for asset recovery. Too often, it is tempting to have a more administrative approach, and with that comes risks. It is very important that, as well as having the clarity of purpose to designate a whole substantial raft of individuals and entities for Russia sanctions, we have the determination to make those sanctions work.

We published some research just last month that found hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of UK real estate that we were fairly sure was owned and controlled by individual entities that have been named under Russia sanctions. However, if you check on the Land Registry, there are not any of the typical markers to say that you cannot sell or transfer or trade this property. That is partly because of some of the very clever and complicated arrangements for their ownership, including using trusts.

In the work you are doing on the Bill, there is an opportunity to ensure that really important measures for global security, such as our Russian sanctions, actually work, bite and make it impossible for those who have moved large amounts of wealth out of Russia to continue to control it in the interests of their political sponsors.

Helena Wood: I could not agree more that we need to start moving from freeze to seize, but I echo Duncan’s sentiments that we must do so in a way that protects the very things we are trying to protect and do: the rule of law, due process and democracy. We should not push towards measures that effectively put in place a ministerial decree for confiscating individual assets and run roughshod over A1P1 principles.

That said, there is further we could go in UK legislation. Even with the advent of the much vaunted unexplained wealth order, our law enforcement agencies remain on the back foot. There is more we can do within the confines of European rights compliance-tested laws of reverse burden mechanisms to put law enforcement on the front foot.

Fundamentally, though, it is not going to be an easy fight to link those assets back to the criminality from which they once derived, given the difficulties of gaining evidence across borders. However, there are models we could replicate that have been tested for ECHR compliance, such as in Italy and Switzerland—I could name others. If the Committee will forgive me for trailing some forthcoming RUSI work, a paper is coming in November or December this year that sets out some recommendations of where part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 could replicate some of the principles of other regimes and push forward to at least put law enforcement on the front foot.

The other issue I would point to, which has already been partly legislated for, is cost protection for our law enforcement agencies. We have legislated for cost capping in cases involving UWOs, but they are not the right tool to use in all cases; I particularly point to the oligarchs, who do not fit under the definition of PEPs in UWO legislation. There is an argument for the Bill to potentially push for full cost capping of part 5 cases to increase the risk appetite of our law enforcement agencies to take those cases on in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

Q The reason I ask is that the example was given on Tuesday of a chip shop in Barnsley—great town that it is—has 50 legal entities registered to it. There are thousands of examples all over the country. It would take one investigator months to investigate the information for every separate legal structure attached to that chip shop. What do you feel about that, Ms Berry?

Elspeth Berry: There will always be a problem, but that does not mean we should not tackle it and it does not mean that we cannot tackle it, and I appreciate that the Bill is attempting to tackle it. All of the things it is trying to do are good, but almost all of them could be significantly improved. We have to deter the wrongdoers. We have to stop looking as though this is a good jurisdiction to do this in. For example, there have been arguments about the fees. It is generally accepted that they should go up, and if your business plan cannot cope with £100 or £500, what kind of businesses are being set up here?

If we are not checking the identity of shareholders and applying PSC legislation to partners, there are still so many loopholes. It is not that there is something there that would be a sanction if they ever caught you—we know this from police and crime; if people think there is only a vanishingly small chance of anyone ever noticing, it is worth taking the risk. I suppose that brings us back to the point about the registrar’s powers, which are great, but they are not duties in most cases. How will we know if she has done it, or what she can reasonably do to minimise the risks of various things—to check information?

One of the things we need is a clear database of things that are red flags—things that Transparency International and lots of journalists have identified that the registrar should be looking for, some of which the legislation still allows, such as things like overseas registries and multiple formations, and the use of company service providers. The problems with those were talked about during the earlier session, and the Bill is not going to entirely resolve those, if at all. If we can tighten down on a lot of those, we will reduce—never eliminate, but reduce—the amount of wrongdoing that is here because of problems we have either created or left in our laws.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I very much take your point, and I hope some of the amendments we put in address what you said about wanting to tighten up on the proactive role of Companies House.

I wanted to ask about shareholders and then about the disappearance of limited companies if they dissolve. I agree that shareholder information is really important—Usmanov brought that home to me. When we sanctioned Usmanov, he just gave everything to one of his daughters or something—anyway, it disappeared into other people’s hands. Can you explain a little what we need to do on shareholder information? At the moment, there is a 25% shareholding barrier. Should that be reduced to 5% or 10%? That is my question.

Then, on limited partnerships disappearing, that was brought home to me very much as a result of the terrible incident in Lebanon—the explosion in Lebanon. It was found that a British-owned company was behind that, with a beneficial owner in Cyprus who happened to be a corporate service provider. It then turned out that it was a nasty situation where the actual owners were some Syrians, and the fertiliser was not going anywhere near Mozambique—which was where it was meant for—but was being used for barrel bombs to kill Syrian citizens. The moment that happened, they tried to dissolve the company and get it to disappear, and obviously in that area of wrongdoing, we need to hang on to any knowledge that we have.

This is for both of you: what amendments do you think are necessary to enable us to stop people dissolving companies and to force information out, so that where there has been that terrible terrorist wrongdoing, we can pursue the wrongdoers? That said, I take the view that a lot of what we are trying to do is prevent these things from happening in future.

Elspeth Berry: On the PSC point, a reduced percentage would be a vast improvement, but I think a zero percentage could be considered. You can have a lot of influence in all sorts of ways while not necessarily hitting those targets, because you are connected with somebody else in a way that we do not catch through the legislation. But I certainly think that a reduction would be a big improvement to try and catch more people who are de facto PSCs, but not in law.

On the limited partnerships point, there are a lot of things we could do. The Bill makes a start in doing those, but given that a lot of this started with the limited partnerships consultations, I am slightly concerned that they got put aside because it was a case of, “Here comes all the corporate stuff,” and that is where all the money and excitement is. There is this small area of limited partnerships where there is a strong lobby for those people dealing with limited partnerships for particular purposes—quite legitimately—who do not necessarily want this to be made too difficult, but we get things like the restrictions on corporate partners not being applied to LPs. I had to read the provisions several times. I dread explaining them to my students, because of the difficulty in trying to get at who owns limited partnerships and who is in control of what is going on in them.

That level of “corporate partner on corporate partner on corporate partner” exists, and we know it is a problem. It is going to continue, depending on what we do with LLPs, and it is a big problem that they are just not in the Bill at all. It is like, “Oh, well, we’ll just apply the legislation to them later,” but which bit of the legislation? The corporate bit? The partnership bit? LLPs have a history of having the bits they want—the nice bits of corporate law and the nice bits of partnership law. Things can get missed because we think, “We have done the big task with the Bill.” PSCs can be applied to partnerships; they haven’t been here, and there is an assertion that it is not possible legally, but as a lawyer I would say that that is not correct.

You even have a provision here saying that people who have been disqualified under the company directors disqualification legislation can still act as limited partners. Limited partners have a limited role by definition if they are behaving properly—of course, they may not be—but even if they are behaving properly, a limited role is not no role for someone who has actually been disqualified from acting as a company director.

Chris Taggart: To pick up on an earlier question, the best information sharing is going to be information sharing in public. A lot of the great work that was done on people after the invasion of Ukraine was done using public domain information. There is a risk to lying in public. The fact that criminals will lie is also an opportunity to catch them out, because it is quite hard to lie consistently.

We get people all the time saying, “We don’t want our information to be on OpenCorporates”—even though it has come directly from Companies House and other places—“I don’t want people to know that my last two companies went bust,” “I used to have a company running a brothel in Germany, and I don’t want my new employees to know that” or, “I don’t want people to know that I am running a company on the side or working for someone else.” There is a cross-over here with data usage. When something is in the public domain, it needs to be functionally public. “Functionally public” means that you can use it and reuse it, and have it as data so that you can combine it with other datasets.

The shareholding data is so important, not just in and of itself, but because it allows you to ask, “Wait a minute. How is that happening with that?” Having it as data allows you to do that programmatically so that you can see trends.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Would you go down to zero—all shareholding data?

Chris Taggart: Yes. With shareholders, we ultimately need to get to a statement of fact—an authoritative record—so that what Companies House says is actually what the courts agree are the shareholders, and people cannot say, “We will move the shares, and then we will tell Companies House,” or, “We forgot to tell Companies House.” That will take work and time. We can extend the verification provisions for directors and PSCs to shareholders, at least over a de minimis amount, but ultimately we need to make Companies House the authoritative record of shareholding, so you are only a shareholder if you are on Companies House.

Elspeth Berry: On your question about dissolution, for limited partnerships it is a different issue because they are not an entity and you can still go after the partners, but of course that is why corporate partners are such a problem. Entities were a problem in Scotland some years ago. I am sure your Scottish colleagues can tell you more than I can about how that was dealt with after a fairly horrific criminal incident involving a lot of deaths. It was not possible to prosecute the partnership after it had dissolved. That is a problem with legal entity status, which is a whole big issue.

[Seema Malhotra]

Q I have a couple of specific questions. First, do you think there should be any sort of limit on the number of companies or partnerships registered at one address? Secondly, should there be any sort of limit—perhaps one beyond which there needs to be an application to increase, under specific criteria— on the number of directorships that any one director can hold?

Chris Taggart: On the latter question first, I have been a director for some 20 years. The first time, someone sat me down and said, “This is what’s involved in being a director.” You think, “Wow, that’s kind of scary.” You have a fiduciary duty and you have to understand the company. If you are a director of 200 companies, I fail to see how you can perform that fiduciary duty, or those companies are, in some ways, just legal entities for some conduits for something. They are not actually in business; they are just conduits. I struggle when someone is a director of 200 companies: either those are just legal entities for some purpose other than as a normal company or they are not doing their job. It seems to me obvious that there is a challenge there. Whether that is a limit or whether that is actually holding directors much more personally liable for the wrongdoing of the companies, I do not know, but I think that there is something. There seems to be a contradiction there, fundamentally.

Elspeth Berry: I agree. I would have supported a cap on the number of directorships for exactly those reasons, in that I do not think a director can fulfil their duties if they have a lot of companies. However, if you are not going to have that, that certainly has to be a red flag for Companies House. It has to be a thing they will investigate and that they have the resources to investigate, which comes back to the problems that we identified earlier.

On the addresses, if you have a company service provider giving their address, it is quite possible you will have multiples and that might be okay if that is their business, they are doing it properly, they are AML regulated and all the rest of it. The problem is that we have seen in recent years that they are not. Again, that ought to be a red flag. In the limited partnership proposals, where you are trying to establish some real connection, economic or otherwise, with a particular jurisdiction within the UK or, at least, with the UK, that is one of the problems. One of the options on the list—they are all problematic—I personally thought that the principal place of business might be quite a good one, showing an actual connection, but I have been corrected in my beliefs by my journalist colleagues who say that almost all the wrongdoers were able to tick that box. I think it is a problem if you are saying that as long as somebody will pick up the mail here, that is okay. Again, that needs to be a red flag.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Yes, if you could speak directly into your microphone, we would be very grateful.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Thank you, Graham, for all the work that you are doing. Even the suggestions you have made are very sensible. Obviously the data that is collected is important, but one of the ways in which we think we can tighten up the provisions a little bit is to increase the duties of Companies House to check. In a way, that is what you do. You go into these massive datasets and decide, “What the hell am I going to look at?” Can you give us some ideas as to how we could hone the measures to ensure that there is a red flag way—call it what you like—of going in and checking on everything?

Graham Barrow: Absolutely. What I am looking at is probably not even 5% of what I could look at in terms of suspicious activity and red flags. I have not the hours in the day; bear in mind that I do not get paid for any of this, so it is a labour of love, or whatever. There is a sensible answer, which is that we are now in a world where data is manipulated really easily and in bulk. Therefore, something that my company has done is to design algorithms that looks at clusters of red flags. If all we look at, Dame Margaret, is red flags, we are going to be overwhelmed. We have to accept that we cannot address every issue straightaway, which means that we need to look at clusters of red flags, which, taken together, can indicate significant organised crime or corruption that is being utilised through the formation of companies.

This year I have seen one organised crime group create about 1,500 companies, using data that they have stolen from two major global organisations. These are HR files, so the data is replete with all the personal information of those employees, who have then found themselves directors of companies that have been registered to empty shops, which have then been used to access banking, particularly overdrafts or other banking credit. There are about 1,500 companies, and the average overdraft might be £5,000 to £8,000; you do not need too many of them to be successful to understand that millions of pounds are being extorted or fraudulently obtained from banks through this ease of use.

Something else that is really important is the ID&V piece. If you have stolen ID&V data from, for example, a company’s HR files, the implementation of proof of life at the same time—that is, you do not just have the documents, but can prove it is you by having some form of selfie or other real-time interaction—is vital, because these people do not just set up companies; they open banking with them. Banks can be criticised, but they do an awful lot more due diligence than Companies House. If these people are opening bank accounts, the ID&V they currently have is clearly high quality. We must bear that in mind.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Q A lot of the issues that the Bill rightly seeks to address are fairly high-level economic and corporate crimes, which are huge issues—and we are talking about huge amounts of money—but they do not directly have an impact on the vast majority of our constituents. One issue that does is phoenixing companies. Does the Bill do enough to address that type of issue?

Graham Barrow: Probably not. We have done some analysis of phoenix companies. For example, I think that something like 30,000 companies on Companies House have changed their name for fewer than seven days and then changed it back to its original name. That is a variety of phoenixing by which you disappear from your company name for a few days and then come back again. As you will probably know, Gavin, every year on Companies House there are thousands of proper phoenix companies—those that have dissolved and reopened, either geographically close or at the same address with virtually the same name. It is a real issue, and it is part of the whole broader issue of company name observations. There was a piece on “You and Yours” on Radio 4 a few weeks ago about a lady who had Asda Ltd registered to her terraced house in Huddersfield. She received 7 kg of post and all sorts of other things, and bailiffs turned up at her door.

The Bill does include the ability for Companies House to reject similar names, but if you have 3,000 companies a day—and that extends to companies across the world that may have similarities—I do not see how you are going to enforce that reasonably. There is just too much volume and too many potential comparative data points to compare them to. That is a huge issue, and one that inserting a little bit of friction between application and registration would help to address. At the moment, the focus is entirely on speed of getting on to the register. Putting in a bit of friction to do some proper checking would be a good idea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I should put on the record that he is a friend of mine as well.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Of lots of us around the table.

Graham Barrow: Shell companies are containers. Effectively, it is a container for assets. They are used in a whole variety of ways. They are used, clearly, as conduits for corrupt and criminal funds to be moved around the world. They are also used just as a container to access banking and do as I have just described—a one-off hit to get a bank account open and get an overdraft.

I have seen physical evidence of a company being incorporated to an address of somebody in Cardiff who knows nothing about it; on the same day, they open a bank account with one of our high street banks, and on the same day, they remove the automatic £8,000 overdraft that came with that bank account. Then they disappear, and of course it turns out that they were untraceable because none of the details they provided were real. That is a shell company, because that is not doing any normal commercial activity.

The Committee mentioned addresses earlier. I am sure some members of the Committee will know that there are addresses in central London that are home to 100,000 companies. That is clearly a matter of concern, particularly with the proportion of those companies that are registered from some of the more remote parts of the world—places you would struggle to find on a map—that concentrate at those addresses.

We need to be quite clear about the legitimate use of corporate service provider addresses. Some of our banks now provide that as a service. That is fine. There is one firm that offers this thing called a non-resident package, which should immediately make your ears prick up. Somebody from outside the country can register a business and be given the business bank account for a fixed fee. That bothers me hugely, because it makes me ask why.

The thing about shell companies is that they are not always easy to identify at the point of incorporation. We are getting very good at it, but it is still not an exact science. It is about lifetime analysis of a company’s behaviour, as well as some of the red flags that are raised at the point of incorporation.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Q Thank you very much indeed. The amount of data coming out suggests that this legislation may do something to inform people about things such as phoenixing, which you have mentioned. Clearly, there are many aspects to that and I am not going to pretend for a second that the Bill answers every single one—it does not—but it certainly goes some of the way towards ensuring that people can be better informed when they enter into future agreements. How would you say that the information alongside the verification assists you?

Graham Barrow: It probably does not assist me an awful lot, because I do not have access to a lot of the other data that particularly members of JMLIT, and other law enforcement and Government organisations, have access to. As a private citizen, I will not have access to that much more information. That is probably a good thing, because I am already drowning in information. For a man who is going to be 70 next birthday, it is not exactly the retirement that I had planned. In a way, I think the best thing I can do is help to inform and educate others so that as the Bill starts to generate that information, some of which I will not be privy to, I can at least help people to understand better how to analyse and aggregate that information to extract signals.

Ultimately, there will be too much information to do everything with, so it is about how we organise ourselves, particularly at the point of incorporation, so that instead of waiting for a problem and going back to see how it happened, we identify that problem in the process of being set up, and start proactively managing the people who are part of organised crime or corruption and are using or abusing Companies House to do that. We have never done that before, to the best of my knowledge, but we are now in a situation where we can start doing it.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I want to take you back to the work you did on Deutsche Bank. First, what additional powers did it lead you to think you needed? Secondly, how did the FCA respond—what was lacking or worked well there?

Graham Barrow: Dame Margaret, you ask me a tricky question because I worked at Deutsche Bank, and some of what I know is privileged and I cannot talk about it. In fact, my work in Deutsche Bank is what has led me to be sitting here, because it was while I was there working on the Russian mirror trades that I realised that two completely different firms had filed exactly the same set of accounts—identical accounts—signed by the same person. My rather naive reaction then was, “How on earth did this happen?” I know better now. That person’s name is in the public domain: it is Ali Moulaye. He is a dentist who currently lives in Belgium and has been written about frequently. I kind of discovered him, in a way. He has signed more than 10,000 sets of accounts on Companies House on behalf of at least 2,500 limited liability partnerships, a significant proportion of which have, sadly, been named as being involved in various laundromats.

One issue was that all those accounts were filed on paper and were then scanned in as an image, not as a machine-readable document. That is a really big disadvantage, because it prevents people such as me, or those with access to clever technology, from reading those documents into artificial intelligence engines and performing deeper analysis on them. It is a very difficult problem. It would be a wonderful thing—although I suspect quite labour intensive—to retrospectively digitise all those old PDFs, because there is a huge wealth of intelligence still residing in them that we truly do not understand. That is also very much true of limited partnerships, which still can only file on paper. The only way to incorporate a limited partnership is on a paper application. That makes reading the data on those registration forms extremely difficult, which is why lots of it has remained hidden for so long.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness; Graham, thank you very much for your time.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Fourth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[James Daly]

That is very helpful. Thank you.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Q ICAEW represents what proportion of the accountancy profession, do you reckon?

Angela Foyle: I do not know the proportion, but there are about a hundred and something thousand members.

Mike Miller: Yes, about 110,000 members. I am not sure of the proportion.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q You do not know the proportion, but the truth is that there will be people who are financial advisers and accountants who are not members. You have a policing role, but if they are not your members, they are not policed.

Angela Foyle: Not by the ICAEW, but there are other institutes out there.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Yes, but you are the big one.

Angela Foyle: We are the bigger one, but they may be by someone else. There are also people who are not regulated by any professional body who can call themselves accountants as well.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Quite. We know that most accountants are brilliant people who make sure we do not make mistakes when we fill in our tax return and all that sort of stuff. However, we know from all the leaks that there are a lot of bad apples in the accountancy world.

There are two things I wanted to ask. One is about the current system of regulation. You as professionals play a role in the system. What changes would you make to ensure the current regulation encompasses all those who call themselves financial advisers or accountants? Secondly, how good are you at your policing role? You obviously have a lobbying role and looking at both your CVs, you are on the lobbying side to make sure regulation fits what your profession wants. I am much more concerned about the policing role. Can you tell me how many people in the last year have been suspended, or whatever it is you do to them, if they have been found guilty of engaging in, facilitating or colluding with economic crime or money laundering or anything like that?

Angela Foyle: I do not think we have the numbers for the people this year.

Mike Miller: We do not have the numbers up to date for this year.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I had them, but unfortunately I have lost them. I think it is about 10 or 15.

[The Chair]

I am going to have to curb this and move on very briefly to Tom because we have to finish.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. That will be put on the record.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Can I ask something wicked? Can the witnesses provide written answers to my questions?

[The Chair]

They can indeed.

Mike Miller: I am very happy to.

Angela Foyle: Could we possibly have your question in writing, just to remind us?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

Q So such a process—light-touch regulation at its finest—is certainly open to fraudulent activities.

Peter Swabey: I think it is fair to say that at the moment it is nothing like as secure as any of us would like it to be, and the Bill is a big step forward in tightening that up. I would still like to see it go further in some ways.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q It is the beneficial ownership that is revealed to Companies House, not necessarily even all the directors, as I understand it. The way you are talking, you obviously deal with big companies. The whole purpose, which I think we all share across the room, is that we want SMEs and the growth of new companies. The idea that every SME will have a company secretary is not really a viable alternative. That means it is really important that we can have faith in the company service providers, who are the people who check the data. Given the way the Bill is constructed, do you think you would have such faith, in particular given all we know from the Panama leaks onwards?

Peter Swabey: It is really important to make sure that the hoops through which those authorised company service providers go before they become authorised are significant, to make sure that we can have confidence in that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q What would that entail?

Peter Swabey: That would entail detailed verification of who people were, of who the ownership was and how that was structured and, effectively, Companies House having a bar to doing that. Where I would take issue slightly with the premise of your question is when you talked about SMEs not needing or not having space for a company secretary; most of them have an accountant and all sorts of other things. It does not have to be a full-time role; someone can be doing it part time, but what is important is that someone who knows what they are doing is looking after those issues.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Do you know how company service providers are regulated and supervised?

Peter Swabey: No, it is not something that our members—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q They are supposedly regulated and supervised by HMRC. Previous witnesses talked about OPBAS, which in its most recent report said that 81% of those supervisory bodies did not have a proper risk-based approach to ensure that those people were lawyers, accountants, bankers or whatever, that they were legitimate people not colluding in or facilitating economic crime. What do you have to say about all that? Basically, supervision is in a mess. HMRC does nothing to supervise company service providers. What is your view on that?

Peter Swabey: I cannot help you much with that, because we are not a supervisory body in that sense.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q You give advice on what makes good supervision.

Peter Swabey: We give advice on what is good governance for organisations, not on the supervisory role.

[Liam Byrne]

Q I want to pursue that point for a moment. In the interests of good governance, would it not make sense to strengthen some of the obligations on directors to include, for example, a duty to take steps to prevent corruption in their organisations? We have similar measures on corruption; we do not have similar measures on economic crime and fraud.

Peter Swabey: You have the directors’ duties under section 171 of the Companies Act and so on. Those are there, but it is difficult to identify exactly how those directors’ duties can be pursued against any defaulting director. For me, that is one of the challenges. Were you to introduce something extra on that, that would be a solution, but again you would need to look at how that could actually be enforced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

Q I do not know whether you can see it, but the Bill is called the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. How credible do you think corporate transparency in this country will be if we do not amend the Bill to include the protection of journalists like you, who have worked so hard and bravely to reveal the truth only to face legal action in English courts that sought to silence you?

Catherine Belton: I think it will be half-baked if it does not include that amendment. Obviously, it is great to have better laws, but when financial watchdogs, public oversight bodies and journalists are still unable to cast a light on some of the financial transactions of the super-rich, from fear of these crushing lawsuits, it means that you have a system that is only half working. Law enforcement relies, and has relied in the past, to a great degree on journalistic investigations, including for instance by the OCCRP; its reporting has led to some very important cases.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I will ask one question, Catherine, because many have been asked. I join with others who have met you, or read your book, and are full of admiration for your courage. For those who have not, and do not know your story, will you quickly tell us what happened to you in relation to the SLAPPs, and why it is important that we try to tackle those in the Bill? You can do it very briefly; I am conscious of time.

Catherine Belton: I wrote a book called “Putin’s People”, which was about Putin’s rise to power, the continued role of the KGB and how Russia was using oligarchs—Russian businessmen—to further Russian influence in the world. I was writing precisely about how many of the oligarchs, such as Roman Abramovich, were essentially forced to act as arms of the Kremlin, because otherwise their wealth could be jeopardised. Putin’s hold on power was such that anybody who did not obey his orders could face jail or the seizure of their companies.

Abramovich was very upset when I suggested in the book, quoting three former associates, that he had acquired Chelsea football club on Putin’s orders, in order to acquire soft power and influence in the UK. That, I believe, was public interest reporting. The allegation had been put to his spokesperson, and the response was in the book. He announced that he was suing me personally and HarperCollins—a statement that was swiftly followed by lawsuits from three other Russian billionaires, and then one from the Kremlin oil company Rosneft. The cases were very difficult to grapple with, because there were so many of them all at the same time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q How many were there altogether?

Catherine Belton: Five cases. It cost my publisher £1.5 million to deal with the cases, and they got only to the preliminary hearing stage before they were either settled or withdrawn. Rosneft’s case had to be withdrawn completely because there was no basis for any of its claims. The judge found that one of Abramovich’s claims was completely exaggerated, which allowed us to make minor amendments and avoid the enormous cost of having to continue to fight. Even though we believed that we had a very strong public interest case, our lawyers told us that it would have cost, at a minimum, £2.5 million to continue to defend the great deal of reporting that had gone into my book. It would have taken over a year. Abramovich had twice filed the exact same claim simultaneously in Australia as well, even though he had no business there, and therefore no reputation to protect.

Nineteen media rights organisations said that the cases against “Putin’s People” and my publisher, HarperCollins, bore all the hallmarks of a SLAPP case—that is, they were designed to intimidate the publisher, and they were abuse of process, particularly in the case of Abramovich.

Yes, the judge found that one of his claims was exaggerated, which, according to the Ministry of Justice’s proposal for the anti-SLAPP law, is one of the criteria under which SLAPP cases should be thrown out of court at an early stage. It introduced three criteria. One was that meanings were being inflated or exaggerated by a claimant; that was clearly the case for most of the oligarchs pursuing me. In Rosneft’s case, the judge found that what I had written about Rosneft, the Kremlin oil company, was not defamatory at all, yet my publisher had to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds just to get to the stage of a preliminary hearing, to get it thrown out of court. The proceedings demonstrated how many other UK media organisations had been censoring themselves because they did not want to deal with those enormously costly lawsuits—

[The Chair]

Catherine, I am really sorry, but I have two more people waiting to ask questions and there is only five minutes. I am so sorry to curtail you.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

Q Just in general, using the banks as an example, should we be looking to put in the Bill requirements for them to play their part in the partnership to tackle money laundering?

Professor Jason Sharman: Again, banks have had these requirements to establish the beneficial owners for a while. I think this is good, but it is the enforcement that is key there.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Following on from that, I completely take the point about enforcement, but would a failure to prevent power make any difference, assuming it was enforced?

Professor Jason Sharman: I probably differ from many of the other people who have spoken in that I am not a fan of failure to prevent. I think that the goal of these laws is to make life hard for bad people without making life hard for good people at the same time. To the extent that you have really onerous regulation or weaken the presumption of innocence, that is something of an own goal or collateral damage. Before you put people in jail, you should be pretty serious about it. There should be a mental intention there—a mens rea.

I am not really comfortable with the strict liability. There is strict liability in anti-bribery, which means I have to do pointless anti-bribery training every year for the University of Cambridge. It does not do me any good and it does not stop corruption, but it is one of the things that Cambridge feels it has to do because of the strict liability. Again, it is a cost to society that is not included in legislation or in regulatory impact assessments.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Because time is limited, I will not engage with that, but it is a really interesting view. I want to quote something to you that I think you said—apologies if I have got it wrong. You said:

“These host states now have a duty to block, trace, freeze, and seize these illicit funds and hand them back to the countries from which they were stolen.”

I do not know who you were referring to there, but, in our case, with the illicit Russian assets frozen in the UK, how do you suggest we seize those funds and how can we repurpose them?

Professor Jason Sharman: It depends. With the Russian assets that are criminal assets, eventually you need to go to a court of law to do that—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q That is very hard—you know that.

Professor Jason Sharman: Indeed. That is hopefully something that the Bill will do something to correct. It may be different if you are talking about sanctions and the money that is currently frozen. It would depend. If we are talking about criminal money, there is an anti-money laundering process of confiscation—civil and criminal.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q Sanctions.

Professor Jason Sharman: Sanctions. I think you cannot. There is proper process. As I understand it, unless there is a formal state of war that obtains between two states, on what basis are you going to take away—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q That is the point. Did I quote you incorrectly, then?

Professor Jason Sharman: No, you quoted me correctly, but that is money that was stolen in one place and moved to another place, and you have to prove that it was stolen. That is different from saying, “You are a Russian oligarch and we are going to freeze your funds.” It is very different.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I accept it is different from a Russian oligarch, but according to Bill Browder we have something like £30 billion of Russian state assets sitting frozen at the moment. Of course, it needs to change. I totally accept that we are not at war with Russia, so those powers do not exist. Do you think it is appropriate to introduce any new powers that would enable us to seize as well as freeze those assets and then repurpose them for the reconstruction in Ukraine? There is certainly a desire across the political divide here in the UK to try to achieve something along those lines. Do you think that is possible?

Professor Jason Sharman: I would not shed a tear if Russian oligarchs lost their assets.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q This is the state I am talking about.

Professor Jason Sharman: Okay, for the Russian state. In that case, I think that would be wonderful. I know Browder mentioned earlier central bank assets. But, again, there is a precedent here. To what extent would foreign Governments put money overseas? There is a lot of concentration on Russia as a corrupt regime, which I think it is, but it has plenty of company, many of which have assets in the UK.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q The Italians appear to have conquered this—I do not know if you know about that—through the stuff they have done on the mafia. The Canadians appear to have introduced a new power that might take them there. The Americans are trying to think about it. The Europeans are. There is quite a lot of thinking. I am just picking your brain. Is there anything you have done in this field that could add value as we try to think about it?

Professor Jason Sharman: I think not, and I think that the British Government, at least when it comes to sanctioning oligarch assets, which I realise are different from state assets, are in a bind. I think they will have to return those assets to the oligarchs and that they may have to pay damages to the oligarchs. That would be a terrible injustice, but I really worry about what the end game for sanctions is.

[Liam Byrne]

Q Jason, you are a political scientist. Why are we in this position where we have such weakness? Why has our political system failed to address these weaknesses for so long?

Professor Jason Sharman: This is probably a typical social science answer, but there are quite a few reasons that make it difficult, because no one corrective, in and of itself, is going to fix the situation. There have been solutions, such as the persons of significant control registry, the unexplained wealth orders and so on, where it has been like, “This is the thing that will unlock the problem”. But instead it is a combination. First off, it is appropriately difficult to take away people’s property. Secondly, the bureaucratic incentives do not favour it. You have this very risk-averse culture within law enforcement agencies. Thirdly, as I said, there is a failure to harness the incredible investigative resources that lie outside the state, in the not-for-profit sector but also in the for-profit sector.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Fifth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend will want to speak to her own amendment, but I will lay out a few comments. She is right that we need Companies House to become a more active agent in our efforts to combat economic crime as a result of the Bill—I am sure the Minister will agree that we do not want an economic crime Bill No. 3 in the House, and nor do we have the time for delay in sharpening our response and defences against economic crime.

In evidence given to the Committee, Thom Townsend from Open Ownership stated that the clause—or the important objectives laid out in it—

“seems like a ridiculously low bar.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 63, Q136.]

He is absolutely right. I am sure that all Members listening to that evidence agreed. My right hon. Friend will speak to her own amendment, but we very much support it, because this House needs to send a clear message about our expectation of a proactive role for the registrar—not just a reactive role.

Why is it so important to do so now? As Companies House now begins its transformation to reform its systems, processes and capabilities, part of that will be about its culture, and in line with what this House will expect, the proceedings of this House and this Committee will be important in sending that message. It is our job to ensure that the objectives and powers are very clearly laid out in legislation, so that there is no confusion over our expectations.

The fifth objective in the amendment would raise the “ridiculously low bar” of the first four objectives, as stated by Thom Townsend, from minimising risk to proactively identifying suspected uses of the register for criminal purposes and acting accordingly. As the Secretary of State herself stated on Second Reading:

“We want to ensure that there are more restrictions on who can register with Companies House so that we prevent the abuse of the regime.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 285.]

But I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking will want to speak to her own notes on this. Thank you, Mr Robertson, for giving me the opportunity to do so.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Sincere apologies for being late, Mr Robertson. I want to start by welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, to his role. I have worked very closely with him over the past few years, and it is great to see somebody who understands the issues sitting in his seat. I hope that we can have very positive engagement with him while considering the Bill.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the reforms. The amendments that we have tabled, including this amendment, are all designed to improve the quality of the legislation that we pass. I hope that they will be taken in that spirit. Having been a Minister in my time, I am very aware of the fact that when amendments are tabled by hon. Members, whether they are on the Opposition or the Government Benches, there tends to be a mood of “reject” from the officials advising the Minister. I simply say to him that many of the amendments that we are putting forward, like this one, are really there to improve the Bill. They are not about trying to raise contentious issues. Perhaps as we proceed, we will come across more contentious issues, but this amendment is not contentious; it is simply to secure an improvement. It is not party political, and I think it reflects common sense. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this particular amendment.

Why have we tabled the amendment? I draw the Minister’s attention to the Government’s own factsheet on the Bill, which states that broadening the powers of the registrar of Companies House is designed—that is my word—so that the registrar can become a “more active” gatekeeper over company creation and a custodian of more reliable data. Companies House itself has six strategic goals, one of which is to combat economic crime through active use of analysis and intelligence. We have there a commitment from Government and from the organisation itself that it should take a proactive role in using the information that it has.

Our amendment would embed in legislation the Government’s intent and the organisation’s goals. It would ensure that that intent and the goals were on the statute book and therefore implemented in the future. Too often, as the Minister knows, we have organisations and bodies that have powers but simply do not use them. We can think of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and its oversight of company service providers as just one example of where there is a power but, without emphasis on that duty in legislation, it tends to get ignored. The aim of our amendment is just to ensure that what is a power becomes a strong duty.

Why does that matter? Companies House holds a massive amount of data: information about 4.5 million companies, with more than 800,000 new companies incorporated each year and more than 10 million documents filed annually. That data is full of red flags that should be proactively investigated to ensure that we really bear down on economic crime. We want to pursue the wrongdoers, and if we get that stronger investigation and it is known that Companies House does use its proactive powers, that is a good preventive measure because it is much less likely that the ne’er-do-goods will indulge in bad practice.

Let us look at the sort of stuff that has come out so far. There are endless examples: five beneficial owners control over 6,000 companies—a massive red flag. They are clearly not the real beneficial owners. Four thousand beneficial owners are under two years’ old, including one who is not born yet. The company Atlas Integrate Services LLP was registered in September this year. The person of significant control in that company is just two months’ old. In her two months of life, she has not just found time to start a business but apparently has got married, as she is listed as “Mrs” in the register.

We know from all the leaks how Companies House and our UK corporate structures are used and abused by bad people. I take just one example from the FinCEN files: 3,267 of the LLPs and the LPs were holders of bank accounts that involved suspicious transactions—British corporate structures. Of those 3,267 British corporations, 1,656—over half—were created by just four agencies. Nine agencies created more than 100 UK entities. One agency created 646 limited liability partnerships and limited partnerships. Those are examples of strong red flags that suggest malpractice.

It is not just the perpetrators who benefit but the victims who suffer, as the Minister knows. The only successful prosecution in this space is that of Kevin Brewer—the Minister will probably remember the case. This was a man in his 60s who deliberately set about showing the flaws in the system in Companies House. He set up a company called John Vincent Cable Services Ltd, when Vince Cable ran the Department that the Minister is now in. He did that in 2013. He then wrote to Vince Cable to tell him what he had done.

In 2016, he used the names of James Cleverly and Baroness Neville-Rolfe to set up another company. Again, he wrote to them. All he was doing with drawing attention to what was wrong with the system, but he was prosecuted. The Government proclaimed that prosecution as a great victory of how Companies House is vigilant over the quality of the data. Nothing could be more wrong. I think the Minister will agree that, in effect, he was a whistleblower. He was treated abominably by the authorities. That throws into stark relief the lack of action taken against others responsible for setting up bogus companies.

I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is common sense. It simply ensures that there is a strong duty on Companies House to use that wealth of data to investigate, proactively raise red flags and talk to the enforcement agencies. I hope that he sees the amendment as something that adds to the value of the Bill.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson, and to speak after the right hon. Member for Barking. As she knows, and I hope all Committee members know, I am—like her—incredibly ambitious for the Bill. Hopefully, the dialogue we have in this room over the next few weeks will serve a great purpose to ensure that this legislation is fit for purpose.

I entirely agree with the thrust of the amendment. Of course we want a proactive gatekeeper of the information. The right hon. Member for Barking highlights many examples, as does the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, who talked about the culture of the organisation. She is absolutely right that the culture needs to be focused on making sure that the information held by Companies House is accurate, but we need a balance. We must avoid an impossibly bureaucratic and expensive system. The right hon. Member for Barking highlights some of the problems of dealing with a register of this size. There are between 4 million and 5 million companies and about 7 million or 8 million directors in the UK. To independently verify all those records, one by one, is clearly a huge challenge.

On changing the culture of the organisation, the Bill has its four objectives: accuracy, completeness of records, reducing risk and reducing the chances of unlawful activity. I would also point to the text in bold type in clause 1—the objective

“to promote integrity of registers”.

That does exactly what the right hon. Lady intends with her amendment. To me, promoting the integrity of the registers speaks to the proactivity that we want to see. We definitely want to see Companies House sharing information with law enforcement agencies proactively, for example.

The right hon. Lady spoke about a number of obvious cases that would raise red flags, and that happens because Companies House is not operating as she wants it to. One of the key bases of the Bill is to change the role of Companies House from registry to gatekeeper, and to promote integrity properly and proactively by identifying information on a risk-based approach.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s work in this area. We should not get into semantics. The key point, as he says, is making sure that we have a plan that sits behind the objectives, and Companies House is currently working on how it will perform its duties under the objectives. That is key. We can legislate all we want in here, but legislation is less important than implementation. The implementation of the rules is key. We must ensure that the plan is robust and that it identifies the red flags on a risk-based approach and shares that information with the relevant law enforcement agencies that have their duties to undertake. “Promoting integrity” does what the right hon. Member for Barking wants.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister—I know he is struggling. Why not put this objective in? If Companies House is going to do this work anyway, what is the objection? Why not let it stand there? It will ensure the work over time. Our lives are always short as Ministers. The Minister is not going to be there all the time. Other people are going to take over from him. We want Companies House to be proactive throughout the time that the legislation lasts. Why not put this objective in?

The only reason I can think of for why the Minister is getting objections from his civil servants—I assume the objections are coming from them—is that Companies House will not carry out this proactive role, because it will prioritise its other role of verifying information, and we will lose the advantage of the wealth of data with integrity that we could use to eliminate the wrongdoers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I take the right hon. Lady’s point, but I do not agree. Clearly, we will seek to improve many things as the Bill goes through its various stages. However, if we look at the objectives themselves, objective 1 is to

“ensure that any person who is required to deliver a document to the registrar does so.”

That is, to me, a proactive condition and objective. We probably have arguments about the drafting, but the nature of what we seek to achieve is the same. I would therefore politely ask that the amendment is withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who I worked closely with on the Treasury Committee, for all her work on economic crime. I absolutely agree we need the right resources to go alongside the Bill, so I am fully committed to anything I said before in the Chamber or otherwise about ensuring that that resourcing is available. I certainly agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill when he talks about clean trade—absolutely right. We do not want this country associated with dirty money in any shape or form.

The right hon. Gentleman gave an interesting example about the money laundering through Danske Bank, which was, as he said, hundreds of billions of pounds-worth of Russian money stolen from the Russian people flowing through UK shell companies to its destination. That was subject to regulatory action and potential criminal enforcement; it is not as though the matter was held secretly until it was identified locally in Danske Bank. Danske Bank will get sanctioned for that, so it is not as though law enforcement is not happening. However, the right hon. Gentleman and I would agree that, too often, big banks turn a blind eye to the problem on the basis that it is quite profitable for them, and the fines are ultimately a cost of doing business. What we need to do is hold people properly to account, including individual directors.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I agree, but the point with Danske Bank, as with so many of these massive scandals, is that it was a whistleblower who uncovered wrongdoing, not the enforcement agencies. We will come to whistleblowing later in our considerations, but what we want is for the enforcement agencies—in this case, Companies House—to be equipped to do the work themselves and not to rely on whistleblowers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree with the right hon. Lady’s point. As she knows, I am a big fan of improving the legislation on whistleblowers. I am delighted to say that role is part of my portfolio and I am determined to take that forward as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Several things arise from the Minister’s great contribution. First, I look forward to his support for our amendment to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the work of Companies House, which will come later in our consideration of the Bill. Secondly, one knows how spending reviews go, and this will never become a top priority. I hope that the Government will see it is a security issue, but until they do so, it will not become a top priority for expenditure. That is why the Opposition—supported by the Minister, I hope, given his passion—want to put a figure into the legislation, to link it to inflation and to ringfence it, so that no Treasury official down the line can get hold of it. The final thing I wanted to ask—

[The Chair]

Briefly, please.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will be brief. We think that Companies House has to do more in a whole range of areas if it is to be effective, such as on information on directors and proper control of company service providers. We do not want to create another cohort of people who allow bad things to take place. Those things will require greater resources. Will the Minister make a commitment today on that? If we are successful in passing the amendment, will he take those things into account when thinking about the financing?

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister, may I say that interventions need to be brief?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Is the Minister minded to use that power to enter the nationality of individuals on a company’s register of members?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am certainly minded to consider all aspects of the debate we have had in Committee and to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State and others. We are here to inform the debate, and Members on both sides of the House are better informed as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The definition of “persons with significant control” accounts for exactly that—it accounts for the fact that a person with influence on a company might have any level of shareholding, even including zero shares. That is catered for in the definition of “persons with significant control.” Of course, there is always discussion about how we find out about and verify such information, which is very difficult to ascertain in any circumstance. The subject of ID verification is interesting to debate. I have discussed different aspects of it with officials and we should definitely consider it further.

The regulations under new section 113A will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so the overall intent behind the amendment would be better addressed in a wider conversation about what additional information, if any, it would be proportionate to require every company to provide about its members via these regulations. I hope I have provided some assurance that this amendment is not necessary. Therefore, I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston would withdraw it.

Clauses 3 to 8 will require those seeking to form a company to confirm that they are doing so for lawful purposes. The clauses make it absolutely explicit that those forming companies are welcome to do so only if they intend to do so for a lawful purpose. Through the requirement and provision of the new statement, subscribers to a new company can be in no doubt that if they are found not to be telling the truth, action can be taken against them.

Clause 4 will require applications to register a company to include a statement that none of the company’s subscribers, founding members or initial shareholders is a disqualified director. The definition of “disqualified person” is provided in proposed new section 159A(2) of the Companies Act 2006. Clause 4 enables the registrar of companies to reject the application if any subscriber is a disqualified director. The registrar should reject such applications, because by being involved in the formation of a company, a disqualified person breaches the law.

Under clause 5, an application to incorporate a company must include a statement confirming that all the company’s proposed directors have either verified their identity or are exempt from verification requirements.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

How will the exemption be defined? Will the regulations confirming the exemption be subject to the affirmative procedure? Also, I draw to the Minister’s attention an example that he could look at: Fedotov took advantage of exemptions to use Russian stolen wealth in the UK. These exemptions are very dangerous; I want to hear from the Minister how we will ensure that they are properly regulated and monitored by Parliament.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady makes a fair point. I am sure that she will accept that the Secretary of State is as keen as she is to clamp down on this activity. Exemptions can be made when directors undergo sufficient scrutiny on employment. Also, the director’s ID can be confirmed without verification when the prohibition to act as a director while unverified does not apply. An example would be directors appointed by the community interest companies regulator under section 45 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am worried about this. Will the Minister look at how Fedotov managed to get an exemption, and then perhaps write to Committee members about it? Then we could see whether there is a systemic issue, and whether we ought to have a better overview of the way in which exemptions are determined.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I can see the officials writing like mad. I am sure that they will have picked up on that. I am happy to look at this as well. I reassure the Committee that the affirmative procedure is required, so that we can ensure sufficient scrutiny of exemptions from the obligation on directors to verify their identity, and so that Members can see why those exemptions are proposed.

We will come to other identity verification clauses later in Committee, but I am confident that Members will agree that clause 5 is vital. It improves the accuracy and integrity of the companies register by allowing the registrar to refuse incorporation of a company if the directors are neither ID-verified nor exempt from the requirement to be ID-verified.

Clause 6 requires a company’s subscribers to provide a statement when an application to register a company is filed confirming that none of its proposed directors is disqualified or ineligible to be a director. Disqualified or ineligible people include undischarged bankrupts and individuals subject to asset freezes. The clause allows a registrar to reject an application to register a company if a proposed director is disqualified or ineligible for appointment. The registrar’s rejection prevents the company from being formed. If the statement confirms that a proposed director who is disqualified has received a court’s permission to act, the registrar will accept the registration. The clause helps to ensure that disqualified and ineligible directors do not make it on to the companies register.

Clause 7 requires that applications to register a company include a statement that none of the people with initial significant control is a disqualified director. People with initial significant control are individuals or legal entities that will own or control the company once it is registered. The clause will ensure that the registrar has the necessary information and power to reject an application if the person with initial significant control is a disqualified director.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This question is really just for information. Can the Minister explain why the three categories were chosen for inclusion in the Bill? Why are we only looking at these? What was rejected, and why did these three come about? I cannot understand it. Is there a right to appeal if somebody chooses a name for a legitimate reason but it is misunderstood by Companies House? Who will take the decision? Is that something the Secretary of State will delegate to Companies House, or will it have to come up for ministerial approval every time?

A slight aside: some of us had dinner last night with Catherine Belton, and she talks convincingly about the way that companies linked to the Kremlin have individuals who do not reveal that link. The link to foreign Governments is more worrying than the idea of someone abusing the name of foreign Governments to set up, say, a travel agency to go to Russia. That sort of thing seems to me perfectly all right. The other side of this coin is what causes great concern. It can become a vehicle for money laundering and hiding a lot of the Kremlin’s money in banks abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful. Of course, my target will certainly be 100%; I cannot imagine why it would not be. The 28 days refers to the time that relevant legal entities will have to rectify their identity from receipt of the registrar’s direction.

To answer the hon. Member for Glasgow Central on computer code, there have been a small number of instances where Companies House systems have identified computer code. What constitutes that may change and evolve over time, so the drafting is future proof. Companies House already has a security capability that will develop and evolve over time. Where necessary, Companies House’s internal scrutiny functions will consult other experts.

The right hon. Member for Barking asked what had been rejected. No other categories were rejected in the course of policy development. I think that these categories were deemed important, but I do not know of any others that were considered. The right to appeal regarding the name change would be through a judicial review. Clearly, it is fair to say that Companies House will use its judgment.

To answer the right hon. Lady’s point on the Secretary of State’s functions, Companies House exercises those functions. There is a well-established administrative process by which Companies House makes the Department aware of potentially problematic names, so the Secretary of State can also exercise their judgment. On how we identify any of those names, of course, a lot of that is technology-based.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am really sorry, but I just want clarification. Does that mean the decision is taken by both Companies House and the Secretary of State—or a Minister on their behalf?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I understand it, Companies House makes the decision under delegated authority.

On trading styles or business names, which the shadow Minister mentioned, that is clearly not something that Companies House oversees directly, because it does not have a register of trading styles or business names. However, it does rely on third-party information to understand what a company may be trying to do regarding its trading style.

On the other problem—the other side of the coin, as the right hon. Member for Barking says—of money laundering and people supporting the Russian state, those matters are, of course, principally dealt with through money-laundering regulations or, indeed, sanctions regimes. People supporting the Russian regime, for example, should very often be subject to sanctions.

Question put and agreed to.  

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.  

Clauses 10 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.  

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

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Sixth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Member needs to respond first. Then the right hon. Lady can intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

You are absolutely right to keep us in line, Ms Bardell. We need to ensure we can operationalise the Bill in the clearest and most succinct way that leaves absolutely no room for doubt. The Bill is designed to regulate a sector of the economy that is like water; if it can find cracks to slip through, it will find them. We are trying to close those loopholes.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am bewildered. The Minister may be too. Proposed new subsection (4A) in clause 14(5)(b) sets out that an application must be made “within the period of three weeks”. Obviously the lawyers do not think it is bad to put “within a period of three weeks” in that particular context. If someone says “at least”, that is a minimum, not a maximum. At least is a minimum. I cannot think that a lawyer would not have common sense about it. Perhaps the Minister wants to go away, reflect on this and move an amendment later. I do not believe lawyers are quite that removed from reality and common sense. It literally says in that clause “made within”. The lawyers do not mind using that term sometimes, so why can they not use it always?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Bardell.

As Members will have noted, this group is large and includes both amendments and clauses. The hon. Member for Aberavon—I appreciate his kind words and those of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston—has tabled many amendments, and they would make changes across multiple clauses. It will therefore be helpful for all Members if I lay out the effects of the clause as currently drafted, before turning to the amendments and the many points made during the debate.

Clauses 14 to 22 together form the majority of the chapter on registered company names. At present, the Companies Act 2006 leaves it to the discretion of the Secretary of State to determine the time period within which a company must comply with a direction to change its name. Clause 14 amends that to standardise the various direction-issuing powers already found in part 5 of the Companies Act 2006 and those that are inserted by this Bill. This means that in all instances where companies are directed to change their registered names, they must do so within at least 28 days of the date of the direction. [Interruption.] There are two things I would say to the hon. Member for Aberavon. Clause 14 must be looked at in context, and the point is that proposed new subsection (2A) of section 64 of the Companies Act would give

“a period of at least 28 days beginning with the date of the direction.”

Combined with new subsection (2) of section 76 of that Act, as inserted by clause 14(5) of this Bill, that means the direction will be a fixed period. There will be a fixed period, just as he wants, and in all likelihood it will be 28 days. It may sound like odd drafting, but the “at least” part is to ensure that the direction cannot be less than 28 days to give companies a reasonable chance to make the change. Once the decision has been made on how long the company will get, that will be a fixed period, unless the company provides justification for changing it.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Further on in the Bill, there are a lot of Henry VIII powers. I cannot see the justification in this context, and perhaps the Minister can advise us why we cannot put 28 days in the Bill. It has to be “at least”, but it also has to be “at most”. Let us just put that in the Bill. I do not know why we give any Minister discretion on this. It ought to be in the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is in the Bill. The point is that the company, in some circumstances, can effectively apply to have that time period extended. That is the point of this; that is where the “at least” bit comes in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I support the amendment, and that tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, because in many ways they go to the heart of whether the Minister is serious about stripping economic criminals of their balaclavas and cloaks of anonymity, which currently allow them to perpetrate some of the worst economic crime on the planet.

I said this morning that when we offer privileges to people in this country, whether benefits or a visa, we put them through the most substantial identification checks. We put those applying for visas for this country through a whole set of biometric checks, which I introduced. When we introduced them the first time around, and began washing those biometric checks against police computers, we discovered that visas had been issued in the past to some of the most obnoxious criminals on earth.

Verification checks are a good thing. I would say that they are required if we are to grant individuals the economic privileges that come through limited liability. That is the privilege that we are giving people when they register a company at Companies House. It is not just a free-for-all; it is a privilege that we created for the common good, and we should therefore ensure that we give it to not just anybody who happens to turn up but people we know. That is why we need a very clear story from the Minister about the regime that he will bring forward to ensure that the cloak of anonymity—these balaclavas on economic criminals—are gone once and for all. Unless we have that reassurance, the Bill will not be worth the paper that it is written on.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I rise to support amendment 86 and to speak to amendment 94 in my name. I have to say to the Minister that this is the first debate where there is a flaw in how the legislation is drafted, such that when the Bill becomes active, it will not serve the purpose that we all desire of it. I can see how we got there, but I ask him to consider looking at it in another way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Permission should certainly be sought; it is just that some people do not seek permission. That is the point behind the clause. We are putting provisions in place to clamp down on that behaviour and completely eradicate the possibility of someone doing that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Okay, but I have not read anywhere in the Bill of a legal duty placed on an individual establishing a company to seek the permission of the person whose address it is, whether a householder or a business. I cannot see that in the Bill, so it would be helpful if the Minister could direct me to it.

That is point No. 1. My second point is that there is massive abuse of addresses, to which other Members have already pointed. In the FinCEN files, which I happened to have looked at again recently, one case involved a private address in Leicester that was used as the company address of 36 shell companies.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I draw the Committee’s attention to the wording of clause 28, on an “appropriate address”:

“A company must ensure that its registered office is at all times at an appropriate address…An address is an ‘appropriate address’ if, in the ordinary course of events…a document addressed to the company, and delivered there by hand or by post, would be expected to come to the attention of a person acting on behalf of the company”.

It is therefore impossible to see how people could just pick any address, as some do now; that clearly would not be an appropriate address, because there would be nobody there to hand the correspondence on.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Interestingly enough, the example that I was halfway through describing proves that one could still choose an address and have documents delivered to it, but, if one had not sought permission of the person whose address it is, it could still be a phoney address.

To follow through on the example in the FinCEN files, a private address in Leicester had 36 shell companies, all with accounts in the Danske Bank in Estonia. The address was in fact that of the home of a Latvian cleaner called Dace Streipa—I hope I pronounced that correctly. When she was confronted by the journalist investigating the FinCEN files, she claimed to know nothing about it. Letters had kept appearing at her house, but she did not know what to do with them.

The other FinCEN files example was that of 175 Darkes Lane, Potters Bar, which I am sure the Minister will remember. It was home to more than 1,000 companies. It may be, then, that there is an obligation, but someone could choose any address, including my home address if they so wanted, and I am not sure that there is an obligation for the person who chooses that address to seek my permission to do so. If I am wrong, I am happy to take that back, but I do not think the clause that the Minister directed me to covers that. We want to stop the cuckooing activity.

Clauses 61 and 62 put duties on Companies House to ensure that identities are verified, but there is no duty to ensure the verification of addresses. That duty is needed: it is part of the proactive role that we talked about at the beginning of this morning’s debate. It should be proportionate and could be done with a risk-based assessment, but if we do not place a duty on Companies House to perform some sort of check on the addresses that are submitted in relation to the formation of each company, as well as a check on the identity of the individuals, we are digging a hole for ourselves and will find that the legislation we pass is not effective in the way that is wanted. I ask the Minister to give the idea really serious consideration, because I do not think the Bill goes far enough to give us the certainty that we seek on the legitimacy of companies that are formed.

[The Chair]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I remind the Committee that it is helpful if Members indicate in their substantive contribution whether they are going to press or withdraw an amendment.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I hear clearly the comments made on both sides of the argument, but I think the provisions in the Bill do tackle the issues that Members are trying to tackle—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

They don’t.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady should let me develop my argument, if she does not mind.

We are all aware of the frequent problems that arise when criminals incorporate companies using an address that belongs to a person who has nothing to do with that company, or when criminals hijack the details of a legitimate company and change the address to one that is invalid or ineffective. The Bill contains provisions that will not only reduce the risk of that happening, but mean that when it does happen the registrar can take swifter action to remedy the situation, which I think is what Members are asking for.

The Bill will operate like this. Clause 28 imposes new duties on companies to ensure at all times that their registered office address is an appropriate address. The companies and individuals involved would be guilty of an offence if they did not make sure that the address was appropriate—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Let me develop my point a little bit. The meaning is clearly defined in the Bill: an appropriate address is an address where it can be reasonably expected that documents sent to the company will come to the attention of a person acting on the behalf of the company. It is inconceivable that a Latvian lady in Leicester who does not know why she is getting correspondence could be defined as somebody who is able to pass on the documentation to a person acting on behalf of the company.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way at this point?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Let me just finish the other critical part of the definition. An appropriate address is an address where an acknowledgement of the delivery of documents is capable of being recorded.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister has not answered the point about whether, in the Latvian cleaner example, her permission would legally have had to be sought for that address to be used, but let us put that to one side. He says that if it does happen, swift action will be taken; how on earth would that ever come to the knowledge of Companies House? How would it ever know if there is no system of spot checking to ensure that the addresses that are used are true? There is no system in the Bill. The main point of this whole argument is that we need a checking system—I accept that not every address would be checked, but it could be a spot-checking system—to ensure that the addresses are valid. That is not in the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are 4.5 million companies in the UK—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I know; there should be spot checks.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

And I do not think the right hon. Lady imagines that the registrar could go around them all. I am glad we agree on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is something that we will need to see—the plan for Companies House and the resources needed for that. A figure of £50 or £100 was quoted; if the company formation fee was £50, that would raise £20 million a year. That is quite a significant amount of money. As I said, cart and horse, first we need to see what powers and resources Companies House needs, and then we can apply the right levy in terms of the company formation fee to ensure that the resources are available. A review will also be conducted to ensure that those resources will still be available as time goes on. On that note, I conclude my remarks.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I want to say a number of things. First, may I say to Conservative Back Benchers that I do not think anyone in the room wants to do anything other than encourage maximum commercial activity to maximise growth? Right? I have looked at the issue for a long time, and my view, which I believe is shared by the Minister, is that if we do not sort out the dirty money, Britain will become a less attractive place in which to invest and grow. Let us be clear that we are not in any way trying to over-regulate or impede economic and commercial activity; we want to encourage it. Let us have that as a shared objective.

Secondly, I accept and applaud the work the Government have done on trying to hone down the definition of appropriate address. The proposed clauses and amendments on that are really important, but then comes the “but”, which is that all the evidence we have, from all the leaks we have had over the past decade or so, demonstrates that shell companies abuse addresses for nefarious purposes. That is how they work.

In his concluding remarks, the Minister said that Companies House would intervene “where intelligence and reasonable information was made available to her”. We are not asking for the addresses of 4.5 million companies, or whatever the figure is. The idea of knocking on the door of all such companies is obviously completely and utterly totally absurd, and that is why we are calling for a risk-based approach. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, made a very good point; if we could just use the technology intelligently, we could then see whether the same address was being used by 10, 20 or 30 companies. There are ways of doing that, but at present, there is no duty or obligation on Companies Houses to check. I have not found it, but perhaps the Minister will be able to show it to me. We also know that if we do not make that duty clear, it will fall out of the in-tray and go to the back of the to-do list. We then leave the opportunity available for dirty money to enter the country and not be checked by Companies House.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If the right hon. Lady looks at the literal interpretation of her amendment, she will see that it puts an obligation on Companies House to check every single address in the UK. It says:

“Duty of the registrar to verify appropriateness of address of registered office”.

It does not say “on a spot-check basis”. It seems to be a blanket provision. I agree with much of what the right hon. Lady has said, but I think we need to be careful. The drafting of this has to be right, because, as she rightly says, we do not want to impede the normal commercial activity of 4.5 million businesses in the UK. That would be detrimental to our constituents and the citizens of this country.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

What I would say in answer is that we have had incredibly good advice on drafting, from both the House itself and our own advisers. I would urge the Minister to look at subsection (2) of my amendment, which looks at risk. If the amendment is not drafted absolutely perfectly, then I apologise, but we have done the best we can with the resources available to us. I am not in any way suggesting a 100% check. I am suggesting a risk-based check. If this provision is not included, we will be back in three years’ time and the Minister will be saying, “Oh my god, there’s a massive loophole, and we have to fix it.” Fix it now. That is all we are saying.

If I have the drafting wrong, I am happy to talk to the Minister and get it right. I want a risk-based check by Companies House for when red flags come out. By looking at and interrogating computer data, the registrar actually does it herself, instead of waiting for and depending on intelligence and reasonable information that is available—as the Minister said, in his words, which I assume were provided for him.

[Liam Byrne]

When my right hon. Friend has those conversations with the Minister, will she ensure she also talks to the Minister for Security? He was Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee when it took evidence from a number of witnesses who explicitly called for a duty to verify addresses. That point was underlined in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s last report on illicit finance.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am very happy to do that. I think we all want the same thing. All we are trying to do is find the best way of doing it. I will be pressing this amendment to a vote, I am afraid. My warning to the Minister is that if he does not do the work in this area, he will find that he has left a very wide loophole, which will be exploited by those who want to use us as a destination for illicit finance.

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is difficult for me to match what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has so eloquently said and what other colleagues have said. I think we need to reinforce the point that we need somewhere in the Bill a very clear indication that it is the duty of the registrar to conduct risk-based assessments. If not, the Bill will leave a loophole, and we should not allow that to happen. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 94, in clause 28, page 17, line 32, at end insert—

‘(4A) After section 87, insert—

“87A  Duty of the registrar to verify appropriateness of address of registered office

(1) This section applies where the registrar has received—

(a) a statement of the intended address of a company’s registered office (under section 9(5)(a)), or

(b) notice of change of address of a registered office of a company (under section 87(1)).

(2) The registrar must assess the risk that the company is involved in economic crime.

(3) If following the assessment required by subsection (2) the registrar considers that there is a real risk that the company is involved in economic crime, the registrar must—

(a) take steps to determine whether the address which has been supplied is an appropriate address within the meaning of section 86(2), and

(b) refer the matter to the relevant law enforcement agency.”’—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Seventh sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I do not understand that. I do not know whether the Minister can explain it in ordinary language. It sounds to me like people with other financial interests will not be subject to this measure. I am sorry if I am being clueless, but I just do not understand what is being excluded at this point, and therefore what is included in this very welcome amendment.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said in my explanation, for sanctions such as securities and money sanctions, those market instruments can affect entire populations; they do not just affect an individual. Those kinds of broad actions affect whole populations.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady can intervene again if she wants further clarification.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

If someone has some ownership in the securities market—I am not a financial expert, so I do not know whether I am understanding this right—and one took action on the assets, that would have an impact beyond the individual. Is that what we are being told?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, that is not what the right hon. Lady is being told. If someone has ownership, they have an asset, and therefore if that asset is frozen they are a designated person. It is just that the instruments themselves can affect the broad category of people who may or may not own assets. What we are trying to do is target people who actually own the assets.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am very grateful. This is really to understand it. If somebody is sanctioned, are they the sort of individual we would want to be a director of a company?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is not a person who is sanctioned. What we are trying to say is that everybody who is subject to an asset freeze is a designated person—exactly the kind of person the right hon. Lady would want to see sanctioned. Rather than getting into a to-and-fro debate, perhaps we can write to her and explain the situation in layman’s terms.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes, please.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Furthermore, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office does not currently designate people in relation to non-asset freeze financial sanctions. Although that may change in the future, a directorship ban may not necessarily be the most appropriate measure to impose on those designated for non-asset freeze financial sanctions.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am genuinely sorry to interrupt, and I am looking at the Minister for Security as well. It seems to me that if we consider the behaviour that somebody has done to be so bad that we want to sanction them in whatever way—through a travel ban, asset freeze or other mechanism—surely in those conditions we do not think they are a fit and proper person to start a business? I cannot see the logic of this; I cannot see where the pressure is coming from to have a distinction between the two, and why we should want it. Why are we putting this down? Why should somebody who has been guilty of a human rights abuse, who may not have an asset that we can sanction, still need to be defined as somebody who is not a fit and proper person to set up a company here? We do not want them to do that, do we?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think the best way forward on that is for myself and the Minister for Security to have a conversation. We can set out some of the reasons why that is the case in more detail in writing, as I promised to do earlier. We can then have a further discussion from there.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister is quite right to say that the powers are there, but I hope he agrees that a way to facilitate this would be to introduce a new criminal offence of failure to prevent economic crime. In that case, the enablers to whom my hon. Friend refers could be caught and rightly punished for their role in colluding or facilitating economic crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

rose—

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will stand up and then allow my right hon. Friend to intervene.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

As I understand it, if the owner of a company is an opaque company in the British Virgin Islands or another one of our tax havens, the ability to get behind that and see the person of significant control is pretty nigh impossible, so there is still a mechanism there. People could intentionally set up a company in the UK that is totally owned by a company established in the BVI. That information is not currently on the public register, although we are anxiously waiting for it to be so in 2023. There is no way of getting the persons of significant control verified, because it is outside our control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

The Minister probably did not intend to set hares running, but he certainly has with his suggestions this morning. I know he will be alive to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on illicit finance that was published under the chairmanship of the right hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who is now the Minister for Security, but I wish to share some of its headlines to underline a point that was wholly missing from the Minister’s presentation.

Let us start with the really bad news. First, the Select Committee concluded that

“assets laundered through the UK are financing President Putin’s war in Ukraine.”

Secondly, the report said:

“The Government’s unwillingness to bring forward legislation to stem the flow of dirty money is likely to have contributed to the belief in Russia that the UK is a safe haven for corrupt wealth.”

It is very welcome that the Government introduced sanctions and have brought forward this Bill, but I am afraid the Foreign Affairs Committee came to the conclusion that our sanctions regime was “underprepared and under-resourced.” We on the Select Committee found that there was not the capacity in the FCDO to match the speed and power of the sanctions regime brought into force by our American colleagues and, indeed, the EU. That is why the House was treated to the spectacle of a piece of enabling legislation that allowed us simply to copy and paste the sanctions regime from other countries into UK law.

There is a serious worry that the FCDO is not equipped to drive through the requisite disqualification of directors at the speed at which it should if it takes decisions on sanctions. I hear what the Minister says about creating some—I guess he would say—safeguards against the automatic suspension of directors, but in the absence of such a regime there is a real concern about an enforcement gap, because the FCDO sanctions and compliance team simply does not have the capacity to work things through with Companies House to ensure that the consequentials are followed through and that directors are disqualified when it is appropriate.

Among the measures that we in the House have previously invented are some of the provisions that I took through in the UK Borders Act 2007. We basically wrote into law the automatic consideration of sanctions such as the suspension of directorships. Many Opposition Members would be an awful lot more confident that bad people would be disqualified from directorships if they were sanctioned if we had some kind of legislative provision that created a duty, and therefore a burden, on Ministers and their officials to automatically consider people for the suspension of their directorships if a sanction of any description was imposed upon them.

This Committee is a chance for us to air different points of view about how we ensure that, as the Minister wants, London is a world capital of clean trade. I put this case before him so that he can reflect on it and perhaps come back to the Committee with further thoughts.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

I rise to speak to amendment 83. I did not quite understand the Minister’s attack on or dismissal of it on the basis that it was somehow an attempt to provide a detailed way for authorities to act. That is way beyond what we are attempting to do; all we want to do is make sure the authorities are aware. The Minister and I know, from working in this policy area for a long, long time, how poor all the enforcement agencies are at sharing information. When whistleblowers and others provide information about wrongdoing, too often that falls between the various enforcement agencies, gets lost and nothing ever gets done. We are not here to tell those agencies how to carry out their work, but to ensure that there is better communication.

The amendment addresses some of the issues my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill just raised. It tries to strengthen the sanctions regime against individuals and to stop those individuals moving their assets before they get sanctioned. Under the FCDO, the sanctions process inevitably takes a long time and people know they are about to be on the sanctions list, so they have time to rearrange their affairs so their assets cannot be frozen.

All the amendment would do—it is very simple—is put a duty on Companies House to tell the enforcement authority, whether that is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, the National Crime Agency or whoever, about any changes that may have occurred in the accounts held by Companies House of individuals who have been sanctioned and whose assets have been frozen in the three months prior to those sanctions being put in place. That is crucial, but why?

In July 2022, OFSI and other UK Government agencies, together with the Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce, issued a red alert, which I hope the Minister has had a chance to look at. His colleague, the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), will certainly have done that. It sets out the evasion tactics that individuals use and that enablers, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon mentioned, take to support that evasion. The action that designated individuals take, supported by their advisers, includes the transfer of assets, such as shareholdings, to trusted proxies, such as relatives or friends. To quote the red alert, they will

“sell or transfer assets at a loss in order to realise their value before sanctions take effect”

and they will

“divest investments to ensure ownership stakes are below the 50% threshold”

needed for sanctions.

There are numerous other examples—the red alert includes a list of about 15 such examples—of ways that people avoid sanctions and avoid their assets being taken. The individuals may seem to have got rid of their assets, but they will retain control. They will have simply hidden their control and the form that that control takes, but in reality they will still have control. In some instances, assets have been transferred or directed to jurisdictions where sanctions are not in place, such as China, Brazil, India or the United Arab Emirates, or have been converted into cryptoassets, which we will come to later in our discussions about the Bill.

I came upon such tactics in the case of Usmanov, as we have discussed before, who dodged the sanctions, particularly in relation to his Mayfair mansion—I cannot remember how many millions that is worth. The shares in his London property firm were transferred to his Russian business empire on 21 February, less than a fortnight before he was sanctioned. The transfer involved property owned by Klaret Services UK Limited being sold to Russia’s largest iron ore company, Metalloinvest, in which Usmanov has a 49% share. That is just below the 50% threshold, although it is in Russia. That transfer is legal—he was able to act legally and within our law—and he was able to do it because we were so slow to sanction.

The sanctions against Usmanov did not cover his companies, so when he transferred the Mayfair property to a company, a different mechanism would have had to be adopted to capture its owner. As he had a 49% share in that company, it would have been difficult to pursue that. Both the shareholding in the company and the transfer mattered. Under our amendment, Usmanov would not have got rid of the property. Companies House would have had to give the enforcement agencies information about the transactions that had been undertaken in the three months prior to the sanctions, and those agencies could have taken action on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I always listen to the right hon. Lady very carefully, so she can be sure that I have been listening. I am keen to tie up—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, put it—any loopholes that we identify in the legislation. That is one of the purposes of Committee stage.

Broadly, I think the Committee and the wider House would accept that our sanctions regime, and the supervision regime at Companies House, are not fit for purpose today—that is why we are legislating. Clearly, the actions taken by Russia in recent months have further highlighted the work we need to do and the reform we need to put in place. The comments are welcome, and I think we are all trying to get to the same end point; we just want to make sure people do not suffer unintended consequences in the process.

I think the right hon. Lady said that Companies House is very poor at sharing information. That is probably a little unfair. Currently, it is not there to share information, other than by putting things on a public register for people to seek out; that has been its role in the past. Today, it is a register—we might call it a dumb register—and that is what we are seeking to change. We are seeking to give the registrar responsibility for promoting the integrity of the registers so that people can rely on the information in them and, as it says in the registrar’s objectives, to minimise unlawful activities and the facilitation of unlawful activities.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Obviously, Companies House has not had to do this to date; it has just been a library of dud data, really. What I was drawing to the Minister’s attention—I am sure he agrees with this—is that all the enforcement agencies working in this territory are poor at sharing information. That is why the stuff we get from whistleblowers so often falls through the middle somewhere and does not get tackled. That is why we should put a duty on the agencies to share information; we would not tell them how to do it, but just say, “This is really important if we are to bear down on wrongdoing.”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am still not sure I agree. Of course there are elements of our enforcement agencies that we are all frustrated by at times, but to my mind nobody goes to work to do a bad job. People are doing their best, often in very difficult circumstances. We all agree that we need to hold our enforcement agencies to account and properly resource them. What we are trying to do is provide them with more powers and ability, and then hold them to account for the use of those powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not know the answer to that question. When the Bill has received Royal Assent, it will facilitate exactly that process. At the moment, Companies House does not have the powers we would like it to have to bring that about. That is exactly what we are debating.

On amendment 83, I think the right hon. Member for Barking implies that Companies House knows of the changes with a company on an ongoing, dynamic basis. That is not how things work. Companies House does not have access to information until a company files an annual return. Companies do not provide information to Companies House on a daily or even monthly basis. That is not how it works.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

But under the legislation, companies will have to provide information on changes of directorships and so on within 28 days, we hope—we had this argument yesterday—so Companies House will have that. I am not expecting it to go through 4 million companies, but there must be a way that the information can be highlighted by the IT system and, if we know a director is somebody who has been sanctioned, that information can be shared. Under the legislation, if a company has changed a directorship, as Usmanov did, it will have to provide that information within 28 days or whatever, and surely that will be there to share.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

A change of directorship, yes, but I do not think that is the situation the right hon. Lady was describing. She was talking about a movement of assets, as I understand it. I do not know the detail of the case she is talking about—[Interruption.] May I finish? If she is trying to prevent a person from moving assets around on the basis that Companies House needs to know about that as it is happening, that situation cannot be delivered. Companies can move assets around without asking the permission of Companies House or notifying it, so her amendment does not serve any purpose in that regard.

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that any information that Companies House is made aware of and deems to be pointing to some kind of risk should be shared with the relevant agencies. We all agree with that point, and the Bill allows Companies House to do that for the first time. That is what we are trying to facilitate, but directing it to act in a certain way on a certain piece of information will lead us down a million rabbit holes, and we do not have the time or the ability to implement that through the Bill. We have to give it the powers and then let it get on with it while holding it to account against those broader objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now come to amendment 83, which has just been debated. Does Dame Margaret Hodge wish to move the amendment formally?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I just wish to tell the Committee that I will write to Companies House and see what response I get from the chief executive or director. Subject to that, at this stage, I will not move the amendment.

Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Disqualification of persons designated under sanctions legislation: Northern

Ireland

Amendments made: 4, in clause 34, page 23, leave out lines 13 to 17 and insert—

‘(1) This Article applies in relation to a person who has, at any time on or after the day on which section 34(2) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2022 comes fully into force, become a person subject to relevant financial sanctions and who remains so subject.’

This amendment and Amendment 6 would mean that a person who is subject to sanctions is disqualified under the NI directors disqualification legislation only if those sanctions relate to asset-freezing.

Amendment 5, in clause 34, page 23, line 23, leave out ‘designated person’ and insert ‘person subject to relevant financial sanctions’.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 4 and 6.

Amendment 6, in clause 34, page 23, line 23, at end insert—

‘(4) In this Article —

“designated person” has the meaning given by section 9 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018;

“person subject to relevant financial sanctions” means a person who is a designated person for the purposes of any provision of regulations under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 that imposes a prohibition or requirement for a purpose mentioned in section 3(1)(a) of that Act (asset-freezing).’—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for Amendment 4.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Disqualified directors

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 37 to 43 stand part.

New clause 35—Person convicted under National Minimum Wage Act not to be appointed as director—

‘(1) The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) After Clause 5A (Disqualification for certain convictions abroad) insert—

“5B Person convicted under National Minimum Wage Act not to be appointed as director

(1) A person may not be appointed a director of a company if the person is convicted of a criminal offence under section 31 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 on or after the day on which section 32(2) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2022 comes fully into force.

(2) It is an offence for such a person to act as director of a company or directly or indirectly to take part in or be concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the leave of the High Court.

(3) An appointment made in contravention of this section is void.”’

This new clause would disqualify any individual convicted of an offence for a serious breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, such as a deliberate refusal to pay National Minimum Wage, from serving as a company director.

--- Later in debate ---

I will take the provisions in the order in which they are written. Clause 36 terminates the director appointment of individuals who are subject to a disqualification order, are an undischarged bankrupt or subject to personal insolvency measures or asset freezing under UK or UN sanctions. The clause labels such individuals as disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation, and sets out that individuals who have become disqualified under the directors disqualification legislation cease to hold the office of a director.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This is a question of clarification: if a director is disqualified, can he or she still act as a shadow director?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It depends on how the right hon. Lady defines a shadow director. If she is implying that they are a person of significant control influencing others, which I guess is what she means, I will point her to the definitions of a person of significant control. They are those who hold

“more than 25% of shares in the company…more than 25% of voting rights in the company…the right to appoint or remove the majority of the board of directors”

that might influence or control a company through other means. That means that the person is still covered under the legislation; if a person is exerting that control, they should be designated as a person of significant control and ID verified, as discussed previously. Any person who became disqualified before the clause comes into force and is disqualified at that time will also cease holding the office of director.

Clause 37 amends some yet to be commenced provisions of the Companies Act 2006 on when a corporate director can act and minimum age requirements for directors. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 amended the 2006 Act to establish—as the hon. Member for Aberavon said—that company directors should, in future, be natural persons except where they have met specific requirements determined by regulations. We will bring forward those regulations following the enactment of the Bill to establish the exemptions to the general natural person director rule. After a transition period, companies must ensure that any corporate directors on their boards are compliant with the regulated exemption criteria. Where they fail to do so, those director appointments will be void once the transition period ends.

The clause makes it clear that should any non-compliant corporate director continue to act in the capacity of either a de facto or shadow director after the end of the transition period, they will be held liable for the consequences of their actions as they would be if they were a validly appointed director. The clause makes a similar clarification in respect of the principles that will apply in respect of an individual who does not meet minimum age requirements for a company director. In such instances, the appointment would also be void, but those who continue to purport to act as a director or operate in a shadow capacity will continue to be exposed to personal liability none the less.

Clause 38 repeals the power for the Secretary of State to require that companies with disqualified directors who have been given permission by the court to act as a director make a statement to the registrar confirming that permission. The power is no longer required, because the Bill introduces new requirements to provide statements about disqualification and permissions to act in sections 12, 12A, 167G and 790LA.

Clause 39 introduces a prohibition on an individual acting as a director unless their ID is verified or exempted from that requirement under the regulations. It establishes a duty on a company to ensure that unverified individuals do not act as directors unless they are exempted from the ID verification requirement. Failure to comply with the duty constitutes an offence committed by the company and every officer of the company who is in default.

Clause 40 will make it a criminal offence for a person to act as a director unless their appointment has been notified to the registrar. It will be a defence for a person to prove that they reasonably believed that the notice of their appointment had been given to the registrar. The actions taken by an unverified director, or a director whose appointment has not been reported to the registrar, will remain valid to ensure that third parties who have relied on the actions of an unverified director are not unfairly disadvantaged.

We want there to be consequences for not complying with ID verification obligations, and clauses 41 and 42 help us to achieve that. The clauses allow for the disqualification of individuals where they are persistently in default of the ID verification requirements for directors and people with significant control, or where they have been convicted by consequence of such contravention. Clause 41 legislates in respect of Great Britain, with clause 42 legislating to create equivalent powers for Northern Ireland.

Finally, clause 43 makes amendments to section 246 of the Companies Act 2006 regarding addresses on public record. It is consequential to other amendments to no longer require companies to hold their own local registers of directors.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eighth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

What happens if it is a false statement? Who will uncover that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Who will uncover—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

If a false statement is put in. I mean, I was just—

[The Chair]

Order. Is this an intervention?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I ask the question for a reason. I did not intervene during the previous debate, but the Minister might know—I certainly do—that thousands and thousands of microbusinesses are supposed to put their annual accounts in to HMRC, but do not do so, and nobody ever goes after them. There therefore may be thousands and thousands of businesses that put in false statements. Given the anti-regulatory stance that the Minister has displayed today, I am just interested in knowing who will actually check the statements and what will happen then.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very disappointed that the right hon. Lady regards me as anti-regulatory. I want a system that allows good, bona fide businesses to go about their daily business without unnecessary checks and balances. We cannot control everything that goes on in our society but, in the main, businesses are lawful, and undertake lawful and legitimate commercial activity.

If the right hon. Lady expects a world in which we check every single filing, nobody will be doing any commercial work in our society. The only people we will have will then be box-checkers, and where would the tax revenue come from to pay for all the things that both she and I want in our society?

We must have a proportionate balance between regulation, the cost of resourcing regulators and the needs of law enforcement agencies. That is why our belief, which I know is not entirely hers, is that we need to take an intelligence-based approach to regulation. That is the most effective way to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I wholeheartedly support Labour’s new clause. There is an awful lot more that needs to be done to tighten up the measure on verification. Nick Van Benschoten, in his evidence, said:

“On the verification measures, one of the key points is that they fall short of minimum industry standards. Verification of identity is necessary but not sufficient. A key thing we have noted is that the Bill does not provide for order-making powers to allow Companies House to verify the status of directors or beneficial owners, and for that sort of requirement on company information agents and so on. That seems an odd gap.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 7, Q3.]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. It is the key part of the Bill. If we are not going to verify people on the register, there is almost no point in having the legislation. It is the verification that is crucial.

Hand in hand with that are the fines for not complying with the verification. I draw the Minister’s attention, again, to the people with significant control over Scottish limited partnerships. There has been one fine of £210 since the rules came into place. That is no kind of deterrent whatsoever. The rules need to be here, the verification needs to be right, and the sanctions for not complying must be enforced. I would say that even the sanctions are far too low.

Leaving trust and company service providers to verify identity leaves the door wide open to abuse. There is already abuse, and the Government’s position in the Bill is to continue to allow that to happen. As the hon. Member for Aberavon said, trust and company service providers have been identified in numerous Government documents as being the gap that allows money laundering and international crime. That cannot be allowed to continue in the Bill. If the Government leave the door open for the trust and company service providers, they will continue to abuse the system and the register will continue to be full of absolute guff.

I raised the issue of verification in the House, albeit, I appreciate, with a different Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). He suggested that a decision had not yet been made on how the verification system would work. My suggestion was that it go through the UK Government’s existing verification scheme, which is used for passports, driving licences and tax returns, because that system is already up and running. The response suggested that that had not yet been decided.

However, it was drawn to my attention today that Companies House has already put out a tender for a verification system. A tender went out on 10 October and closed on 24 October for an “authentication digital delivery partner”, looking for people to come and work on this system. I am curious to know why, when we have not yet got this legislation in place, the Government have tendered the contract and closed the application process for the company to build the system.

I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister on exactly what the status is of that £3.7 million contract, which Companies House has already put out to tender. Why has it gone out before the Bill has concluded if Companies House does not know what it is building yet, and when amendments are still being tabled? I appreciate that the Government want to move at speed, but putting the cart before the horse in this way seems quite wrong.

We would like the verification to be strengthened, but if the Government have already instructed a contractor on what it will build, why are we even here this afternoon?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I seek your guidance, Mr Robertson: we are talking about clause 60, are we not?

[The Chair]

We are talking about clause 61, but we can also discuss new clause 27.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes; the others come later.

After the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, I will speak briefly. I have two things to say. We will come back to the issue of shareholders, data and the threshold, which is really important, and I will certainly come back to the issue of trust or company service providers, because Labour Members all think that it is key to get that right if we are to have any credibility about the integrity of the list.

I want to talk about new clause 27. The Minister has said a number of times that he does not want to impede business. I do not think any Opposition Member wants to impede business either. We want to have smart regulation, not too much regulation. The purpose of this debate is to ensure that the regulation is indeed smart. At the moment, there are too many flaws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As an overriding point, we all know how important the integrity of the ID verification system is. I completely agree with that and we need there to be confidence in it.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, it is not right that a tender has gone out already. A request for information has been put out to determine some of the characteristics of the suppliers to learn what services they provide, but a tender has not gone out. Once determined, the ID verification system will be brought to the House to be approved by affirmative resolution. There will be opportunities for debate at that time to make sure it is fit for purpose, both in the framework and how it will be operated.

On the comments the hon. Member for Aberavon made about persons of significant control, first, I think he makes the exact case that we would make. A 25% threshold is pretty much the global standard, but even if it were lowered, people could find ways around it—even if there were a 0% threshold, as was suggested by Professor Elspeth Berry. That is why the definition of a person of significant control is not solely about the percentage of the shareholding of a company. There are five definitions, including one I that believe will interest the hon. Gentleman, which is somebody who, other than by shareholding,

“has the right to exercise or actually exercises significant influence or control”

over a company. Therefore, there could be zero shareholding and they would still be a person of significant control. How is that enforced? If directors allow that to happen and do not declare that they have a person of significant control, they are liable for a fine and a custodial sentence of up to two years. We do deal with that in a reasonable way.

Some valid concerns have been expressed about company formation agents. I am happy to write to the National Crime Agency to ask what it has done about them. However, not all company service providers are company formation agents; there is a distinction. A company service provider may well be a large accountancy practice, such as Deloitte, PwC or KPMG. The hon. Member for Aberavon stated that such organisations know very little about their clients and offer a blanket service, but I do not think that is fair. My accountants can verify my ID and they know a great deal about me, I can promise the hon. Gentleman.

Of course we must make sure that the system is robust, and I acknowledge that there are some concerns about the supervision of those registered as supervised for money-laundering purposes. Of course we must be sure that the system is right. As hon. Members are aware, I think, the Treasury is looking at means of improving the regime to ensure that the supervision is much better, and it needs to be. The difficulty is—we will have more debate about the issue in forthcoming sittings—whether we want to get everything perfect in the system before we start ID verification, or whether we start ID verification. In my view, it is essential that we get that ID verification done as quickly as possible. Waiting until the AML supervision regime is absolutely perfect would be a mistake, in my view. The two things should happen concurrently.

I understand the reasoning behind new clause 27. I completely agree with the idea of giving confidence to Parliament that the matters are being taken forward. I am happy to commit to return to Parliament to communicate by whatever means is preferable—written ministerial statement or oral statement—what progress has been made to ensure that Parliament has the information that it needs to hold Companies House and other agencies to account.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

rose—

[The Chair]

The Minister is finished. If someone else wishes to speak, they can stand in the normal way and indicate.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will return to Parliament, but new clause 27 is designed to ensure that there is an annual report to Parliament. That means that our successors—certainly mine—will be able to hold Companies House to account over time. He knows that accountability is absolutely vital to ensuring the integrity of the system.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Procedure etc for verifying identity

[Stephen Kinnock]

I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 62, page 47, leave out lines 14 and 15.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have spoken at some length about the Opposition’s concerns about the provisions in clauses 62 and 63 to authorise third-party trust or corporate service providers—or authorised corporate service providers, as they are described in the Bill—to carry out ID checks on the Government’s behalf. Amendments 108, 109 and 110 to 112 would simply remove those provisions from the Bill in the hope of prompting a rethink by the Government.

I should like to explain the thinking behind the amendments tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. The purpose of amendment 107 goes back to what I have said about the surprising lack of specific details on the proposed verification process. As I have said, it is not as though the Government have not had enough time to think through what procedures might be necessary; four consultations have already taken place on the topic. Amendment 107 would incorporate into the Bill requirements for some form of official identification, including photo ID, to be submitted to the registrar. That should not be controversial. In fact, the amendment would merely reflect international best practice guidelines, including those published by the Financial Action Task Force, the IMF and the World Bank, among others, and the commitments made in the Government’s own White Paper.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I do so to speak to amendment 78. The amendment is part of a batch of amendments that we will get to later. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I speak longer on amendment 78, so that amendments 79, 82 and 83 will not require a long explanation.

This is one of the most important series of amendments that we have placed before the Committee. The purpose is to ensure that we close any loopholes, so that we do not find ourselves back in debate in a couple of years’ time, bemoaning the fact that we failed to create watertight legislation and that we do not have the information and data that we need to hold businesses to account.

I stress that our aim is not to be bureaucratic. The last thing anybody wants is bureaucratic regulation. However, if we do not have effective, smart regulation, we will not achieve the objective, which is shared across the House, of bearing down on illicit finance and on the abuse of our corporate structure system by ne’er-do-wells. Today, we are paying the price of those who came before us, from both political parties, who thought that by simply deregulating the whole of the financial services sector, they would encourage growth in the economy. They did encourage growth, but they also made us a destination of choice for too much illicit finance. That has come into focus with the war in Ukraine and the role of Russians in bringing their financing here. That money is used to fund Putin and his allies in the attack on Ukraine.

The Government have decided to outsource responsibility for checking the unique identification of beneficial owners. I can see why they have done so. It is quicker to do it that way than to build up the necessary resources in Companies House. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, I would have had more confidence if we had done it in house, but that was the Government’s decision. The purpose of my amendment is not to challenge that decision. However, we need to trust the corporate service providers. We need to trust both the professionals and the others involved, whether they are lawyers or accountants, to do the job properly and honestly. At present, confidence and trust are not there.

I thought that the Government were on the same page on this issue. From all the leaks, and from all the information and intelligence about how illicit wealth from all the kleptocracies has reached our shores, I thought that they understood the role played by the TCSPs. I thought they understood the role that the TCSPs play, and therefore shared our concern that we need to get that regulatory framework right before we unleash a new system that, if it is not right, could lead to us peopling the new Companies House register with dud information that we do not want.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising solicitor and a partner in a firm of solicitors. The right hon. Lady has essentially said that everybody involved in the legal sector and financial advisers are potentially dishonest. They absolutely are not. The vast amount of people involved in the sector are honest, decent people who have a lot of regulation and try their damnedest to abide by all of it. The picture that the right hon. Lady paints is not correct.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That is not what I said. The hon. Gentleman may have chosen to interpret it that way—

[James Daly]

You said we cannot trust people in the sector.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

No, I did not. I said that none of the professions has sufficient supervisory or regulatory capabilities, policies or practices in place to pull out the bad apples. I have nowhere ever stated that that applies to everyone, but I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that the extent of people setting up shell companies —we are talking largely about shell companies—as vehicles to move illicit finance, whether through drugs, kleptocrats or people trafficking, is shocking.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman my most egregious story, which has been mentioned—the Savaro story. We had this terrible explosion in Lebanon, with hundreds of people killed and lots of property destroyed. We were told that it was fertiliser held in the warehouse that was going to Mozambique. A couple of months after the explosion, I was rung up by a Reuters journalist with whom I have worked down the years, who said, “Did you know it was a UK limited company—Savaro Ltd?” He went on to say that not only was it a UK limited company, but, interestingly enough, it had told HMRC it was dormant, so it had not filled in its tax returns. It was registered in the name of a company service provider, a woman who lived in Cyprus. There were two lies in the system: a lie about the company service provider, and lying to HMRC.

I gave the usual quote and was then overwhelmed by people from Lebanon contacting me, including the Bar Association, all of whom were trying to find out the origins of what had happened. It then emerged that three Ukrainian Syrians—this was before the Ukrainian war—were the real owners. There was no way the fertiliser was going to be used in Mozambique; it was going to Assad to drop as barrel bombs on the civilian population of Syria. That is the sort of shocking outcome that comes from lack of proper regulatory control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

No. I have made clear to the Minister that we are deeply unhappy, particularly with the failure to take on board the recommendations under amendment 107 and the very important points my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking made.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Similarly, I will take the matter up elsewhere during the course of the Bill.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Authorisation of corporate service providers

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 63, page 49, line 38, at end insert—

“(3A) When an application is made under this section, the registrar may request evidence from HMRC that a fit and proper person test has been carried out on the applicant.”

This amendment allows the registrar to request evidence from HMRC that a fit and proper person test has been carried out on a person applying to be an authorised corporate service provider.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 82, in clause 63, page 49, line 45, at end insert—

“(ba) the registrar is satisfied—

(i) that HMRC has carried out a fit and proper person test on the applicant, and

(ii) that the applicant has met the requirement of the fit and proper person test, and”.

This amendment would mean that the registrar could only grant an application to become an authorised corporate service provider if satisfied that an applicant had passed HMRC’s fit and proper person test.

Government amendment 8.

Amendment 79, in clause 63, page 52, leave out from line 42 to line 28 on page 53, and insert—

“1098G Duty to provide information

(1) The registrar must carry out a risk assessment in relation to any authorised corporate service provider to establish whether the verification of identity by the authorised corporate service provider is likely to give rise to a risk of economic crime.

(2) If the risk assessment identifies a real risk of economic crime, the registrar may—

(a) require an authorised corporate service provider to provide information to the registrar; or

(b) require a person who ceases to be an authorised corporate service provider by virtue of section 1098F—

(i) to notify the registrar;

(ii) to provide the registrar with such information relating to the circumstances by virtue of which the person so ceased as may be requested by the registrar.

(3) The registrar may require information to be provided on request, on the occurrence of an event or at regular intervals.

(4) The circumstances that may be specified under section 1098F(2) or 1098G(1) (ceasing to be an authorised corporate service provider and suspension) include failure to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(a).

(5) A person who fails to comply with a requirement to provide information under this section commits an offence.

(6) An offence under this section is punishable on summary conviction by—

(a) in England and Wales a fine;

(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 5 on the standard scale.”

This amendment would give the registrar the power to require information from an authorised corporate service provider. This would replace the current provision in the Bill giving the Secretary of State a power to make regulations requiring the provision of such information.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will speak very briefly. It would be nice if the Minister could agree to the amendments, which are simply there to tighten up the oversight of the bodies. Amendments 81 and 82 are connected, and would force HMRC to do what it is not currently doing and carry out proper checks on the TCSPs and monitor them properly. Amendment 79 gives the registrar the power to require information. At the moment, as I read the Bill, there is no power for the registrar to challenge any of the information provided to her by any corporate service provider.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her contribution. Clause 63 introduces a requirement for third party agents who wish to provide corporate services to clients, such as incorporating companies and filing documents on their behalf, to be registered with Companies House as authorised corporate service providers. ACSPs will be required to be supervised for the purposes of the money laundering requirements at all times and to notify the registrar of any changes to supervision.

I understand and am sympathetic to the intention behind amendments 81 and 82. They are driven by concern that the UK’s AML supervisory regime is not as robust as it could be. The Government recognise that, as do I. It is being addressed by my colleagues at the Treasury, who are responsible for the supervisory regime. I am afraid, however, that the amendments would duplicate some of the regulatory obligations of HMRC, the default supervisor for corporate service providers, by adding to the role of the registrar of companies. Their effect would be to make an agency of my Department responsible for overseeing activities of another Department. Not only is that duplicative, but it is wrong for one branch of Government to mark the homework of another branch. The most efficient means to address any issues with the quality of supervision is to tackle them at source, which is work that HM Treasury is undertaking on supervisory reform. I hope I have provided clarity on why the amendments are not needed.

On amendment 79, I understand the right hon. Lady’s concerns, but I consider the amendment to be unnecessary. As I have set out, under the measures in the Bill corporate service providers will need to confirm they are supervised for the purposes of the money laundering regulations, register with the registrar and, in the case of an individual, have their identity verified before they are allowed to form companies or registerable partnerships or to file on their behalf. The ID verification checks undertaken by those providers will achieve the same level of assurance of the claimed identity as those undertaken through the direct verification route.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Yes or no: will Companies House be able to challenge at any point information given to it by a TCSP—an authorised provider?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I understand it, yes, Companies House will have the rights and powers to do that, though we do not at this point know to what extent it will do so. The right hon. Lady spoke in a previous debate about spot checks. It would seem sensible to take that kind of risk-based approach. Certainly, an AML supervisor would have that ability as well.

Providers will be required to declare that they have completed all the necessary identification checks when they interact with the registrar. Under money laundering regulations, all agents are required to retain records, and the registrar can request further information and ID verification checks if necessary, which I think answers the question that the right hon. Lady just asked. The agent will be committing an offence if they fail to carry out the ID checks to the required standards, or at all.

Under the Bill, proposed new sections 1098F and 1098G of the Companies Act 2006, as introduced by clause 63, will enable the registrar to suspended and deauthorise an authorised corporate service provider. The Bill will allow the registrar to maintain an audit trail of agent activity and to share it with supervisors. That will serve as a prompt to supervisors to up their game. I hope that that explanation has further clarified why the amendments are not needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will look in detail later to ensure that what I asked for is there, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 8, in clause 63, page 50, line 23, leave out “registered or”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment would mean that a firm applying to become an authorised corporate service provider would always have to state its principal office, rather than having the option of stating its registered office.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 63, page 53, leave out from line 29 to line 5 on page 54.

This amendment removes the provision enabling the authorisation of foreign corporate service providers.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Ninth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his intervention. The issue is not what we assume and hope might happen, but having some checks and balances on the use of powers. It is part of our responsibility on the Committee to think that through.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

That is always the case. Perhaps the Minister will reflect that Usmanov was a case in point. He exploited an exemption to hide some of the information around his ownership. It is worth all of us reflecting on that. Obviously the provision has to be there for good people, but it may become yet another opportunity for bad people. The Usmanov case was a classic one. I think Fedotov was another, if my memory serves me right. Apologies if I have this wrong, but Fedotov was another one who managed to get an exemption in some way. If these things are not done properly, and are not then properly monitored, they can go wrong.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting an important case in point.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his intervention.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I think the Minister is right about Usmanov, but on Fedotov I think it was something different. I cannot quite remember the details, but he managed to use an exemption to hide his identity. We raised it last week, and I think that officials were going to come back with a response. They may not have had time to read the letter yet, but that is more the case that one would think of.

[The Chair]

Order. For the benefit of those following our proceedings, I remind Members of the flow of debate: the Minister will respond to the shadow spokesperson, and the right hon. Member for Barking will have an opportunity to intervene on him then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think that we are trying to achieve the same thing, just in different ways. We discussed this issue at length in previous sittings. Companies House is already actively working on unique identifiers. It is not credible to think that, having legislated for them, we will not implement them. A basic principle of the Bill is to be able properly to link individuals on the Companies House register, so that company directors have a better experience and so that it is easier for the public to identify the connection between directors, including persons of significant control, and companies.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I accept that great progress has been made in the Bill, but addresses and personal details are also important. We know the way in which addresses are exploited: people put 3,000 companies into one address. That is relevant information that Companies House needs to have.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Addresses are not covered by the amendment, although we discussed the verification of addresses at length the other day. We think we have struck a fair balance in terms of a company address. The shadow Minister seems to be saying that she wants the unique identifier to be searchable; we think that the person’s name should be public and searchable. I did not quite understand her point about people hiding their email addresses or names, and searching by unique identifier, rather than the other way around. We think that the searchable entity should be the person’s name, and the Bill would then make it easier to see the connections between a director’s name and the different companies with which that person is connected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think I have understood the hon. Lady’s question. Clearly, all directors and company service providers need to have their identity verified too. If that is what the hon. Lady is referring to, that is absolutely contained in the provisions of the Bill.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I was very interested in what the Minister said about ensuring that the authorised company service providers should be checked and supervised properly. It is really important to ensure that all the details of the individuals on the register can be found with certainty. However, we are all struggling with how to do that in quickest, most cost-efficient and effective way. Does the Minister agree that a suitable mechanism should be presented on Report—unless he would like to suggest one now—that does not waste time, keeps within the timeframe, does not require massive additional resources and enables swift action to be taken? I love the Treasury, but we should do this without having to wait for a Treasury review or reorganisation. Does he accept that that might be a way forward? We all want the same thing, and if we do not get this right there could be a huge flaw in the system we are establishing.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are on the same page about ensuring that the system is fit for purpose. It is difficult for me to do a review when the Treasury itself is doing one and is probably better placed than I am to do it, given its wider understanding of the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clauses 76 to 79 support the Bill’s overarching ambition to broaden the powers of the registrar to maintain the integrity of the register. Clause 76 provides a new power to reject documents for discrepancies. Currently, the registrar must accept documents if they have been properly delivered—that is, they meet the requirements as to their contents, form, authentication and manner of delivery, and the other requirements listed in section 1072 of the Companies Act 2006.

Documents containing information that is at odds with information that the registrar holds may none the less meet “proper delivery” requirements in their own right. If so, they must be placed on the register despite the apparent inconsistency. This clause cures that problem by enabling the registrar to reject a document if it appears to be inconsistent with other information that is held by or available to the registrar. The power is available if, due to the inconsistency, the registrar has reasonable grounds to doubt whether the document complies with the requirements as to its contents.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This is a question to aid understanding. This provision sets out the duties of the registrar in relation to documents, but the documents will actually be checked by the company service providers, will they not? That will be outsourced to those providers. I might be wrong—the Minister is looking puzzled—but that is the case if I read the situation correctly. Therefore, is this provision suggesting that there will be a check at Companies House on the work that the company service providers do? Perhaps the Minister can say a little about how that will be implemented. I thought that all that was to be pushed out to the company service providers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Not at all—quite the opposite. Companies House has a requirement to oversee the integrity of the register, and the clause states exactly that. If the registrar feels there is an error that she is not happy with in the document, or it is inconsistent, she can reject the document whether it is filed by a company service provider or by a director of the company.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

For complete clarity, there will be a risk-based system of checks on documents provided as a mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of the documents that are submitted.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Absolutely. That is exactly how we expect it to operate.

Once the registrar refuses the document, it will be treated as not having been delivered. Under clause 77, the Companies Act 2006 allows the registrar, upon receipt of an instruction from someone else and only with the relevant company’s or other body’s consent, to correct a document at the pre-registration stage if it appears to be incomplete or internally inconsistent. That power was useful when more companies filed on paper, as informally correcting material was easier than rejecting a document and waiting for it to be refiled. However, in the digital world, filings can now be rejected, returned to the filer and then refiled within minutes. There is no longer a need to informally correct a document pre-registration. Clause 77 therefore removes that power, which also encourages accuracy in filing by removing the expectation that a document can be informally corrected.

Clause 78 reduces the period of time for which the registrar must keep originals of documents that have been delivered in hard copy from three years to two years. Once that period has passed, the original documents can be destroyed as long as the information they contain has been recorded. The retention period that was previously reviewed was reduced from 10 years to three years when the Companies Act 2006 replaced the 1989 Act. The number of requests for the retrieval of filings has decreased further and steadily since then due to declining paper filings, improved image capture processes and increased confidence in digital records. It is therefore right to reduce the retention period again. The information in the documents will still of course be available electronically to users as appropriate.

Clause 79 amends the period for which the registrars in each UK jurisdiction must maintain certain records available for public inspection. The records in view are those concerning dissolved companies, including certain information regarding PSCs of dissolved companies, overseas companies that have ceased to have any UK connection, and overseas credit and financial institutions that have ceased to be required to file accounts with the registrar. The clause provides that those records can be moved to the Public Record Office two years after the relevant date of dissolution or cessation.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

May I ask a question on that? It is relevant to later amendments. I do not know whether the Minister or his officials can help, but can Companies House stop a request for dissolution?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In what circumstances?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I think it can. I have tried to find its powers and cannot find them. The great example is the Savaro one. It was the UK-based company that owned the warehouse where the fire took place in Lebanon. It tried to dissolve the company, but I think the Minister intervened. I have looked up Savaro and it does still exist. It is quite important if we have a dirty company that wants to rush away. Do we have powers to dissolve it?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to raise that with officials and come back to the right hon. Lady. [Interruption.] There is some flapping about right there, as I speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Very kind.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The answer is yes, is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

These amendments relate to the register of overseas entities introduced by virtue of part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The new clauses mirror equivalent sections in the Companies Act 2006 as amended by part 1 of the Bill, which we have already debated. They will ensure consistency between the two Acts.

The amendments will ensure that the public register contains only information that it is necessary to display, and that certain information including email addresses is not made publicly available, because of the risk that that could facilitate identity theft or other fraud. New clause 16 will ensure that personal information supplied in connection with the verification process for the register of overseas entities can be appropriately protected from public inspection. It is right to ensure that certain personal information, including email addresses, is not made publicly available because of the risk that that could facilitate identity theft or other fraud.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Again, I am really asking for information. It would be interesting to learn whether the Minister knows how many overseas entities have been registered since the enactment of the 2022 Act. It could still end up being unclear who the real beneficial owner was of an overseas entity. If someone went to an overseas entity to find out who owns One Hyde Park, and it said that the owner was a British Virgin Islands company, would the owner of that company be shown?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That does not directly relate to this amendment, but I will get back to the right hon. Lady on that point in a separate conversation. Details such as the name and company of the person verifying the information submitted by an overseas entity to the register will continue to be publicly visible; it is not our intention to change that.

New clause 17 replaces sections 22 to 24 of the ECTE Act with proposed new sections 22 and 23. As with new clause 16, new clause 17 adds to the list of information that the registrar must not make available for public inspection, to help prevent the abuse of such information. That includes categories of information that were never intended to be made available for public inspection, but were missed during the expedited passage of the ECTE Act through Parliament, such as the email address of an overseas entity. New clause 17 also includes new categories of information that an overseas entity will be required to provide as a result of other amendments that are being introduced by the Bill, including the title number of land that an overseas entity owns, and documents provided to the registrar under her new power to require further information. New clause 17’s insertion of new section 23 also means that the registrar can disclose protected information about trusts, date of birth and residential address only in two scenarios.

Amendments 12, 39, 40 and 49 are consequential on new clause 17. Under the amendments, the registrar need not retain material that must not be made available for public inspection longer than appears reasonably necessary to her for the purposes for which the material was delivered to her.

I will say to the right hon. Member for Barking that there have been over 3,000 registrations on the register of overseas entities since it was established on 1 August 2022. It is right to ensure that the public register of material concerning overseas entities contains only information that is necessary to display, and that certain information, including email addresses, is not made publicly available for the reasons that I have stated. It is also right to amend the Companies Act 2006 in a way that mirrors amendments made in the Bill, so that there is consistency between the two Acts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

That would be welcome. New clause 18 grants the Secretary of State the power to make regulations as they see fit, in order to protect material on the register. Further scrutiny will be required on what could happen in future, and the circumstances in which that power might be needed.

The perception may have been that we had opposing positions on some aspects of the Secretary of State’s powers, but we now find ourselves coming a little closer together. We are debating the Bill, which largely has cross-party support, in good faith, but there are many little ways in which things could get changed, without those changes being subject to full debate in the House. It is important that we debate that further during proceedings on the Bill. I repeat that I want to ensure that there is no devil in the detail. I appreciate the Minister committing to return to the issue in part 3, when we will have a chance to look at the matter in slightly more detail.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

There was a report in The Guardian yesterday on an organisation called Wealth Chain Project. Its analysis showed that 138,000 residential and commercial properties in England and Wales are owned by offshore companies. We have managed to get 3,000 so far, so there is a heck of a lot—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is not a direct correlation between the two, because one overseas entity might own many UK properties.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Ah, that is a valid point, and I think the article deals with it. Some entities will own more than a few properties, but—sorry, I am just looking to see whether the article does make that point. The article demonstrates the enormous importance of Executive action. That is why the Opposition feel strongly that action should take place; there is no point in just putting legislation in place. There is a desire to monitor that action, and toughen up the provision to ensure that the action happens. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind. No matter how many entities own more than one property, 3,000 is still a long way from the 138,000, assuming that figure is accurate.

I am getting muddled by all these amendments. Will the Minister or his officials provide us with a list of what information will be on the register? What will we see? If we had that, we could take a view on whether that information is sufficient for all our purposes.

[Liam Byrne]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Bardell. I fully appreciate the Government’s need to table amendments—the grind of Committee exposes all kinds of opportunities to improve and strengthen legislation—but this is a good example of the kind of measure that it would have been helpful to see at the beginning of the process, not halfway through, not least because we are all worried about Companies House and its capacity to hunt and root out badness. All of us have in our time, and in our own way, relied on journalists’ investigative capacity to flag bad activity. It is important to the Opposition and, I am sure, the Government, to hear from journalists and investigators on whether the measures that the Minister is introducing jeopardise or constrain their ability to conduct the investigations that they have carried out so admirably over the last few years.

I hope that the Minister will take up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking and set out very clearly for us what information will be available. The whole Committee would be interested to hear, perhaps informally, from journalists on whether that information will constrain their ability to investigate; we can then decide whether to come back to this issue on Report.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Tenth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his remarks, and wish to speak to this group on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon as well. I must say that these provisions are not easy to follow, so forgive me for feeling like I will need to reread Hansard in a darkened room in order to completely follow what the Minister has said.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I do not think any of us understood a word of that. It would be really nice if the Minister could explain it in black and white, because I just could not get what that was getting at at all.

[Seema Malhotra]

I give way to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Perhaps the Minister could also explain how that is different from what we agreed last week.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question, which the Minister may wish to answer before I continue my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We are debating Government amendment 106 to clause 84, with which it is convenient to consider Government new clause 34. It is this light; I am afraid I am reading eights for threes. I am terribly sorry.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The light is terrible.

[The Chair]

It is. I do apologise. So are we clear?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not sure that what we are trying to do here is relevant to the matter that the hon. Lady raised. Amendment 114 would prevent regulations being made to allow the registrar to make information unavailable for public inspection under new section 1088 unless there are compelling reasons for the information to be withheld, which this amendment outlines.

Of course, there are instances where disclosure of information on the public register is inappropriate—I think we have all agreed that through the course of this debate—for instance, where it could lead to an increased risk of fraud and identity theft, or put individuals at risk for some reason, such as in cases of domestic abuse. There are limitations in the extent to which existing provisions in the Companies Act 2006 allow personal information to be withheld from the public register. We want to expand that to ensure that personal information is properly protected.

Clause 87 amends the Companies Act to allow individuals to apply to the registrar to suppress information relating to an individual or address and prevent it from being disclosed or made available for public inspection. That will include their residential address, signature, business occupation, and date of birth in old documents.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This is another opportunity to raise the issue, to which I have not had an answer, of Fedotov. That is how he kept his name off the—[Interruption.] It is. We just need an answer.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The answer is that any person applying under the exemption will have to prove to the registrar that there is sufficient evidence of a serious risk of violence or intimidation to protect their names or information. If necessary, the registrar will refer cases to an appropriate law enforcement agency and will have the power to revoke protection if information comes to light to suggest that false evidence has been provided.

Does the right hon. Lady honestly think that a registrar, who has a duty and responsibility to protect the integrity of the register, would assist an oligarch, for example, in trying to hide information? I think we are into conspiracy theory territory here, which I do not think will get us very far.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

In general, I would agree with the Minister. However, the truth is that Fedotov did manage that. If the Minister could provide an explanation of why and how that happened, then we might get greater comfort in this Committee that those circumstances will not arise again.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I committed earlier to look into that case, and I will, but the Usmanov case, as I said, was a completely different case. The whole reason why we are bringing forward this legislation is to improve transparency and fight economic crime. The right hon. Lady’s indication that perhaps the registrar might be complicit with Russian oligarchs, who may be guilty of economic crime, is not really plausible.

These are reasonable provisions for people whom we suggest might be at risk of harm if we publish that information, and they have to demonstrate that that harm is a salient risk. They are reasonable provisions that would be used fairly sparingly in the main, but nevertheless there have to be those kinds of provisions where somebody is at risk of harm. That does not exempt the applicant from providing the information to the registrar, where it is still required by legislation, but it will no longer be displayed publicly. Critically—and this should answer the right hon. Lady’s point—information would still be available to law enforcement agencies and other public bodies. It would not be appropriate to limit the registrar’s ability to protect personal information in the way proposed by the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I just want to reiterate that all protected information, whether suppressed or not, is available to law enforcement agencies. That is the critical point. Individuals who seek to use these exemptions have to provide sufficient evidence of a serious risk of violence or intimidation, and that protection can be revoked if new information comes to the registrar’s attention that she feels casts doubt on the original assertions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Analysis of information for the purposes of crime prevention or detection

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I beg to move amendment 119, in clause 88, page 68, line 15, leave out from “must” to the end of line 17 and insert

“analyse information within its possession with a view to preventing or detecting crime.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 120, in clause 88, page 68, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) In carrying out the analysis the registrar must make use of its power to require additional information under section 1092A where the registrar considers that such additional information may contribute to the prevention or detection of crime.”

Amendment 116, in clause 88, page 68, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) As part of the analysis under subsection (1), the registrar must carry out a risk assessment to identify where the information it holds might give rise to a matter of concern.

(1B) Where the assessment identifies a matter of concern, the registrar must—

(a) carry out whatever further analysis it considers necessary; and

(b) share any evidence of unlawful activity it identifies with the relevant law enforcement agency.

(1C) For the purposes of this section, a “matter of concern” includes—

(a) inaccurate information;

(b) information that might create a false or misleading impression; or

(c) evidence of economic crime.”

New clause 37—Duty to check person of significant control status—

“(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 790LP (Offence of failing to comply with sections 790LI to 790LN) insert—

“790LQ Duty to check person of significant control status

(1) This section applies when a registrable person’s identity is verified under section 1110A(1) and a risk assessment carried out under section 1062A(1A) has identified a matter of concern in relation to the registrable person.

(2) The registrar must take steps to ensure that the registrable person whose identity is being verified is a person with significant control over the company.””

New clause 38—Risk-based examination of accounts of dissolved companies—

“(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 1062A (analysis of information for the purposes of crime prevention and detection) insert—

“1062B Risk-based examination of accounts of dissolved companies

(1A) In a case where the registrar’s risk assessment under section 1062A(1A) has identified a matter of concern in relation to a dissolved company, the registrar must examine the accounts of the dissolved company with a view to establishing whether any economic crime has been committed.

(1B) The registrar must share details of any evidence gathered under subsection (1A) with the relevant law enforcement agencies.””

New clause 41—Disclosure of control of 5% or more of shares in a public company—

“(1) This section applies to shareholdings in public companies as defined by section 4 of the Companies Act 2006.

(2) A person who controls 5% or more of the shares in a public company must declare this fact to the registrar.

(3) The duty in subsection (2) applies whether the person controls the shares directly or indirectly.

(4) The registrar may impose a penalty on any person who fails to comply with the duty in subsection (2).”

This new clause would require all persons controlling 5% or more of the shares in a public company to declare the total amount of their shareholding to the registrar. This would, for example, require a person controlling shares through multiple nominees to declare the total number of shares they control.

New clause 42—Verification of persons controlling 5% or more of shares in a public company—

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person has disclosed to the registrar control of 5% or more of the shares in a public company under section [Disclosure of control of 5% or more of shares in a public company], and

(b) the registrar has identified a matter of concern under subsection 1062A(1A) of the Companies Act 2006.

(2) the registrar must—

(a) verify the identity of that person, and

(b) verify the number of shares that person claims to control.”

This new clause should be read together with Amendment 116 which inserts subsection 1062A(1A) into the Companies Act 2006. It would require the registrar to verify both the identity and the shareholding of a person who controls 5% or more of shares in a company where the registrar’s risk-based analysis set out in Amendment 116 has identified a matter of concern.

New clause 43—Disclosure of shares held by nominee—

“(1) This section applies to public companies as defined by section 4 of the Companies Act 2006.

(2) Any person holding shares in a public company as nominee for another person must disclose this fact to the registrar.

(3) The registrar may impose a penalty on any person who fails to comply with the duty in subsection (2).”

This new clause would require shareholders of a company to disclose the fact that they are acting as nominees. Failure to comply could result in a penalty.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am hoping I can see, because the light is so bad—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

What a shame!

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister is delighted. All the provisions are grouped together, so he will have to listen to me forever. The lighting is not much better, but we will see how we go—I know we are saving energy.

The provisions that we are discussing all sit together. I will start with amendments 119 and 120, with which we are trying to strengthen the duties, rather than the powers, of Companies House. During the course of the Committee’s discussion of the Bill, we have considered how UK corporate structures and vehicles are used to move, hide and launder money. When the Bill is enacted, although I hope that it will be amended to strengthen the nature of the information we get by strengthening the supervision of company service providers, Companies House will hold a wealth of data.

Amendment 119 seeks to make it compulsory for Companies House to analyse that data to prevent and detect crime. By removing some words, it would be tougher than the current wording of the clause, according to which Companies House could analyse that data, but does not necessarily have to. The clause says

“as the registrar considers appropriate”,

and, without the amendment, Companies House could and will argue that it does not consider analysis “appropriate”. We would remove that provision and say that the registrar must use the data that has been made available to her to see whether or not it can support us in our efforts to avoid crime.

I have one other thing to say about this issue. We have talked a lot in the debate about corruption and the way in which it has impacted the UK economy. As we discuss the Bill further, we have to remember the impact it will also have much more widely. According to the ONE Campaign’s latest estimate, around $1 trillion is lost every year to corruption in developing countries. A lot of that comes through the abuse of corporate structures that we have in the UK. That is just one example that demonstrates how UK corporate structures facilitate theft and corrupt activity.

I know that that is under the current regime and that much of this should go when we get to our new regime. However, I will give another example of how the abuse of UK corporate structures led to money, again, coming out of Russia, which is the bottle laundromat—another of these laundromats—that was uncovered by Transparency International. British companies were, again, at the centre. It was a money laundering operation from 2014 to 2016 where $820 million came out of Russia. Again, it involved—classically—a network of shell companies, many of them UK firms, that apparently sold bottle-moulding machines to Russia.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady raises some important cases, and she is right to do so. Is that not exactly why we are trying to do this in this way? There are 4.5 million companies registered in England. Around 700,000 companies are registered every year, or 2,000 a day, and 400,000 are dissolved every year. If she is asking Companies House to analyse every single company—that is exactly what her amendment says—to determine risk, she is asking too much of Companies House and she will miss the important needles in the haystack that she refers to.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Were I asking that, that would be unreasonable but if the Minister takes all my amendments together, he will see that they and others talk about a risk-based assessment of the available data.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The amendment does not say that. It says that

“the registrar must carry out a risk assessment”,

not a risk-based approach. There is a big difference in terms of what the right hon. Lady is asking for.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

But when we come to the new clauses, which we will discuss later, they say “risk-based”. It is a risk-based assessment. Perhaps the Minister could explain what the difference is.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The amendment says

“a risk assessment to identify where the information it holds might give rise to a matter of concern.”

That certainly says to me that a risk assessment would be required for every company. To me, a risk-based approach would identify various pieces of information, and Companies House would act on that information and determine whether the risk is from companies, directors or persons of significant control and act on that. That is our approach; the right hon. Lady’s approach is moving away from that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister is misinterpreting our approach. I am sorry if he reads it that way, but I agree that we are not asking for 100%. He calls it a risk-based assessment; I call it a risk assessment. Apologies for the difference in language.

[Liam Byrne]

If we were having this debate in my constituency, my constituents would say to me and, indeed, to the Minister, “We want to hire a police officer to stop crime.” If we look at a definition of what a police officer does, they maintain law and order in local areas, prevent crime, reduce fear of crime and improve the quality of life for all citizens. We want Companies House to stop economic crime and that is what my right hon. Friend’s amendments seek to achieve.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

And presumably the policeman does not knock on every door.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Precisely.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

At the moment, the Bill says—I can’t read it because there is no bloody light! It is a thing that as you get old, your eyes aren’t brilliant:

“The registrar must carry out such analysis of information within the registrar’s possession as the registrar considers appropriate”.

We are attempting to take that wording out of the Bill to make it a duty, because otherwise we know from the other enforcement agencies and the work of other Government agencies that unless clearly directed, the real work would not be done. There would be an excuse. They would be busy doing something else. This is their key proactive role. We can go on and on about it during the course of the Bill, but I assure the Minister that the registrar should do it in a risk-based way. She should not do it, as the Bill says, as is appropriate; she should just do it. That is really the first thing.

I will quickly describe the bottle laundromat. The Minister and I are very familiar with all the stories, but other members of the Committee are not, and the stories are pretty shocking. Every time we hear another one, it is shocking. The stories reinforce the justification for the sort of interventions that Labour Members want to include in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I think this is about a different interpretation of words.

The amendment would require Companies House to conduct risk assessments of the information and data it holds on the register for the purposes of the prevention and detection of economic crime. The amendment also creates a basis for new clauses 37 and 38, to introduce an obligation on Companies House to use all the data it collects to identify where economic crime risks lie.

I genuinely think we are quarrelling about words, not about what we want to do. On the basis of that risk assessment, or whatever word the Minister wants to use, Companies House would then decide when to use its powers proactively.

Interestingly enough, my wonderful staff have looked it up, and everybody else uses these terms. We are not alone in this. The Financial Action Task Force standards talk about risk assessments. It talks about a “risk-based approach”. Is that language better for the Minister?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Much better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

It means the same to us—I think the Minister is really being a little bit pedantic here. If we bring the amendments back on Report with the words “risk-based”, perhaps we will have a better chance of getting them through.

The risk-based approach is central to the implementation of FATF’s recommendations. The UK’s AML regime and the Council of Europe use a risk-based approach, as does the private sector. I want to use a risk-based approach, and so does the Minister, so why do we not just get on with it?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We do, and it is exactly what the clause states:

“The registrar must carry out such analysis of information within the registrar’s possession as the registrar considers appropriate for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime.”

In other words, the registrar identifies a red flag and then does an investigation. The right hon. Lady’s amendment 116 says:

“the registrar must carry out a risk assessment to identify where the information it holds might give rise to a matter of concern.”

That is a non-risk-based assessment.

[The Chair]

Order. Minister, may I intervene for a second? You will have time to respond to all this in the debate, but that is a very long intervention.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I have to say we disagree, but I will come back to this issue. I think our proposals strengthen the Bill.

I tabled my amendments to clause 88 because I do not support the wording of

“as the registrar considers appropriate”.

I have to say to the Minister that we discovered in this morning’s sitting that the company registrar has so far registered 3,000 properties for a register that has now been in place since August. In three months, she has done 3,000, but there are 138,000 to deal with. At that rate—if she does 12,000 a year—she will be there till doomsday, so putting a little bomb underneath her to ensure that she takes action is important.

[Liam Byrne]

My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. If anything, the Minister has caused more alarm than he might have intended this afternoon by referring to the language in the Bill that says the registrar must take account of the information that she holds. There is no way that we would ask a police officer to police Hodge Hill simply with reference to the information that that police officer happens to hold. We would ask the police officer to look at the crime environment in the constituency as a whole, taking account of all kinds of perspectives, not simply the information that he or she happened to have in their little black book.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will move on to new clause 37, which has the aim of checking that the stated person of significant control really is the person who controls the company. Powers to get information, to reject documents, to require information and to remove documents all sit in the Bill. The new clause would ensure that, through a risk-based assessment—I just reiterate that for the Minister—Companies House would proactively check that the person named as the PSC was the PSC in reality. Current legislation requires the ID verification of a company owner, but not the verification of their status as a company owner, so the risk remains that nominees will continue to be put forward as owners of companies despite the real control being elsewhere. The risk is heightened if the Minister does not move to ensure that company service providers are properly regulated, supervised and vetted before the whole system comes into force.

In the current system, there are endless examples that demonstrate the extent of the problem that the Minister and the Government are trying to tackle—we are trying to contribute to that process. One is the famous dentist in Belgium. From an interrogation of the Companies House register, we know that five beneficial owners control more than 6,000 companies, which is a huge red flag. Some 4,000 of them are under the age of two, and 400,000 companies—almost 10% of the total—still do not declare a person of significant control. We have the Azerbaijan laundromat example, where a lorry driver in Baku was named as the person of significant control and had no idea that kleptocrats from Azerbaijan were taking all the money out of the banks and money laundering it elsewhere.

There is one filing in Companies House for which I thought I would name the person of significant control. The company is called Global Risks Reduction Funding Ltd, and the name is listed as—I will take a deep breath—

“Neutral-Claimant-Federal-Witness-Director-Captain-Postmaster-Bank-Banker-Plenipotentiary-Notary-Judge-Vassalee For The Vessel-Phouthone-Thone: Siharath.”

I do not think anybody has questioned that as the person of significant control. The whole thing is absurd.

An important point for the Minister is that, in 2019, Transparency International did a quick Google search and found 23 active company service providers that were offering the service of nominee persons of significant control—that was one quick search of one directory. When Global Witness undertook research on Scottish limited partnerships, it found that 40% of the beneficial owners of Scottish limited partnerships were either a national of a former Soviet country, or a company incorporated in the former Soviet Union.

[Alison Thewliss]

I have been tracking for some time the number of times when a person of significant control for Scottish limited partnerships has not even been registered. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is ridiculous that there are still 201 companies for which a person of significant control does not exist at all?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes. The law is being broken but nobody is pursuing those who are guilty.

These are all reasons for closely monitoring data on persons of significant control. The measure would simply put a duty on Companies House to be proactive and to check the status of the person named on a risk-based basis, not just via their personal details.

New clause 38 deals with dissolution, which has been raised with me by a number of stakeholders. We know of numerous instances of bad people dissolving companies for nefarious purposes. The new clause would ensure that the registrar looks at the accounts of a company seeking to dissolve to ensure that no fraud or other crime has occurred. If the registrar found such cause for concern, she would have to pass the information on to relevant enforcement agencies.

We are all very familiar with the phoenixing of companies and the role that that practice has played in facilitating fraud. I have chosen as an example the case of Rodney and Pauline Williams, which is typical. They ran a company called Curio Bridal Boutique Ltd. They made false representations to take money out of the company and put it into another company in anticipation of winding up Curio Bridal Boutique. They took £111,000, of which they put £42,000 into the pockets of their own family. They were detected and convicted, but sadly the successful detection of such cases is all too rare and the practice happens all too often.

The Troika Laundromat—another of the laundromats that has hit us over the last 10 years or so—is another example of where a leak of documents showed how one of Russia’s largest investment banks, Troika Dialog, was central to the channelling of billions of dollars out of Russia. That leak covered 1.3 million transactions. It involved more than 1,000 UK limited liability partnerships, and it was found that the UK had been handling nearly £10 billion of dodgy Russian money. One UK-based company was found to have made payments totalling £360 million, although it filed accounts each year and dared to declare itself dormant. It then dissolved itself in 2014. That company was called Stranger Agency LLP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I remember very clearly my speech in Westminster Abbey that night. He might remember that I talked about corporate criminal liability and whistleblower reform, which are absolutely essential. Indeed, at least one of those falls under my portfolio, so I am certainly committed to bringing forward those reforms when I can.

The only difference between hon. Members of the Opposition and ourselves is the means by which we would achieve the same end. On amendments 119 and 120, I am always happy to look at sensible amendments that take us forward. When Opposition Members talk about those cases, they are talking primarily about cases in the past where we did not have the powers that this Bill provides, and where we did not have the level of enforcement; we both agree that that needs improvement.

Where we differ is on how we go about this. I have serious concerns about the provisions in amendment 116, tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking, which seem to require the registrar to look at every single company on the record. That is exactly what it says. It says that the registrar

“must carry out a risk assessment to identify where the information it holds might give rise to a matter of concern.”

The registrar can do that only by looking at every single record.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will just develop my arguments. I listened to hers at length, and I heard them very clearly. Our approach is a more workable one. I do not think her approach is workable. I think that if we listen to each other’s arguments, we are probably saying the same thing. We are trying to overlay the information that sits with the registrar herself in Companies House with information from others, such as banks, lawyers, accountants—we discussed that in earlier debates—and law enforcement agencies in order to identify where the information she holds identifies risks, so that she can then carry out an investigation.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will develop my point a little further, and then I will let the right hon. Lady intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the right hon. Member knows, objective 4 establishes exactly that: an obligation

“to minimise the extent to which companies and others carry out unlawful activities, or…facilitate the carrying out by others of unlawful activities.”

That is quite clearly in the Bill.

New clauses 37 and 38 would require the status of a person with significant control and the accounts of dissolved companies to be checked by the registrar. The registrar would be required to carry out a risk assessment of all those companies—roughly 1,000 companies per day. Members might be thinking that every person with significant control has some connection to Russian dirty money or Russian oligarchs, but the vast majority of state-owned enterprises have a person with significant control, because they own more than 25% of those companies. For the registrar to look at 1,000 companies every single day to determine whether there is a risk, and then investigate further—that is exactly what the right hon. Lady’s new clauses would require—would not be practical.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This is becoming a rather absurd psephological debate. I have just asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill whether I have got the wording wrong—whether there is a great difference between risk assessment and risk-based assessment. Perhaps Government Members will tell me differently, but those two things are the same, and we should not try to locate a difference between them.

The last thing any of us wants to do is micromanage any of our organisations through legislation, but we have to look at the experience and the record of all the enforcement agencies and bodies in the financial services sector over the years. If we have colleagues of ours in the House doing that, they will meet with massive criticism. One way to tighten and toughen this up without having to get involved in the minutiae is to move from powers to duties, which is the purpose of a lot of the amendments we are debating today. If the Minister does not take seriously some of these practical suggestions, he is in danger of setting up a new system that is as open to abuse as the current system, and we will be back here in a couple of years putting it right.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

All legislation needs improvement, but we must not put the registrar under a duty that makes her job impossible. That is what the right hon. Lady’s amendment would do. That is what I am pointing out to her; not that I do not think—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I cannot let the right hon. Lady intervene again. We are pressed for time. We just do not agree on this point. I think that we agree on the broad sentiment that there should be a risk-based analysis, but that is not what her amendment says.

With 1,000 companies resolved every day, it would be impractical to have a risk assessment of every single one of those companies and to then do the risk-based analysis. I think that the amendments are too directive, and I ask Members not to press them. I am happy to consider whether there is a less prescriptive formulation that we could add to the clause to have that effect. I completely understand and concur with Members’ broad objective. Of course we want a proactive regulator who determines where the risks are and acts on information, be it from journalists, private sector companies or enforcement agencies, to inform her work and to make sure that she pursues those who are most likely to be guilty of wrongdoing.

A couple of Members referred to the Russian sanctions regime. In the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 13) Regulations 2022, we broadened the designation criteria to include specified immediate family members and those with links to Russian state-owned businesses. There are, of course, things like the combating kleptocracy cell at the National Crime Agency.

New clauses 41, 42 and 43 seek to address concerns about nominee shareholders. New clauses 41 and 42 would require people who control, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of the shares in a public company to declare themselves. New clause 43 would require any person holding shares in a public company as a nominee for another person to disclose that fact to the registrar. The new clauses would put additional obligations to disclose information to the registrar on to the person who holds the shares, rather than the company to which the shares relate.

New clauses 41 and 42 would create a burden in relation to public companies that would not exist for private companies. It would not be proportionate to impose such a burden on public companies that are low risk and that have additional requirements placed on them. It is already the case in the law on nominee shareholders or proxies that a share held by a person as a nominee for another is to be treated as though the share is held by the true owner and not by the nominee. Failure to declare a shareholder is a criminal offence and if the court were to find that a person should have been registered, the person and their company would be at risk of prosecution. I hope that provides the assurance that right hon. and hon. Members need.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I know that we share the objectives, but I feel very frustrated by the inability to decide whether a risk assessment and a risk-based assessment are the same. For the life of me, I cannot see the difference. We will put it to the vote and see whether those in favour of risk-based assessments are happy to go with “risk assessments”.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is not what the right hon. Lady has put in her amendment. It says not “risk-based assessment” but “risk assessment”.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I would say that there is no difference. In amendment 116, we have “risk assessments”. For those of us who think this is the way forward, I have to say that the Minister’s argument seems constructed rather than real.

[The Chair]

The Question is that amendment 119 be made.

[The Chair]

Let me be clear. We are discussing amendment 119 to clause 88. Does the right hon. Member for Barking want to press the amendment to a vote?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 116, in clause 88, page 68, line 17, at end insert—

‘(1A) As part of the analysis under subsection (1), the registrar must carry out a risk assessment to identify where the information it holds might give rise to a matter of concern.

(1B) Where the assessment identifies a matter of concern, the registrar must—

(a) carry out whatever further analysis it considers necessary; and

(b) share any evidence of unlawful activity it identifies with the relevant law enforcement agency.

(1C) For the purposes of this section, a “matter of concern” includes—

(a) inaccurate information;

(b) information that might create a false or misleading impression; or

(c) evidence of economic crime.’—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

New clause 25 is a probing amendment. I am minded to have a higher fee than £50, but what does the Minister think the baseline ought to be? Is it £100 or £50, or is he not prepared to put a number on the minimum price for registering a company? By way of contrast, a provisional driving licence fee application is £34, a passport is £75.50, and citizenship is £1,330 pounds. The Government are prepared to levy a whole range of fees for a whole range of privileges to do with living in this country; £12 to register a company seems miraculously low in comparison to all the other fees that the Government are willing to charge. In all those cases, I am sure that the Government would say that they are trying to recover costs, but they are not prepared to say how much it would cost to run Companies House in such a way that it can prevent economic crime, although that is pretty crucial to the whole endeavour.

I agree with everything the hon. Member for Aberavon has said, and I support the amendments from the right hon. Member for Barking, who is, I am sure, absolutely correct in everything she is about to say; I often agree with everything she says. I draw the Government’s attention again to the written evidence from UK Finance, which says:

“Clause 89 should be amended to ensure an initial increase in registration fees within six months of commencement, and to ensure annual reporting on planned investment, fee increases and scheduled implementation of new powers.”

If we set a minimum in legislation and do not update it, the problem is that often prices increase—mostly artificially, but also through factors such as the runaway inflation that we see in the UK at the moment. It is important to commit to an annual increase and annual reporting to ensure that fees keep pace with changes in a way that is considered reasonable.

Twelve pounds to register a company is really nothing in the grand scheme of things. I ask the Minister to consider how we can better ensure that the Companies House registration scheme forms part of the deterrent. Rather than allowing the bulk creation of lots of small companies at £12 a pop, we can ensure that people say, “This is a real company. There is a real financial commitment to it.” I do not think that any company will be deterred by a fee of £100 rather than £12.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Robertson. Why is new clause 29 not included in this group?

[The Chair]

We are coming to it later.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Thank you. New clause 29 is on a similar area of debate, so there might be a bit of repetition when we come to it. The new clauses we are discussing speak for themselves. The Minister knows full well that it is really important that we get a grip on economic crime, and that means resourcing our enforcement agencies. He often says—and I completely agree—that it is pointless passing legislation if we do not enforce it, and that means funding agencies properly. If we look at the record on enforcement, it is pretty abysmal right across the piece.

That particularly goes for Companies House. The first conviction it achieved was against Kevin Brewer, a man in his mid-60s who formed a company and stated that Vince Cable, then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, was a director and shareholder. He formed another company and put Baroness Neville-Rolfe and the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), now Foreign Secretary, down as directors. He did it to demonstrate that Companies House never checks the data. When he put that information in the public domain, Companies House’s response was to sue him, and he had to pay a hefty fine. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this was a case of a genuine whistleblower trying to demonstrate that the system was not working and being wrongly pursued by the authorities. It should never have happened. That is the record of Companies House to date. We hope the reforms we are discussing and debating will improve the matter.

The current position is absurd. Everybody has used figures, but the figure that I like to use is the £12 it costs to form a company against the £1,220 it costs to get a visa for a skilled worker. Our perspective is just wrong. Everybody wants to make it easy to create new companies, but any business worth its salt would not find a greater sum an inhibiter to creating a new business. We just have this completely wrong, and that is what the Opposition are trying to put right in a way that does not burden the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is £400 million over the spending period.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I know it is, but most of that comes from the economic crime levy. The £300 million comes from the economic crime levy; £100 million comes from the Government’s coffers. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is my understanding of it, so a third of that—£32 million or £33 million—is the Government’s annual contribution out of taxation. That is where I got the figure from. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but that is my understanding.

Looking across the world, even the British Virgin Islands, our favourite secrecy jurisdiction, charges £1,000 to people who wish to create a company there; I cannot think that that has put anyone off using the BVI if they want a secrecy jurisdiction to support them. Australia charges £247; in the USA, in California, it is £150; in Delaware, another secrecy jurisdiction, it is £590; in New York, £570; Italy, £2,000; and Germany, £383. Even with our new clause, we would still be a cheap place in which to do business.

That is all I need to say at this point. We brought in new clause 40 because we think that should also be embedded. The Minister may tell me that it happens, but we think it should be embedded in legislation so that no future Government are ever tempted to take the money they earn from fees and put it towards other purposes. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen anything in legislation that ensures that money raised in fees goes directly to enforcement. The Minister may want to do that, but his successors may not feel the same. The issue is never a high political priority so it is important that we get sustainability for the issue over time. That is the reason for the new clause.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. It is fantastic for the Minister to be able to kick off today with this debate—surely there has never been a Minister as lucky as this one is in taking this Bill through Committee. Here we have an entire Opposition side of the Committee united in wanting to give the Minister the tools to do the job—the job for which he has argued for years and years in this House.

We want to send the Minister into the spending review, with his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his hands bound. We want to ensure that he goes into those conversations with the law of the land changed, so that he is required to put up the fees for Companies House and actually has the money he needs to do the job. We know that that is not going to damage the business investment environment in this country. How? Because it could not get any worse than it is today.

The business investment level in this country over the last 12 years has now been the worst in the G7, so it is unlikely to get any worse if fees at Companies House are put up a little bit: it is already spectacularly bad. That underlines a simple point: that the level of economic crime in this country is now so infamous around the world that it could be damaging the level of business investment here. If we are known around the world—certainly, in Washington and in European capitals—as a global epicentre of dirty money, how does that help us become a great, global hub of business investment in years to come? Obviously, it does not. There is a competitive advantage to be had by becoming one of the great capitals of clean trade. Here we are, an Opposition united in wanting to help the Minister achieve that ambition and make sure that he has the resources to do the job.

In the public evidence sessions, we heard a clear set of arguments as to why these amendments need to be made. We heard that our country has now become the centre of the Russian laundromat, the Troika laundromat and the Azerbaijan laundromat. Indeed, the Security Minister and I were on the Foreign Affairs Committee together when we heard the most appalling evidence that some of the biggest money-laundering scandals have involved UK corporate structures more than anything else; I think I am right that about 40% of the billions laundered through Danske Bank came through UK corporate structures. That is truly a mark of shame, and why Bill Browder was absolutely right when said in evidence to this Committee that it is appalling—a matter of shame—that there has been only one prosecution for money-laundering around economic crime in this country. That truly is an appalling record of law enforcement.

Worse than that, we also heard from the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation that the situation is not simply bad news for economic crime, but a national security issue. When the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation tells the Committee that it is a matter of national security that we clean up the dark mass of economic crime in this country, we as Members of Parliament ought to listen and do something about it. Then we heard from a range of police specialists who said, first, that they thought the problem was getting much worse quite quickly, and secondly, that they did not have the resources they needed to enforce the law in this area.

All that evidence points in one direction: Companies House needs more money. When we took evidence from representatives of Companies House, we heard, startlingly, that they have not even discussed their budget with the Treasury for the next financial year, which is due to start in only a few months’ time. They mooted the idea of asking for cash for an extra 100 people, which the dogs in the street know is not going to be enough to enforce the measures in the Bill.

With all his native cunning and wit, the Minister needs to find a way to make the concessions the Opposition are asking for and to agree to the amendment, so that he can be the great, historic, legendary, reforming Minister who took the bull by the horns once and for all and helped make sure that this country is once more renowned around the world as a capital of clean trade—all because of the efforts, cunning and wisdom of the Minister in accepting the amendment before him today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Where is the parliamentary oversight of that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am coming to that. The simple answer is that, when the fees are assessed, they are subject to regulations that are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They are laid before the House before the fees are approved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Under negative or affirmative resolution?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is under the affirmative resolution. Different Members have suggested different figures, from £50 to £100. The right hon. Member for Barking said £1,000, as if to say, “We charge that in the BVI, therefore why not charge it in the UK?” That was the implication. What she said was that the people who look to use those jurisdictions to hide their money would be quite happy to pay £1,000, but that is exactly the point. On 99.9% of occasions, we are not just dealing with companies that indulge in nefarious activities; we are talking about not deterring bona fide businesses by setting the fee level at a fair level that does not deter business activity but does mean that Companies House has the right enforcement capability. That is what we want to get to, and we want to ensure that Companies House is able to do that.

I will touch on a couple of the points made about the SFO case last week, which I think we all welcome. It was not actually about resourcing; changing legislation made that possible. It was about corporate criminal liability and failure to prevent, which was successfully enforced in that case. That is a lesson for us all. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said that there has been only one case ever of a successful economic crime prosecution in the UK, and that Bill Browder had said that. Mr Browder did not say that; there have been many prosecutions of economic crime. To clarify, he was talking about it in connection to the money that came out of Russia.

Companies House is funded by the fees that it charges. If the Secretary of State considered changing those fees, there would of necessity be an appraisal of the resourcing needs of Companies House before that could take place. Fees can be charged only to cover the costs of the activities that they are intended to fund, including enforcement.

In order to arrive at an appropriate level of fee, my Department would have to work directly with Companies House to determine the funding requirements. Of course, there has to be Government oversight of that, because that is what we are elected to do. It is right that the Secretary of State would oversee that and then present it to Parliament for scrutiny. I agree that companies will justifiably want to understand how and why a particular level of fee has been arrived at, but the mechanism for that already exists. Fees will continue to be set by regulations, and the basis for any changes will be included in the accompanying analysis and explanatory memorandum that are published and presented to Parliament for scrutiny.

New clauses 25 and 33, introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and the right hon. Member for Barking, will shortly set out intentions on the level of fees to be charged. We do not intend to enshrine a level of fee in primary legislation, as doing so would restrict flexibility that may be required at a future date. We will commit to reviewing the fees on a regular basis to ensure that they provide the funding that Companies House needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I cannot imagine that in his many years as a Minister the right hon. Gentleman would have ever set out a date, but it will be shortly.

Finally, I turn to proposed new clause 45 and the points made by the right hon. Member for Barking. The Bill amends the fee-raising power within the Companies Act 2006, in order to enable costs associated with investigation and enforcement to be included when setting the level of fees. Companies House is able to retain incorporated fee income under current arrangements between the Treasury and Companies House, with the arrangement reviewed periodically. Legislation does not set the level of fees, but rather the level of fees is set by our regulations. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Barking that that is under the negative resolution procedure and therefore receives parliamentary scrutiny.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

If it is under the negative resolution procedure, the Minister well knows that it will not receive the parliamentary scrutiny it deserves. The advantage of the way we framed our new clauses is that the fee would automatically rise with inflation rather than any other mechanism being needed. I would have thought the Minister would welcome that because it would ensure consistent resourcing.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not accept that the two things—inflation and the resources needed by Companies House—necessarily correlate. Salaries do not rise automatically on that basis. As the right hon. Lady will know, Companies House reports annually and I am keen to ensure that there is the right level of scrutiny around this type of activity in terms of resourcing, as I have said to her before. Therefore I do not think an automatic inflationary increase is right, but I absolutely believe in parliamentary scrutiny and it is something that perhaps we can discuss.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister therefore come back with an amendment that provides for affirmative resolution?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That may be something that the right hon. Lady wants to table, but this is a significant commitment, both in terms of legislation and resourcing. I cannot imagine a situation where Companies House comes to the Secretary of State or to me, as I will have some oversight over it, and say, “We need this level of resourcing, which will impact on fees in this way,” and we respond by saying, “Actually, that is too much.” It depends what they say, of course, and it is right that we have scrutiny over that, but I am sure there will be many mechanisms the right hon. Lady can use to ensure we have that level right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 96, page 75, line 23, leave out “the Consolidated Fund” and insert

“a fund established by the Secretary of State for the purposes of tackling economic crime (see section 1132B)”.

This amendment requires penalties paid to the registrar to be paid into a fund for the purposes of tackling economic crime, rather than the consolidated fund.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 80, in clause 96, page 75, line 26, at end insert—

“1132B Fund for the purposes of tackling economic crime

(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a fund for the purposes of tackling economic crime.

(2) Penalties received by the registrar under section 1132A must contribute to the fund.

(3) The regulations must specify the purposes for which the fund may be used including funding the activities of law enforcement agencies in tackling economic crime.

(a) funding the activities of law enforcement agencies in tackling economic crime;”

This amendment provides for a fund to be established for the purposes of tackling economic crime.

New clause 29—Report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime—

“(1) The Secretary of State must produce a report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime.

(2) The report must consider the case for penalties paid to the registrar to be ringfenced and used solely for the purposes of tackling economic crime.

(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”

This new clause requires a report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime to be laid before Parliament.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Let us see where we get with this one—I will have another go. This is a vital amendment and I hope that the Government will listen carefully, because it would go a long way to ensuring that our enforcement capabilities, which we have been talking about all morning, really are fit for purpose and properly funded, without burdening the taxpayer—that is really important. If we tried to get competition between funding enforcement and funding other Government priorities, we would get nowhere in trying to ensure properly funded enforcement agencies.

The UK’s record is abysmal. I am going to put this on the record. The NCA has had five prosecutions each year for the last five years. That is hopeless. Money laundering prosecutions are down 35% over the last five years, at a time of exponential growth in money laundering. Less than 1% of the billions of pounds laundered annually is ever restored to us. And the number of criminal fraud cases by the SFO has halved in the last three years, although again I welcome the Glencore case, and I agree with the Minister that it shows the importance of introducing the offence of failure to prevent economic crime.

This is not a criticism of the agencies; it is a criticism of us and our failure to fund this work properly, which is what we are trying to do here. If we look at the totality of the UK’s expenditure on enforcement, we see that it is pathetic. It is 0.042% of GDP, whereas we know that the cost to the UK economy of economic crime is 14.5%, so there is an absurd relationship between our need to detect and prevent crime and our capability to do so. The FBI is 15 times larger than the NCA. We have already said that the police spend less than 1% on fraud, even though it represents 40% of crime—and that is just reported crime. And we have already said that the Americans have increased their budget, because they see this as a security threat, whereas we have reduced one.

I would welcome a comment from the Minister on this matter. My understanding is that the Government contribution to the fight against economic crime is £100 million. Out of the totality of £400 million in the budget, £300 million comes from the economic crime levy and only £100 million, over the comprehensive spending review period, comes from the taxpayer, so that is a mere £32 million or £33 million a year.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If the right hon. Lady includes what we resource—the SFO, NCA and other enforcement agencies—it is not entirely clear, but we give about £825 million a year to our enforcement agencies.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I would like to press amendment 84 to a vote, but I do not intend to press amendment 80.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister confirm whether the action of Companies House under this clause should be part of the annual report to Parliament?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In terms of the financial penalties imposed?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clause 100 and schedule 4 significantly increase the amount of information that must be provided about a new limited partnership and its prospective partners, and, subsequently, when they make their annual confirmation statements or deliver notifications that report changes. Schedule 4 sets out what information must be provided, including date of birth, nationality and the usual residential address when the partner is an individual.

Clause 101 is intended to ensure that existing limited partnerships registered prior to the commencement of the Bill are equally required to deliver the relevant information set out in schedule 4. The general partners of limited partnerships will be required to provide the registrar with the required information of each person who is a partner in the limited partnership, or who became a partner on registration within a six-month transitional period.

Failure to comply with those requirements may give the registrar reasonable cause to consider that the limited partnership is no longer operating and is dissolved. That will mean that the registrar may exercise her confirmation of dissolution power, which we will debate later on. If the registrar goes through the confirmation of dissolution process, she may deregister the dissolved firm.

Clause 102 provides that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, designate a standard system for classifying the business of a limited partnership. That will make it easier to collate and sort information about a limited partnership’s activities and it aligns with the position for companies. I thank the right hon. Member for Barking for her new clause 56. Perhaps she should speak about that now, and I will respond to her points.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister and I agree with him that what we are all attempting to do here is trying to clean up the act in the UK. Some of our amendments are pragmatic, and I just hope that the Minister will listen and take them on board.

I want to go back to first principles, from when I started working in this area almost a decade ago. It was absolutely clear that transparency is a powerful tool in preventing and detecting economic crime. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. David Cameron used that phrase when he introduced the register of beneficial ownership, saying that we had a “gold standard”. It did not quite turn out that way, but that was what he wanted. To go back to the days of 2018, the Financial Action Task Force said that Britain was

“a global leader in promoting corporate transparency”.

We should hang on to that.

In 2014, the Cameron Government said it was “particularly important” that plans to force companies to name their ultimate owners should include English limited partnerships, in order to ensure that there were no loopholes or unintended consequences. That was completely right, yet two months later, in an inexplicable move, English limited partnerships were dropped. I do not know if the Minister has an explanation—I am happy to give way if he has—but that is what happened.

New clause 56 would introduce transparency into the system. I recognise that it is not a perfect answer, but it is a huge improvement on the status quo. We want to use the mechanism of the persons of significant control register. We propose that all limited partnerships, whether they are Northern Irish, English or Welsh, would have to register a person of significant control. All limited partnerships would therefore be treated in the same way.

As the Minister knows, limited partnerships have been used time and again by criminals to move and hide dirty money. I will give just one egregious example. In 2014, the US imposed sanctions on the Rotenberg brothers, Boris and Arkady, who are known as close friends of Putin, in response to the annexation of Crimea. A later investigation by the UK Senate found that the two brothers had used an English limited partnership, Sinara Company, to pay a front figure in the art industry, a man called Gregory Baltser, a huge amount of money to get around the sanctions, buying and selling paintings worth up to $18 million. Paintings by Magritte, Chagall and Braque were sold through this intermediary, Baltser. It was all done through an English limited partnership.

When the Government tightened up on Scottish limited partnerships, criminals moved to other forms, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said. I quote to the Minister a Russian-language newsletter that was circulated to clients by a formation agency called LAS, which said, after the UK tightened up on Scottish limited partnerships, that there is always a way out:

“As a substitute for Scottish partnerships, we offer the registration of English, Welsh and Irish LP partnerships, which have an identical legal form and similar benefits…At the moment, the privileges of this type of partnership are that they do not fall and will not fall under the laws on the disclosure of information about controlling persons.”

Transparency International’s report, which the Minister has quoted previously in our debates, shows how the structures are open to abuse by bad actors. It analysed 1,628 limited liability partnerships used in various corruption and money laundering schemes over a 12-year period between 2004 and 2016 for the nationality of the person of significant control. Russians were the most frequent nationality, at 17%; UK nationals were 16%; and Ukrainians, 15%. Nationals from the combined former Soviet states constituted half of those in the disclosures. That is a good red flag. The benefit of the persons of significant control register is that it would provide that red flag if it was extended elsewhere.

Limited partnerships are used by formation agencies, over whom there is also a red flag. Finance Uncovered and the BBC found that the five busiest formation agencies in 2017 created 28% of all English limited partnerships created that year.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 101 stand part.

Clause 102 stand part.

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 (Barking) (Lab)]

I am not going to recap, because we want to make progress, but I hope the Minister is listening. We are talking about a way of improving transparency, accepting that the new clause is not the perfect answer.

English limited partnerships have no directors, but they do have individuals required to sign paperwork, and the formation agencies that help to establish such limited partnerships often hire proxies to do that. A great example of that is Ruth Neidhart, a 71-year-old Swiss national who lived in Cyprus. She is a ceramic artist, she sometimes arranges pottery painting sessions for children’s birthday parties, and she has been signing documents for a formation agency called IOS since at least early 2009. We see that see that she has signed 161 of these ELPs since 2016 and has links to IOS companies in Nevis, the British Virgin Islands, Belize and the Bahamas, all offshore firms that have been used to form UK shell companies.

Alexandru Terna, a 32-year-old Romanian who lives on a busy road junction in west London in what is described as “a modest house”, has signed 306 of these ELPs. He said in an email to Finance Uncovered, which covered the story:

“We worked only with [LAS],”

the formation agent. He added:

“We have never been involved in the management or control of any of these companies or any other company, where we were appointed as signatories.”

I thought that was interesting. Then we have the infamous Moldovan bank fraud, where $1 billion vanished from three Moldovan banks in just two days through limited partnerships—a series of Hong Kong and UK-registered companies. The new owners took over the bank in 2012, buying shares and using funds from UK limited companies.

The Government argue that these limited partnerships are not legally separate from their partners and so they cannot be beneficially owned. However, the person of significant control requirements require control—that is the issue—and not necessarily ownership. There does not have to be separate legal personality and ownership for there to be significant control, and if there is a corporate partner, there must be a human being controlling that corporate partner. The corporate partner cannot exist without somebody controlling it.

The PSC is defined as somebody with more than 25% of assets or more than 25% of voting share, or—this is another aspect of the definition—who exercises significant influence or control over the business. In practice, all the leaked documents we have seen from journalists show that formation agencies routinely create ELPs and issue clients with documents that declare them as beneficial owners, so they use that term anyway; they see them as beneficial owners. Indeed, ELPs also open bank accounts. There is somebody behind them, and we need to try to get to that person.

I accept that what we are proposing is not a perfect answer, but I think it is better than the status quo. We would get nominees putting themselves forward, and we would get company service providers declared as persons of significant control, but the same nominee appearing frequently would be a red flag, and company service providers reappearing in relation to lots of companies would also be a red flag. Remember: transparency is the best disinfectant.

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

I am very pleased to respond to the right hon. Lady’s speech. In relation to some of the issues we have with limited partnerships, she has set out her case very well and fairly.

Through the Bill, we are trying to make it easier for Companies House to spot exactly the kinds of red flags the right hon. Lady has referred to. She mentioned people such as Alexandru Terna. Under this legislation, for the first time, significant penalties will accrue to somebody who does not declare their partners accurately. As I have said on a number of occasions in recent days, I am sympathetic to a number of the right hon. Lady’s amendments, including new clause 56. I understand the reasons why she has tabled it.

The new clause would partially duplicate the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017. Scottish limited partnerships have legal personality, meaning that in the eyes of the law they are a separate legal entity and have distinct duties and liabilities to those of their partners. It is therefore possible to apply persons of significant control requirements to those entities. As the right hon. Lady said, the same is not true of English, Welsh or Northern Irish limited partnerships, which do not have legal personality. Unlike SLPs, those forms of limited partnership register with Companies House but are not a separate legal entity from their partners. The partners are the embodiment of the partnership; as such, legislating for the registration of people who have significant influence or control over an English, Welsh or Northern Irish LP is legislating for the registration of people who control other people. I will return to that point in a second.

Not having legal personality means that limited partnerships cannot own property or assets in their own name; any assets are held in the name of the partners themselves. They are a registrable legal relationship, and can be thought of a bit like a marriage: the act of registering gives the relationship legal force and bestows rights and duties on the partners, but it does not create something separate that can be owned. Like a marriage, a partnership ends on the death of a partner.

It is therefore not legally possible to apply the persons of significant control requirements currently applied to Scottish LPs to English, Welsh and Northern Irish LPs. It would be possible to draft legislation for a different regime applying a different definition of beneficial ownership, but given that the partnership only exists as a business relationship between partners and its body exists in the person of the partners, it is not apparent who, beyond the partners, should be registered. A likely outcome would therefore be all limited partnerships reporting that no person met the requirements, other than those already registered as partners.

Nevertheless, I understand that the intention of the right hon. Member for Barking is to increase transparency about who is managing and controlling a limited partnership. That is why the clauses that we are debating will increase the amount of information that is available concerning the partners of a limited partnership, and place a legal duty on partners to update those details with the registrar. In addition, the identities of all general partners must now be verified, and any corporate general partner must name an individual who may be contacted in relation to the limited partnership and whose identity must also be verified.

Although the right hon. Lady admits that her new clause is not a perfect solution, she has raised a good point. In consultation with her and officials, I will give further consideration to this matter, to ensure that there are no other means by which somebody may have undue control over a limited partnership. I am keen to work with her and discuss how we might do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister said earlier something that I did not think was the case. I thought that corporate general partners did not have to register the person behind the company. That is the problem: people register the company without registering the person.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, that is not the case.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Are you sure?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Absolutely, although I will clarify that with my officials. We discussed this issue before. I will confirm it later today, if I can, but I am sure that that is the case.

There is no requirement to have an economic link. The link is with the person, the general partner and the limited partners, and the UK-based address. That is the link to the UK that these measures seek to ensure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 103 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105

A limited partnership’s registered email address

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful, thinking about my new clause, because it sounds like there might be movement on that. I want to ask the Minister a difficult question: what are the legitimate reasons for limited liability partnerships to have a corporate member? What on earth is a legitimate reason? I cannot think of one.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It might be an investment fund. It might be an insurance company or a collective around investment funds that derive returns for our pensions for millions of people up and down the country. It may well be that a corporate body is part of that limited partnership. I think that is perfectly reasonable, and I imagine we would expect that to be the case.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Even in that case, why not have a natural person—a named individual? I just do not get it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is exactly what we have. Does the right hon. Lady mean in terms of companies, or in terms of limited partnerships?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes, in companies; no, I mean in limited partnerships. Apologies.

[The Chair]

Order. We cannot have a general conversation. The person speaking is the person I call to speak—at the moment, that is the Minister.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to give way, for clarification.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Apologies to you, Mr Robertson. I got carried away. I am talking to limited liability partnerships. I cannot see the point of hiding behind a corporation rather than having a natural person.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is a bit of confusion generally about the difference between limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships. I think we are talking about limited partnerships here.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, as I understand it, but I will get clarification on that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am trying to think this through properly: I may be wrong. In the circumstances where the corporation is offshore—an offshore company owns it—would there have to be a natural person named?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes. There is no distinction between companies or corporate partners operating offshore to those that are operating onshore. There will be a registered officer in all circumstances.

The regulations will address the limited circumstances under which a company will be permitted to have a corporate director. It is important that the regulations are in force before we ban appointment of any corporate directors, that they are aligned with the new reforms proposed in the Bill and, most importantly, that identity verification of the officers of the corporate director can be carried out.

It is the Government’s intention that any corporate director be as transparent and accountable as a natural person and therefore we intend to make our corporate director regulations come into force alongside the regulations enabling identity verification. Introducing those regimes will be one of the implementation priorities post Royal Assent. I repeat my commitment to the Committee that the regulations will be brought forward.

I understand that the intention of new clause 57 is to ensure that limited partnerships should always have a partner who is a natural person, in order that the person might be contacted in relation to that limited partnership’s activities. Clause 108 inserts proposed new section 8K into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907: the new section places a duty on limited partnerships to have a registered officer who is a natural person for any general partner who is a legal entity and goes on to place strict duties for notifying any changes to that person to the registrar.

The duty in the proposed new section applies only to general partners and not all partners because limited partners are not permitted to engage in management activities. The objective of the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Barking would not be met if a limited partnership’s only natural person was a limited partner, because they would not be permitted to correspond with or act in relation to a notice from the registrar.

New clause 58 targets the misuse of limited liability partnerships in opaque corporate structures. While I sympathise with the intent, I cannot support the new clause. UK limited liability partnerships have been named in a number of international money laundering scandals. Many of those will have partners that are solely corporate structures. I am concerned about the abuse, but just as with companies, there can be legitimate reasons why a limited liability partnership might have all corporate partners. For instance, an investment company might a manage a pension fund for a limited partnership. The investment company would be the general partner and manage investments for the limited partners, which generate pension income. It is important for us to get the balance right.

--- Later in debate ---

I look forward to hearing the Opposition’s views in due course. I trust that my explanation and assurances will satisfy the Committee and that the new clauses will be not be pressed to a vote.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That was a very useful contribution, and I thank the Minister. Through these new clauses we are simply trying to strengthen transparency so we know who is behind the corporates structures. Before the Minister was in his post, the Government themselves cited in their White Paper on corporate transparency three massive scandals: the Azeri scandal, Danske Bank and the Moldova bank fraud. All of those involved limited partnerships or limited liability partnerships, which have the features of a corporate entity acting as a partner and were located offshore in one of the secrecy jurisdictions. We are trying to get at that with these new clauses. If we have not got them quite right, I look forward to the Minister coming forward with other propositions.

It is the opaque corporate structures that hide the true identity of the individual who owns or controls a company. That is a classic way that bad people hide their dirty money. This is not an exception—I know that the Minister likes to sometimes say that, but the recent Transparency International analysis of limited liability partnerships found that one in 10 had the identical characteristics to entities that are involved in serious financial crime. That is quite high, and just another red flag. These companies were a newly formed identity, entered immediately into deals and laundered the money or were suspected of laundering the money. Very shortly after the wrongdoing, they closed the company. An awful lot of times I have come across companies with no financial history. They never submit any accounts to HMRC and claim that they have no assets in the accounts. A company might be using nominees and secret offshore jurisdictions, which we have talked about.

The other interesting thing in the Transparency International evidence, which the Minister might want to reflect on, is that out of the 1,532 companies that they looked at, 94% had at least one corporate partner with a registered address in one of 21 high-risk jurisdictions—the BVI, Belize and so on. I like to have these little stories to tell: there is the bottle laundromat that the Minister will know well, which ended up with £750 million being laundered out of Russia, stolen from the Russian people between 2014 and 2016. Some 130 companies were used. They falsified sales to Russia of bottle-making machines. They never really produced the machines, but in paying for them, they got the money out of Russia. There were three UK LLPs, all of which had two or more offshore corporate partners from one or more high-risk jurisdictions behind them.

This is not an insubstantial problem: it is a big problem. These are not just exceptional occurrences; they occur with too much frequency. What we are trying to do here is not a silver bullet, but we think it is part of the jigsaw that needs to be put together to improve transparency and therefore make things more difficult for people who engage in money laundering and other crime and for people to hide who they are. We are just saying that one natural person should be listed on the board. I am a bit unclear as to whether our proposal would actually achieve that or whether there are other ways of getting to the same objective, one that I think we probably share. I do not know why—I find it a bit odd—we in the UK are offering UK legal protection and privileges, things like limited liability or the rule of law, and sort of by accident we are offering anonymity to people offshore who are not in the least bit troubled by UK law, because they are completely beyond its reach. It seems to me that the current structure enables that to happen.

The new clauses would ensure that partners or members could no longer hide behind offshore corporate partners and members without a named individual being on the line for—held to account for—any wrongdoing. We will still, I know, get nominee directors. Trust and company service providers will still put themselves forward as the named people, or people working in TCSPs will still do it. But I think that this proposal would help with raising red flags and enabling Companies House to focus its activity on those areas where there is the greatest danger.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a pleasure to speak to these measures. We have had quite an extensive debate, so I will make just some limited remarks on clause 107 and new clauses 57 and 58. Clause 107 is a very important clause, inserting a requirement on registration for confirmation that a limited partnership’s proposed general partners are not disqualified under the director’s disqualification regime. It also inserts, under proposed new section 8J, a new duty to take steps to remove a general partner who is disqualified. If general partners fail to do that, they will be liable to an offence.

Those requirements are extremely important. I think that some of the debate is just on where some measures perhaps do not go far enough. In summary, we support the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking on new clauses 57 and 58.

I want to read out another contribution from Professor Berry. I think it is important to keep these contributions on the record in our discussions—recognising as well some of what the Minister has said. As Professor Berry set out in her written evidence to the Committee about the issue of corporate directors, ascertaining an individual acting as a director through a body corporate is certainly more opaque than if the director is just a natural person. The situation is very confusing, but I will read out what the professor said. She stated that

“the concept is demonstrably open to abuse, a ban”

on corporate directors

“was originally proposed in the interests of accountability and transparency, and a legal entity is incapable itself of carrying out the functions or duties of a director…Not only are corporate partners/LLP members a significant feature of wrongdoing…the attempts in the Bill to trace an individual somewhere behind them are so complex as to be unworkable in practice…impossible in practice for CH to check, and an obvious route for obfuscation by wrongdoers. E.g the concept of a named officer or of a managing officer of a corporate partner (and presumably of an LLP member), compounded by the fact that a named officer’s residential address can be redacted and they need not supply a service address.”

As the Minister reflects on our discussions and how we move forward, he should bear in mind the concerns raised by Professor Berry. Whatever is brought forward by the Government—however they have reconsidered it, and tested what it will do and mean in practice—does it pass the Professor Berry test, and meet the challenges that have been put to us regarding the legislation and what could otherwise slip through the net?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This batch of clauses we are considering introduces a range of penalties. Does the Minister agree that the use of those penalties should be part of the annual report to Parliament?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady makes a fair point. As I said earlier, that is the kind of information I would like to see reported, so that Parliament and the public can see activities surrounding the legislation and the regulations clearly and ensure that Companies House is doing its job. There should be a proper conversation with members of the Committee, the wider House, officials and indeed Companies House to determine what the appropriate measures should be, but the key thing is not the measures, but the outcomes. I think the right hon. Lady, like me, would be very happy if no penalties were applied, as long as our system was 100% clean. That is what we are aiming for, and ideally it is what our measures will achieve; to me, that is the most important thing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 111, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 112 and 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114 disagreed to.

Clause 115

Notification of other changes

Amendment made: 31, in clause 115, page 99, line 1, leave out

“10A (inserted by section 114 of this Act)”

and insert “10”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.

Clause 115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116

Confirmation statements

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Limited partnerships are tax transparent, meaning that the individuals that are part of the limited partnership pay tax, rather than the limited partnership itself. In many cases, the partners of a limited partnership will pay tax in the UK, either because they are individuals who pay income tax or because they are corporate entities that pay corporation tax. Where the partners are UK corporate entities, they will also provide accounting information to the registrar. However, there are some limited partnerships whose partners do not pay tax in the UK or which are not legally required to provide accounting information to the UK Government.

The clause will give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require the general partners of UK-registered limited partnerships to provide accounting information to HMRC, closing the current gap. General partners who do not comply with that requirement will commit an offence and be liable to a fine or imprisonment.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That sounds like a good idea, but HMRC is absolutely hopeless at using such powers. Time and again with these limited partnerships where scandals have emerged, it appears companies have told HMRC that they are dormant. They have not submitted accounts, and HMRC never checks up on them. What steps will the Minister take to make sure that those useful powers are used?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks. The clause is extremely important for HMRC, providing clarity around accounts and accounting information and what tax should be due. It gives HMRC powers to request information and inserts a new section into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 to create a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that require general partners to prepare accounts and, on request, make accounting information available to HMRC.

We very much support the measure. We want enhanced powers for HMRC to help with the detection and prevention of economic crime, and indeed the paying of rightful tax through better accounting information and submission of tax returns. I support the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking asked about how we can ensure that HMRC uses the powers in a useful way.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

Clause 147 raises a number of concerns for us, which I hope the Minister will be able to address. It aims to change the procedure for updating the Treasury’s list of countries designated as high risk due to serious deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing systems, which was established by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The clause will enable the Treasury to update the list directly, without the need for regulations, in effect removing the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise any changes to the list.

During the passage of the 2018 Act, there was cross-party consensus on the need for any UK list of designated high-risk countries to reflect international standards, primarily by mirroring the lists maintained by the Financial Action Task Force. The problem with clause 147 is that it appears to enable the Treasury to make any future updates to the UK list, even in ways that diverge from the FATF lists, without any opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise or debate the proposals. Given the zeal for deregulation that we have often seen from the current Government, it takes no great stretch of the imagination to foresee a situation in which the Treasury determines that the FATF lists are unduly stringent and that certain countries and territories should be removed from the UK’s list of high-risk countries, even in cases where issues identified by the FATF remain unresolved.

Looking at the relevant impact assessment, it seems that the intention is to enable Ministers to update the list “more swiftly” when needed, thus making the UK’s list more “responsive” to emerging developments than is possible under the current system. But even if the aim is reasonable, the methods are questionable. For one thing, the 2018 Act stipulates that regulations updating the list of high-risk countries are subject to the affirmative procedure, under which Parliament is given the opportunity to retrospectively review changes that have already been made by the time the regulations are published. Together with the fact that updates are generally needed no more frequently than once every three months, this does not seem to place an undue burden on Ministers.

The changes made by clause 147 do not seem proportionate to any identifiable problem with the current system. The Opposition therefore strongly encourage the Minister and his colleagues to revisit the clause, on the basis that a convincing case for the need to remove Parliament’s oversight of this process has not been made.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I concur entirely with the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, but I want to ask a couple of questions.

First, the Minister will know that we are considering how we can move from freezing the assets of people who are sanctioned to seizing them. One of the ways in which that could be facilitated, from the advice I have received from various non-governmental organisations and lawyers, is to have a sort of kleptocrats list. I wonder if he would take that idea away and, in considering the request for greater parliamentary oversight, look at whether we could designate particular jurisdictions as kleptocracies. All the advice I get indicates that that would make it easier to do the seizing as well as freezing. Of course, in relation to Ukraine, that would mean that some of the £18 billion that has been seized from Russia could be recommissioned and used to help us rebuild Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I think that there was a slight misunderstanding, but we will move on.

Clause 158 confers on the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to make consequential amendments that arise from the Bill. I want to raise a general point: the Minister did speak to this, but perhaps he could say a little more about examples of where the Secretary of State might need to use the power. Perhaps it is written somewhere, but I am not fully clear whether any changes that come through secondary legislation to the Act itself—I think that is a Henry VIII power in this clause—would be taken through the affirmative procedure.

It has been a general theme of debate though our proceedings that we need to make sure that there is sufficient provision for the transparency, scrutiny and accountability of changes, as well as for accountability of the Secretary of State’s use of powers for the reporting that there should be on how well the provisions are working. The power to make consequential amendments comes at the end of the Bill in clause 158, but it is a Henry VIII power that means that amendments to primary legislation can be made. That is different from the power to make regulations under secondary legislation, which we have been debating.

The Government have said that the power is needed to ensure that other provisions on the statute book properly reflect and refer to provisions in the Bill once it is enacted. I want to be clear about what the scope of the use of this power would be, how it is intended and how it would be reported on. Would an affirmative or negative procedure be used to make any changes under this clause?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

We have raised a number of amendments to the Bill during the course of consideration in Committee, many of which I consider to be technical and things that would improve the processes. All those amendments so far have been rejected. I wonder whether, rather than bringing us back at a later stage as the clause proposes, the Minister would undertake, together with his ministerial colleague, to look again at some of those amendments, which are really just practical, pragmatic amendments, with a view to bringing them back. Would he bring them back on Report?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will answer the second question first, if I may. I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and I will look with great interest at the suggestions that the right hon. Lady has made. As she knows, we share many similar ambitions. We will have a look at those suggestions with officials. Certainly, there are some that we think could improve the Bill—I do not think there is any great debate about that—and I will make sure that we keep her informed. Her contribution and help, not just today and on the Bill, have been enormous, and I pay enormous tribute to the work that she has done over many years in fighting money laundering and different forms of economic crime.

On this specific power, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston raises a very important point, which is that the clause does give large consequential provision to the Government to change aspects of the Bill. I understand the concerns that she raises. The nature of the Bill, however, is that it has quite a consequential impact on other elements of legislation, as she herself has highlighted. Therefore there are knock-on elements that will no doubt require minor redrafting and changes at various different points as the Bill goes into law. I am afraid that is slightly the nature of these operations, as she understands extremely well. That is what this power is for.

It is worth saying that any significant or substantial changes that really do change the intent of the Bill should be brought back in primary legislation, because this is clearly a provision in order to enable the Bill to operate, not to change the intent that this House gives it.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

All the new clauses relate to the register of overseas entities. New clause 12 will mean that the required information that must be provided about an overseas entity, a corporate registrable beneficial owner or a managing officer will always include its principal office, rather than there merely being an option to provide its registered or principal office. The new clause will improve the quality of the information provided and align with the information required about other types of legal entities.

New clause 14 will ensure that overseas entities that provide the details of a managing officer who is under the age of 16, or who is a legal entity, must also provide details of a person who is more than 16 years old. This is to ensure that there is a person who can be contacted about the overseas entity, in addition to the relevant person who verified the information. It is possible that in jurisdictions outside the UK, individuals younger than 16 may be allowed to act as company directors, secretaries or equivalents. Directors of UK companies are required to be at least 16 years of age, so the new clause provides consistency by requiring the contact details of someone who is at least 16 years of age.

New clause 21 will update the language about penalties for non-compliance in section 34 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to reflect changes made by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. It will ensure consistency with the wording used in other clauses in the Bill.

New clause 13 will require overseas entities to include the title number for relevant interests in land that they hold in their application for registration, both when providing an update and when applying to be removed from the register. Overseas entities that are already registered will be required to provide this information when they next provide an update or, if sooner, when they apply to be removed from the register. The collection of this information will improve the effectiveness of the register and will help law enforcement agencies with their investigations. The information will not be made publicly available because the Government do not consider that to be appropriate, given privacy concerns.

Let me turn new clause 15. In advance of the launch of the register, the Register of Overseas Entities (Delivery, Protection and Trust Services) Regulations 2022 were made. Regulation 14 specified the circumstances in which a legal entity trustee is deemed to be

“subject to its own disclosure requirements”.

By virtue of a legal entity trustee being a registrable beneficial owner, the overseas entity must provide the required information about the trust and persons connected to it, such as beneficiaries, settlors and interested persons.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

This is an issue for clarification, because it impacts on whether we move our new clause 59. Will the information that we are now going to get about trustees and beneficiaries be made public? Will it be open to the public in the same way as other information about beneficial owners is open to the public? I ask because that is what our new clause would achieve.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will deal with that, if I can, as I go through. Essentially, trusts are often there to protect the identity of vulnerable persons, so I am not sure that the provision will do what the right hon. Member wants to do in her new clause, but we can probably discuss that when we discuss her new clause.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

So it does not do it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Without regulation 14, if the corporate trustee were not subject to its own disclosure requirements, the overseas entity would have to “look through” the legal entity trustee to find a registrable beneficial owner higher up the chain of ownership. But in the situations we are talking about it is information about the trust that is wanted, rather than information about the ownership or control of the legal entity trustee. Currently, regulation 14 therefore ensures that Companies House, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and law enforcement agencies receive the information about the trust and persons connected to it, which I think may be the point that the right hon. Member raises and which is much more useful to meet the aims of the register.

New clause 15 goes further by ensuring that a legal entity acting as a trustee is always a registrable beneficial owner whether or not it is “subject to its own disclosure requirements” and even if there is another registrable beneficial owner further down a chain of ownership. This maximises the transparency in respect of the involvement of a legal entity trust in a chain of ownership.

The provisions also provide a power to expand the description of persons who are registrable beneficial owners where the overseas entity is part of a chain of entities that includes a trustee. It is appropriate to have a power to expand the description, given that there may be complex arrangements that attempt to circumvent the requirements. The provisions revoke regulation 14 because it is no longer needed.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Thewliss]

I rise to support the new clauses in the name of the official Opposition, because Parliament will need to keep a close eye on how a lot of things in this Bill are being implemented and whether they are effective at tackling economic crime. We had a lot of debate in previous sessions about powers versus duties in the Bill and said, “If they are powers, that is one thing but if they are duties, that is quite another.” If these powers are being exercised, we need to be certain of that and keep a close eye on this Bill. These useful new clauses would allow Parliament to keep a close eye on these things, because they would require the Secretary of State to publish these annual reports to give more granular and specific detail on whether the measures brought forward in the Bill are being used and are effective.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I rise to make the simple point that the new clause is not a technical amendment; it is about an issue of principle. It is about transparency and accountability. It is not a provision that improves things at the margin; it is about making the legislation fit for purpose. Without it, the legislation will not be fit for purpose.

Throughout my history of learning about dirty money and money laundering, it has been absolutely clear to me that we have a range of tools already in legislation. As we do not have any accountability to Parliament as to how and whether those tools are employed, we do not know how effective we are in the battle against dirty money. Let me give three examples. There is now a new bit of legislation on unexplained wealth orders; it is the first time that I have known Ministers to agree to an annual report to Parliament. They agreed to it when we did the emergency legislation. I have been arguing for that for years, so I was pleased to see it, but until that moment we did not know, and we have not seen the report yet.

A better example is golden visas. We are still waiting for the report on golden visas, how they were abused, misused and used during that period, and who was let into the country on one. Another example is the amount of money that has been frozen from people who have been sanctioned by this Government. We do not have a clue how much that is. The Government put out a figure the other day for how much Russian state money had been frozen—£18 billion—but we do not have a clue how much money we have managed to get off some of the characters we know are sitting on billions.

If there is going to be effective legislation, we need clear transparency and proper accountability. That is something that the Opposition feel incredibly strongly about. We will be pressing the new clause to a Division, because it is a sensible, pragmatic and practical provision that should be in the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberavon for tabling their new clause. I also thank the right hon. Member for Barking and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central for their contributions. I agree with much of what they said. As they know, I fully agree that Parliament should be regularly updated on the implementation and impact of this legislation. What gets measured gets done, and it is vital that we know what is being done with this legislation.

I will speak to new clauses 26 and 28 first, because I think there may be a duplication of things that exist already. Much of the information suggested by new clause 26, such as Companies House expenditure and the numbers of companies incorporated and struck off, is already published in the Companies House annual report. Companies House already reports publicly on its activities and its regular statistical releases on gov.uk. On new clause 28, through dissolution a company is brought to a point at which it ceases to exist and ceases to appear on the register. A company can seek its own voluntary strike-off, or it can be struck of compulsorily by the registrar. In principle, that process takes place when there is reason to believe that the company is no longer in operation or carrying on business. In both cases, statutory processes ensue whereby the public generally are informed that the dissolution is in train by publications in the Gazette. There are opportunities for third parties to intervene and object to a company being dissolved.

Concerns have been expressed that unscrupulous companies choose to give the impression that they are defunct in order to precipitate their dissolution and evade creditors. That concern is ultimately misplaced, as any assets left in a company following its dissolution will not be held by the company any more, and will be passed to the Crown, bona vacantia—as ownerless property. It is also important to note the effects of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021, which amended the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 by introducing a mechanism for disqualifying directors of dissolved companies.

It is also worth noting that the 1986 Act includes provision not only for disqualifying directors but for ordering disqualified directors to pay compensation. That provision is in section 15A of the Act and, as amended by the 2021 Act, covers directors of both insolvent companies and dissolved companies. If a director is disqualified and the conduct for which they were disqualified caused loss to the creditors of an insolvent or dissolved company, the director can be ordered to pay compensation either for the benefit of specified creditors or by way of a contribution to the assets of the company.

The Bill introduces a new circumstance under which the registrar might seek to strike off a company that persistently fails to provide an appropriate registered office address. I assure Members that the registrar will initiate dissolution in those particular circumstances only after having assessed the risks of doing so. The normal notification procedures, by way of the Gazette and Companies House webpages, will apply.

As noted, Companies House already makes data on company dissolutions regularly available. I question what benefit the reporting proposed by the new clause would add, as it is not clear to me that the information it covers would necessarily be available to the Secretary of State. However, I acknowledge the concern about the manner in which compulsory strike-off operates. I have asked my officials to advise me on the extent to which the Bill’s new information-sharing provisions might improve safeguards and transparency in this area. I am of course happy to engage further with Members on this topic in due course.

Most of the comments related to new clause 63. I absolutely agree that there needs to be a mechanism by which progress made on the implementation of the provisions in the Bill is reported to Parliament. There should be regular reporting on the registrar’s use of the new powers. I also accept that it is important to give Parliament an early opportunity to scrutinise how quickly Companies House implements the reforms.

I believe, however, that the new clause requires further consideration. As drafted, it has the potential to place unintended obligations on the registrar. For example, it will require the registrar to report on the imposition of financial penalties before the commencement date of the regulations. It also requires the registrar to indefinitely report on the implementation of the legislation, even if it is completed in the near future.

With the agreement of the Committee, I would like to ask my officials to consider the new clause further. I hope Members are reassured that we will give it consideration. If the new clause is withdrawn, we will have further discussions about what we might put in its place.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his comments about the new clauses. I appreciate his response on new clause 63 and very much look forward to hearing from his officials about the proposed reports, but will he tell us when we will hear from them? None of us wants the measure to be lost in the course of proceedings, and we do not want it to be left to the Lords, so I would be grateful if he can tell us when he expects us to hear a response. Assuming that it will be positive, I am happy not to press new clause 63 to a vote.

On new clause 26, the Minister did not respond with the detail that I was expecting. I understand that some data is already published. We can have an argument about whether it is there, but it is easy for there to be a summary. If Parliament is looking at one document, it will want that data. It will want to review the later data in the context of the more procedural data that Companies House already publishes. I cannot see that it is onerous to publish a summary of data that already exists.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

In the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend, he said that there was duplication of subsections (1) and (3). All the other things that were listed in subsections (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) are issues on which we want an annual report to Parliament because that shows us whether the legislation is working. If there is duplication, it is not the end of the world. There is a lot of duplication in our legislation—I am sure, Sir Christopher, that you are an expert on that—but that is not a sufficient argument to put the whole new clause out of the Committee’s consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister. To clarify, he referred to coming back on new clause 63; my question is in relation to new clause 26 and whether and how the later subsections are all going to be covered by the Companies House annual report. It would be helpful if he responded to that, because currently I am not clear that they are all covered.

In new clause 26, we are asking for an assessment of whether

“the powers available to the Secretary of State and the registrar are sufficient to enable the registrar to achieve its objectives”

and about

“making recommendations as to whether further legislation should be brought forward in response to the report.”

Yes, there may be details elsewhere, but they could be summarised for the ease of use of the report. The new clause requires

“a breakdown of the registrar’s annual expenditure”

and

“data on the number of companies struck off”.

That information may well also be elsewhere. Will the Minister confirm whether

“the number of cases referred by the registrar to law enforcement bodies and anti-money laundering supervisors”

and so on is all going to published elsewhere?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

May I also draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 26(6), which is important? It asks for an annual report of the total number of companies incorporated to the registrar and

“the number of company incorporations by Authorised Company Service Providers”.

The purpose of that particular bit of information relates to our concern about the integrity and honesty of company service providers. I do not believe that is covered in the Companies House report. I accept that there may be some duplication—we got that wrong—but there are issues of huge importance in terms of accountability and the integrity of the data that we would lose if new clause 26 were simply ignored.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my right hon. Friend for explicitly emphasising the importance of subsection (6). She is absolutely right. The Minister will be mindful of the importance of transparency in respect of the issues relating to incorporations by authorised company service providers. Will he confirm that all the subsections in new clause 26 will be explicitly covered elsewhere? If not, we will want to pursue the matter of how that information is going to be published by Companies House and the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

People can speak in whichever order they wish. If the right hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman rise before you do, I will call them first. Let’s suck it and see.

New Clause 44

HMRC anti-money laundering function

“(1) The Commissioners of Revenue and Customs Act 2005 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 5 (Commissioners’ initial functions), insert—

‘5A Commissioners’ Anti-Money Laundering Functions

(1) The Commissioners shall be responsible for anti-money laundering supervision.

(2) The Commissioners shall treat the function in subsection (1) as a priority equal to the functions in section 5.’”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

This new clause would require HMRC to prioritise its AML supervisory function.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 72—Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision: powers and duties—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out a further power and duty for the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision.

(2) The power referred to in subsection (1) is the power to impose unlimited financial penalties on Professional Body Supervisors that fail to—

(a) adopt an effective risk-based approach to anti-money laundering supervision;

(b) impose proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance with anti-money laundering requirements; and

(c) fail to separate their advocacy and regulatory functions.

(3) The duty referred to in subsection (1) is the duty to publish the details of any sanctions imposed on Professional Body Supervisors, and its reviews of Professional Body Supervisors with data disaggregated by body rather than by sector.”

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will speak to new clause 72 first and come back to new clause 44. The Minister and the Government will know that time and again we have said we are concerned about the way in which professionals are checked, supervised and regulated in the financial services sector and that the current system is not fit for purpose. I think we all recognise that it is the professionals who play a key role in enabling the fraudsters and money launderers to successfully commit economic crimes. It is they who either facilitate, collude in or enable the wrongdoing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Can I just say something from my own business experience? We had two very thorough inquiries from HMRC, which spent days in our office looking at our money laundering procedures. I am pleased to say that we passed the test, but HMRC really does take its job seriously.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I do not know whether I have the quote here from the previous HMRC permanent secretary—I will dig it up and send it to the Minister—but he actually said, in evidence to the Treasury Committee I think, that he did not quite understand why it was part of his job to do the supervision. I am not quoting him accurately, but the purport of what he said was that they see it as marginal and a sort of add-on—I think he used the word “add-on”—to their main function, which is to get the money in.

The position and reputation that professionals enjoy through membership of professional bodies is really important. Therefore, the professional bodies themselves should be taking steps to minimise and attack suspicious activity where it takes place, and they should be calling it out. It is in everybody’s interest to get the bad apples.

Let me give some evidence of the current failings as we see them. The 2021 review of OPBAS—the body responsible for all the professional bodies—found that 81%, or eight out of 10, were not supervising their members effectively. This review was done only on the legal and accountancy professions. Half the supervisors did not ensure that their members were taking timely action to improve their money laundering procedures where they were found wanting. A third of the supervisors did not have effective separation between the advocacy role and the supervision role, which I think is an important aspect. For a proper review, one would separate bodies undertaking supervision and bodies undertaking advocacy to ensure there is no conflict of interest.

Some 60% of the firms visited by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2021 were failing to comply fully with their duties to have adequate AML controls in place. OPBAS found that nine supervisory bodies of MLR are engaging in what it calls “low levels of enforcement”. The way in which those bodies respond when they find something going on is to have a quiet chat rather than issue fines and publicly censure lawyers for breaching the MLR rules. The highest ever AML fine for a law firm by the SRA was £232,500, and it was for Mishcon. If that fine had been levied by the FCA under similar powers, it would have been £5.4 million.

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers, another group of professionals who are active in this area, imposed zero fines, despite finding that two out of three of the firms it is responsible for supervising were non-compliant with AML regulations in 2019-20. To use another example, the Law Society of Northern Ireland imposed just one fine—of £1,750—in the year 2019-2020, despite it finding 228 cases of non-compliance. That is a considerable body of evidence, if I may say so, that shows that the current system is broken and not fit for purpose.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation, a group I work with a lot, found that a third of the firms visited were non-compliant, but only four firms were disciplined for failure to provide renewal forms by the required deadline and fined for failure to submit appropriate criminality check certificates or to deal with the action points that had been raised with them in the review by CIOT of their AML procedures. In three of the four disciplinary cases by CIOT, a financial penalty was imposed, and only in the fourth was the member suspended.

I know that the Government are looking at the supervisory framework but, as is the way with Governments, that could take forever. We want to implement these reforms swiftly, so we must have some assurance and confidence, particularly because of the outsourcing of the checks on individual companies, that the professionals will seek out the miscreants in their profession. We cannot wait for the review, to put it bluntly. With these measures, we have taken the least of all the options the Government have put forward and proposed it for legislation. If the Government, on reflection, want to come back with a tougher regime, that is fine, but at least we would have the minimum in place as we enact the legislation and the reform of Companies House. Our new clause says, “Action now. Toughen up the powers and duties of OPBAS—introduce greater transparency into the system, and comeback if that is needed.” We are suggesting new powers and duties for OPBAS. The power is

“to impose…financial penalties on Professional Body Supervisors that fail to…adopt an effective risk-based approach to anti-money laundering supervision…impose proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance…and…separate their advocacy and regulatory functions.”

This is minimal, sensible and desperately needed now if we are to go ahead, with the speed that we all want, with the implementation of the legislation.

[Seema Malhotra]

I do not propose to spend much time speaking in support of the new clauses. The arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking have broadly said it all. She highlighted the high levels of non-compliance, the very low levels of fines and disciplinary measures, and the frustration of the sectors in terms of tools to really root out the rogue players who need action taken against them. The new clauses would be very effective and are much needed, for the reasons outlined—in trying to get action now, toughening up powers and providing greater transparency. For the reasons that I have outlined, I totally agree that the Bill is the right place for these measures. We should not have to wait and wait and wait for what is likely to come and will almost certainly draw the same conclusions.

New clause 44 would have the effect of amending the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 such that the commissioners would be responsible for anti-money laundering supervision, and it states:

“The Commissioners shall treat the function in subsection (1) as a priority”.

New clause 72 would introduce provisions requiring the Secretary of State, by regulations, to set out a further power and duty for the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision. This is defined as

“the power to impose unlimited financial penalties on Professional Body Supervisors that fail”—

that fail—

“to…adopt an effective risk-based approach to anti-money laundering supervision…impose proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance with anti-money laundering requirements …and …separate their advocacy and regulatory functions.”

We want stronger action taken against economic crime, not least because we know the scale at which it comes through the cracks, with the damage that it does to our economy. It seems to me that tightening up the roles and the performance of professional body supervisors and HMRC in some way is an opportunity that we should not miss.

The proposed clause would also insert a duty

“to publish the details of any sanctions imposed on Professional Body Supervisors, and…reviews of Professional Body Supervisors with data disaggregated by body rather than by sector.”

The sum of the two new clauses is to ensure the urgent improvement of the UK’s anti-money laundering sector. Throughout our witness sessions and Committee debates, we have heard about the lack of effectiveness of our AML system. I think that is a view also supported by the Minister. The changes are a much-needed strengthening and safeguarding against potentially rogue corporate service providers, the third parties who act on behalf of companies and can carry out the identity verification of directors.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and for Barking for their amendments, and I welcome the effort and energy they put into the oversight mechanisms that are so important in ensuring that the Bill is effective. That is the nice bit. They know what is coming next.

I do agree enormously on the importance of supervision, which has been emphasised, but I am afraid I cannot support new clause 44. Despite what the right hon. Member for Barking says, HMRC already has an anti-money laundering supervisory function and it does take its responsibilities extremely seriously. It supervises nine sectors and is the default supervisor for trust and company service providers where they are not already subject to supervision by the FCA or one of the 22 professional bodies.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I wish I had brought some of my previous notes with me. What evidence does the Minister have of that, apart from HMRC telling us that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It visited my business!

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am amazed that it did. Is there evidence of the number of visits or assessments carried out? I can remember a quote from the previous permanent secretary, who said, “It is not our core business.”

[Tom Tugendhat]

The core business of HMRC is raising money and ensuring that that money is clean. That is absolutely essential. Until HMRC works out whether or not the money is clean, it is hard to raise money. I would be hard pressed to describe my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary as a dodgy individual, but if he is going through these AML checks I think it is a good indication that HMRC is taking such matters very seriously. As I say, the checks are already being done and the responsibilities are held by branches of the Government, including HMRC and other professional bodies.

The amendments are therefore a duplication. The reality is that HMRC carried out 3,500 formal compliance inspections with businesses last year and issued over £2.5 million of penalties in 2021-22. That demonstrates that the business checks are not symbolic. They are not minor. They are extremely serious. HMRC takes them very seriously. I think the Government is entirely in agreement with the right hon. Lady that these checks need to happen, but the scale and type of reform to improve effectiveness and solve these problems is not yet clear. The Treasury will no doubt have many views when its formal consultation on the possible options opens. The consultation will ensure that the risks and implications of each option are fully understood before the Government commit to any particular model. The right hon. Lady knows very well that we need to get this right, not just to be quick.

On new clause 72, I welcome the desire to strengthen the UK’s anti-money laundering regime. I also share the support for the work OPBAS does. However, it is not yet the right time for the proposed changes, and I cannot support the suggested amendment. In June of this year, the Treasury published a review of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime, which considered the performance of the supervisory regime, including the work of OPBAS. It concluded that although there have been significant improvements in recent years, further reform is necessary to ensure effective supervision across the regulated sector. The review set out four options for reform, ranging from strengthening OPBAS to structural reform to establish a new statutory supervisor. Further policy work to develop these options is already under way, and the Treasury has committed to publishing a consultation before a decision on the direction for reform is made. It would be wrong to preclude the ongoing policy analysis and public consultation by making the changes proposed by the amendment.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I heard the Minister’s words with gloom. Initially, the Government put out a consultation with four options, and to speed it up, we decided to go with the weakest of the options—the one to which there would be the least objections. What I think I just heard him say, which is so gloomy, is that the Government will now publish a further consultation. All this stuff in the Bill will come into being and we will have absolutely no assurance that proper checking, regulation and supervision will be carried out on company service providers.

[Tom Tugendhat]

As I say, this is really a matter for the Treasury, and it has committed to publishing a consultation before the decision is made. It would be wrong of me to preclude the ongoing policy analysis and public consultation by making—

[Tom Tugendhat]

I have had many conversations with Treasury colleagues in recent weeks and months on various aspects of the challenges that economic crime poses to the UK. Many of us are committed—in fact, the Treasury is very committed—to ensuring that economic crime is reduced in this country. The support that the Treasury has given in various different ways has resulted in many things, including a very successful operation conducted this morning by the Metropolitan police that resulted in the arrest of many people connected to economic crime. That may sound tangential on the grounds that it is about fraud, but the reality is that all of it is connected. We see a very strong overlap between money laundering, fraud and various other different forms of economic crime. The Treasury, unsurprisingly, is extremely committed to making sure that economic crime in this country reduces. The Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are absolutely committed to making sure that we considerably reduce the level of fraud in this country.

What is important now is to ensure that we make OPBAS as effective as possible, and that we look for some of the reforms that we have started to highlight, because that means that the changes required by the amendment will be unnecessary. I hope that we can focus on that aim.

I have just been given a statistic that records that in October 2022, HMRC named 68 estate agents that had breached anti-money laundering regulations, and fined them a collective total of £519,000. We can see that the supervision of estate agents is not just conducted by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary but by many others around the country and is taken extremely seriously.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I hear what the Minister says, but I think we will just be setting up another duff register unless we get the regulation of those company service providers toughened up at the same time as we introduce the Bill. I want to press new clause 72 to a vote.

[The Chair]

You will not be able to do that now, and in the meantime, you must seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw new clause 44.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Thank you very much, Sir Christopher. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 50

Requirement for UK-resident director

‘(1) The Companies Act is amended as follows.

(2) In section 156B of the Companies Act 2006, inserted by section 87 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) The regulations must also include provision to require all companies to have at least one director who is ordinarily resident in the UK.”’—(Stephen Kinnock.)

This new clause would amend the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 to require all companies to have at least one person who ordinarily resides in the UK as a director.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stephen Kinnock]

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

New clause 49 sought to ensure that the provisions of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which require company directors to be natural persons, would be brought into force. The Opposition welcomed the Minister’s commitment to introducing the necessary regulations to enact that measure in the near future, and we are very pleased to have that on the record. At the same time, however, the Opposition remain convinced that there is much more that the Government could and should be doing to reduce the risks of money laundering and economic crime within the company registration requirements. The new clauses we are about to discuss provide a number of different means by which the law could be further strengthened against the risk of such abuses.

New clause 50 would make it a requirement that every company registering in the UK has at least one director who is ordinarily resident here. I have already spoken in Committee about the risks that often come with a system that allows companies to register in places to which they have a tenuous connection in terms of actually doing business there. Although there may be certain limited circumstances in which it might be legitimate for a company with no UK-based directors to register with Companies House, I am struggling to see what they might be. On the other hand, I can think of plenty of reasons why the fact that a company has no UK-based directors might be considered a red flag for money laundering risks, calling for additional scrutiny from the registrar.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I would.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My right hon. Friend may well wish to do so.

I think that any member of this Committee will understand what I mean when I refer to certain “usual suspects” in cases involving financial dealings that, even with the most charitable interpretation, can only be described as being questionable at best.

The language that was ultimately added to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 reflected a recognition from Members of all parties and in both Houses that the same standards requiring open, publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership should apply to both the UK and its overseas territories. It also reflected the widespread consensus that if we wanted to ensure that the overseas territories played by the same standards, we should be prepared to use sticks as well as carrots.

The result of that consensus was the provision in section 51 of the 2018 Act that any overseas territory that had not established a beneficial ownership registry in line with the standards of our own by the end of 2020 should be subject to direct legislation by an Order in Council. As I have already mentioned, the Government practically had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point where they accepted that provision in the first place. However, as subsequent events have demonstrated, the real problem is that Ministers have interpreted section 51 of the Act so creatively that in effect they have completely undermined if not the letter then certainly the spirit of the law.

It seemed clear to those who pushed for section 51 of the 2018 Act that what it required was for beneficial ownership registries to be in place by the end of 2020, whether as a result of the overseas territories’ own legislation or an Order in Council. According to the spin the Government chose to put on it, its obligation had been met simply by the publication of a draft Order in Council, regardless of when, or even whether, such an order might actually come into force. The result is that we are here yet again—almost five years later—still discussing how to ensure the implementation of registers to the same standards across all of the UK’s territories. Surely it should not be beyond the wit of Ministers—even in this Government—to have sorted this out by now—[Interruption.] I am just checking that hon. Members are still awake on the Back Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am certainly not arguing against the spirit of the new clause. I add my thanks to the right hon. Member for Barking and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who took great action on this matter way before I became interested in the whole subject—although it is true to say that I took an active interest from the Back Benches on ensuring that we address this issue.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of our approach as being hands off. I do not consider 250 pages of legislation as being hands off at all. There is much we want to do and agree on, and I have to agree with what I said previously. The hon. Member for Aberavon may regard me as poacher turned gamekeeper, but I do not see that at all. I still want to ensure these measures are in place. In fact, we should go further than his new clause, and I will explain that in a second.

When amendments were tabled to the Bill that became the 2018 Act several years ago, we were clearly in a very different place. All inhabited overseas territories have now committed to introducing publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership, and the UK Government expect them to be in place by the end of 2023, so there is a deadline on which the order could be placed. As well as overseas territories, we have committed to asking the Crown dependencies to also do that, and that does not feature in the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, so it is important that this goes further than he set out.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister is correct in what he says, but could he deny the rumour I have heard, which is that they are trying to get around ensuring public accountability by charging anybody who wishes to look at the register by entry? If a charge is levied for entry to everything that appears on the register, that would diminish the intended public accountability.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not aware of that. Clearly, it is important that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies respect the will of Parliament and the spirit of the will of Parliament, so we would be very concerned if that is the case.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I have raised this issue with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who now sits in the Foreign Office, but I do not think it is entirely within his portfolio. Will the Minister agree to pursue the issue? If that is the way they have tried to avoid or play down the intent of Parliament, it is a very serious matter.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not think we should operate on the basis of rumours, but I hope that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies will be following this debate with interest. We want them to follow both the spirit and the letter of the legislation that is implemented. The information should be publicly available—that is the clear intention.

This is a major commitment that will put the overseas territories and Crown dependencies ahead of most jurisdictions, and it will be a vital element of promoting greater transparency around the control and ownership of companies. I have sought assurances that it is not a hollow commitment. The FCDO is providing support to the overseas territories through Open Ownership, a respected and expert NGO, to ensure that each territory can progress its publicly accessible registers, and significant progress has been made. For example, Gibraltar’s register is already live, so it will be interesting to hear about the right hon. Lady’s experiences of that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister has jogged my memory. It was actually from the implementation of the Gibraltar register that I heard that, although it is live, there is a charge for accessing information.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That may be something that the right hon. Lady will investigate. I am happy to make the commitment that we will do so as well.

The Cayman Islands has completed a consultation on the approach to its register, and the technical work to hit the target date is under way. The BVI recently passed primary legislation to enable the framework for regulations to be made for its register in preparation for the end of 2023. Smaller overseas territories are also working with the FCDO to update their systems to allow public access to this important information. Notably, in Anguilla the FCDO financed a completely new register, which is designed to allow public access.

The effect of new clause 53 would be to move the timeline forward by only six months for the overseas territories. All the territories are now willingly implementing publicly accessible registers and putting significant effort into the policy, despite the fact that most jurisdictions around the world are not doing so. To move forward an agreed timeline would not show good faith in our partnership with the territories. I can commit to keep the House regularly up to date on progress with the territories, and the UK Government will continue to work collaboratively, and as equal partners, with the overseas territories on their commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

We touched on this issue last week. The new clause is what I consider to be another perfectly sensible, rational, pragmatic amendment that enhances transparency and accountability. It would ensure that the legislation worked effectively rather than ineffectively, as we think will be the case at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The word “trust” in this context sends shivers down all our spines. I understand the rationale behind the new clause, but the right hon. Member for Barking is right in that I will state my position.

There is a key matter here. The right hon. Lady cited a couple of examples, one a trust and one a company, where she implied a disguised ownership of certain assets. The current requirements of legislation are that information about a registrable beneficial owner of a trust is displayed publicly. If someone is a beneficial owner, their name is revealed publicly. She might argue that that person could be lying, but they can lie about ownership of anything—“I don’t own any of this and do not exert control”—as we have discussed before.

The amendment makes all trust information available, even if that sits below the 25% or whatever ownership there might be of the trust or its benefit.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Usmanov is the better example, although I could have talked about Gutseriev or Fedotov, or about Azerbaijan—I had a debate in the House on the leading family of Azerbaijan. The reason all those things hang together is that the beneficial ownership is passed to a daughter or sister, or the shareholding is below 5%, and we are creating all these legal loopholes that enable the Usmanovs, Gutserievs, Fedotovs and all those people to hide their real control of an asset. That is really the point. That is what we are trying to get at—having it out in the open. What we have said constantly with our amendments is that if there are minor flaws with the way we have put them together, we are happy to listen, but I am absolutely certain that the principle behind them is correct.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I just do not think that is right. The right hon. Lady might not have meant this exactly, but even if ownership is reduced—this goes for a company more than a trust—to below 5%, the amendment would not even solve that issue, would it? The legislation requires the beneficial ownership to be registrable and for there to be openly available information. Of course the person who is entering that information could lie. A lawyer or accountant could lie. But now they are subject to a criminal sanction for doing that if it is proven. As has been mentioned, information around trusts is a concern. It should raise red flags with Companies House. That information can of course be shared.

The other thing I would say is that trusts are used for legitimate purposes, including to protect the privacy and safety of children, for example, and other vulnerable individuals. The ECTE Act allows the registrar to disclose protected trust information to HMRC, and regulations will soon be made to allow the registrar to disclose the information to other persons with functions of a public nature, such as tackling crime.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister often says this, but there are two issues here. If the trust or any of these entities are for legitimate purposes, the people involved should have absolutely no fear of transparency. That is the fallacy in the argument. If nobody is doing anything wrong, they should not worry about the information being public. If there are really good reasons, as there occasionally may be, for keeping confidential the name of a particular individual in a particular trust, we can and we are putting in legislation that covers those exceptional circumstances, but using the exceptional circumstance to justify the general rule is simply not good enough.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We may have to agree to disagree. The requirement to register somebody of beneficial ownership is quite clear. If there is a beneficial owner, that person will have to be publicly named. That is what we seek to achieve through this legislation, and that is what we think it does. There are some points in the amendment that we think are relevant, including potentially widening access to information in certain circumstances with certain authorities. We will consider that, but we cannot accept the totality of the amendment at this time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

He knows very well that I am not going to accept it. The way in which the new clause is set out cuts across many other aspects of law, and it would quite severely affect jurisprudence in this country. However, he is absolutely right to point out the issue, and it is worth taking a bit of time to explain how we intend to address it.

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, and I are extremely clear that this is an important aspect of legal reform that we need to see in the United Kingdom. It is important because it affects freedom of speech in this country, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, and because it has a certain negative influence on the legal environment in which, sadly, people have to operate. He rightly spoke about Catherine Belton, whose work in exposing many of the crimes of the Putin regime has been frankly exemplary and heroic.

It is important that we address this. The way to do that is not to treat it simply as an economic crime, which it is not. It is not just a crime that affects the economy of our country or the movement of dirty money. It is a crime that is about freedom of speech and the access to justice that many people in our county need. We should look at it more as an offence against a fundamental democratic value than as an economic crime. That is why the work is being done with the Ministry of Justice, for rather obvious reasons. We are ensuring that we have a piece of anti-SLAPPs legislation, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly calls it, that addresses the whole problem.

The UK is still leading the way on the issue at national level. We are not yet where we wish to be, but we are doing better than many others. It is worth remembering that many different groups are working on this. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is already doing a lot of work to review the 20 firms suspected of involvement in SLAPP activity. The SRA is shortly to issue its regulated professionals with another warning notice, which will provide guidance on conduct in such disputes. It has already outlined guidance on certain oppressive behaviours, and has expressly linked those to the growing focus on the use of SLAPPs in England and Wales.

As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill knows, there are many different tactics—aggressive letters, labelling correspondence and seeking to run up bills, as he rightly identified—that challenge people’s access to justice. They are exactly what the SRA is looking at and will be communicating with the MOJ about.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

First, will the Minister describe the action that, according to him, the Government are taking? I do not understand what action they are taking.

Secondly, the new clauses that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill tabled were written by a group of lawyers who support the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. They are not like the new clauses that we put together—they have been given considerable consideration—so I do not quite see how they could be bad law. They have thought this through.

Thirdly, there is a real tendency—I say this with the greatest respect and affection for the Minister’s work—for Ministers to shift a bit a paper to the left or right and do nothing with it. It is the easiest thing to do. We have described this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the world; I plead with the Minister to grasp it and accept the new clauses. Let us move forward, rather than shifting the paper aside.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am surprised to hear the right hon. Lady speak so negatively about her other amendments and new clauses. New clause 64 is not the only one that is well drafted; others have been as well. New clause 64 focuses, quite rightly, on getting anti-SLAPP provisions into the Bill, but it would extend the reach a bit further than we could take. I am happy to look further at the issue. I am happy to listen carefully to the opinions not only of the right hon. Lady, but of the people who advised the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, on different approaches to the question. I am extremely happy to listen, but I am afraid we will not accept the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Member is not just a practising solicitor, but clearly also a recovering solicitor. The SRA has been on the front foot in wanting to crack down on some of the bad behaviour. We had this debate in January on the Floor of the House; it was one of the best debates I have seen in 18 years in this place. What became clear was that, although there are some in the legal profession who do have to operate on that cab-rank rule—they have to step forward and plea in favour of people who are at the front of the queue—there are others who have choices about who they represent. The truth is that here in London there are groups of lawyers, such as Schillings—there are many others—who are making millions out of some very bad people. In fact, those people are so bad that they have subsequently been sanctioned, in this country and around the world.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the SRA were to fine those solicitors who engaged in that sort of false litigation—it is phony litigation—it would be a little cost on business given the millions they are making? Abramovich, for example, is worth, as far as we know, £12 billion. If he spends £50 million on a legal case, it is peanuts to him, and it is certainly peanuts to the solicitors who are subject to fines by the SRA.

[Liam Byrne]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the whole strategy behind a strategic legal action against the public participant is not to win: they just want to damage their opponent to such an extent that they cannot afford to tell the truth.

It has been a disappointing debate, and it will disappoint many of the people who are watching and following it. It is unfortunate timing, because the anti-SLAPP coalition is coming together for its second annual conference on Monday, when it will publish a draft and more comprehensive law. We have not had a date from the Minister as to when the Government may have listened and brought forward a more comprehensive argument. If the argument is that the measures I am moving today are too fragmented or nugatory, that is fine, but let us hear the date for when a more comprehensive solution will be proposed. The Secretary of State for Justice has said it will be forthcoming but has not provided the date. That was the point of the new clauses: we want to know the date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful for the intent behind new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. He has an absolutely valid point—we need to equalise the firepower between some of the organisations. We have a fundamental challenge, because we cannot assume that arising from the actions of a UWO, which is not a human rights action but to do with civil litigation, costs should fall on the losing party. We must look at how to balance the different elements.

My own inclination would be look more at how we fund our agencies to do this work. Some members may have heard that I once was in the Army. The way the armed forces does such things is by having two different forms of budget—the ongoing budget and the war reserve. I am much more inclined, and much more persuadable, towards the argument that we should be making sure that the agencies that take on such claims have a war reserve to ensure that they can meet the costs without that affecting their ongoing work, rather than changing the law in a way that would affect civil liabilities in many different areas.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

To be honest, I do not think that would prevent the impact that the fear of incurring costs would have on how any of the agencies operate. Everyone in the House has great respect for Bill Browder, and I am sure that the Minister will have talked to him about the issue, and I know that the Under-Secretary has, too. Bill Browder is completely shocked and astounded by the fact that we allow any costs at all to be claimed by successful litigants when they challenge Government action.

I do not know whether either Minister had the chance to meet Judge Mark Wolf, who is over here campaigning for an international anti-corruption court. I do not know whether they have come across him. He was here last week and, when we talked about such litigation, he expressed absolute astonishment that defendants in any of these cases, have the right to any of their costs being met. In America, looking at those figures, great success comes from that hugely important lack of ability to claim costs.

[Tom Tugendhat]

It is worth pointing out that the Americans do not use unexplained wealth orders, which, after all, are civil litigation, because they do not have them. Therefore, the question of costs does not apply in the same way.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I would not use the example of unexplained wealth orders. They have not worked in the way that we had all hoped and intended. On the failure to prevent bribery, if we think of the acts that the Serious Fraud Office has been engaged in—I think it is with Serco, where they face a couple of million pounds in claims and costs. It goes right across the panoply of tools that we have to fight economic crime.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Nineteenth sitting)

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands]

I appreciate the Minister’s response. To pick up on a couple of his points, he said that there are already remedies available, but as we have seen there are far too few for employees who suffer at the hands of a nasty business owner. We have all seen such cases on the news or from our own case loads.

The Minister mentioned the regulations governing covid loans. Clearly, that is a very specific example, and he makes a fair point, but that is not the case for all public moneys. However, this is a probing provision and would require further work before I sought to test the Committee or the Chamber with a vote. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 71

Suspicious Activity Reporting: risk rating

“(1) The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection 339(1) insert—

‘(1ZA) An order under subsection (1) must prescribe that a risk rating be included as part of a disclosure.’”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

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

I will be on my feet for a bit, so I will try to be succinct—I know that Members have other things to do this afternoon. [Laughter.] It may be impossible for me. I want to say quite a lot about this new clause.

New clause 71 is about reforming of the suspicious activity reports regime. Ministers will accept that the SARs regime is a central tool in our defence against money laundering, but I hope they also accept that the current system is broken—it is not working. The new clause would introduce a new risk rating system, which would transform the efficacy and efficiency of the current regime.

SARs are very valuable and a vital source of intelligence. They are made mainly by financial institutions, but also by solicitors, accountants or estate agents, and they report suspicious activity. They have been absolutely instrumental in a range of successful actions against criminal activities, locating sex offenders, tracing murder suspects and identifying those involved in online child abuse, and they have shown how young women are trafficked into the UK. They have also been instrumental in closing down fraud and money laundering.

To give one example of a successful case involving fraud, a vulnerable elderly man in his 80s was the victim of a fraudster who had gained his personal details through a cloned website, when the elderly man believed that he was making a genuine investment. The reporter who saw the transaction going through was suspicious when the fraudster tried to impersonate the victim and access his main funds. He reported the transaction, and the UK Financial Intelligence Unit, which operates the SARs regime, received that report. The unit immediately passed it on to the enforcement agency—I wish this happened every time—which visited the victim in his house. The agency was then able to quickly contact the institution where the transaction was supposed to take place. It reported that the suspicious activity was wrong and confirmed the real identity and bank details of the elderly man, which all prevented him from losing in excess of £80,000.

This scheme is therefore important, and it is successful when it works well. However, at present, the sheer volume of SARs and the limited resources available mean that the information is not analysed and often simply not used. In evidence to the Treasury Committee, Mark Steward, the director of enforcement at the Financial Conduct Authority, said:

“More needs to be done in order to get more out of the valuable data that is in there. Otherwise, it just sits there.”

Graeme Biggar, also giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, as director general of the National Economic Crime Centre, said:

“Twenty years ago, we got 20,000 suspicious activity reports in, largely from banks. This year, we would not be surprised if we got three quarters of a million, and the number of defence against money laundering SARs, where we are told in advance and given the option to refuse permission to proceed, is going to double, we think, this year. The sheer volume coming through is really significant and very hard to deal with.”

According to research from Spotlight on Corruption, only 118 people handle the SARs. That is one employee to 4,250 SARs. The Australians, who have a similar enforcement regime, and who have also experienced an explosion in SARs, have a staff complement of one to 1,400—three times better than our own. The Committee has often talked about the relative budgets for enforcement of the UK and the USA. The USA has increased funding of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by 30%, and its staffing by 50%. The Minister should recognise that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s budget is now 15 times larger than the National Crime Agency, although our population is only five times smaller than America’s.

The Financial Action Task Force review in 2018 said SARs should be reformed, and SARs were criticised by the FATF. The Treasury Committee report in 2019 talked about SARs reform. In 2017, the Government had announced a reform programme for SARs, led by the Home Office together with the NCA. That reform programme constituted action 30 in the economic crime plan. The intent was to have an IT transformation, better analytical resources and capabilities, and an improvement in SARs processes. That SARs programme was reviewed by the Government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority, and was given an amber rating in 2021. So reform started in 2017, the programme was given an amber rating in 2021, and today, in 2022, it is not complete and there is no timetable from the Home Office—maybe the Minister can help with that—or a target date for completion, which was a criticism the Treasury Committee made of the programme. Delivery was originally promised by December 2020, but we are two years on from that and we are a long way from seeing SARs completed.

In that context, new clause 71 introduces a risk-rating regime. I do not think anybody thinks that is a crazy idea, and I hope the Minister will—just for once—adopt one of the suggestions that the Opposition have made in Committee. I hope he will not say that we do not need the legislation. We are nearly six years on from when the reform programme was announced, and reform has not happened. The Government cannot, despite the best efforts of right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), ignore legislation, although they seem to be ignoring the desire to reform the SARs programme.

If Ministers want action, which they have consistently said they seek with the Bill, they should accept new clause 71. If they simply see this measure as party political, they should not. We do not deal with the funding issue in the new clause, but we will ensure that the focus is on the most significant SARs. That will lead to more enforcement. I urge the Minister to adopt our new clause.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a pleasure to speak briefly in support of the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking. It would amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 such that any disclosure made as part of the suspicious activity reporting regime must include a risk rating. My right hon. Friend outlined very effectively the reasons why the new clause is important. Much of the evidence in our meetings at the outset of the Bill, which set out the context and stakeholder views, it was clear that the SARs regime was failing. The databases of referrals were going unreviewed and unlooked at, because the resources were not there. There was no effective means that we could see of prioritising SARs fed into the NCA.

SARs is an essential tool in our defence against money laundering, but if the system is not working, something needs to happen. Having an extra step in the process to help with prioritisation, look at risks and deal with those identified as higher risk would help, as my right hon. Friend outlined, to bring in quality, at a time when we know that quantity is the new battle. She said that the current estimate is three quarters of a million referrals, which is extraordinary. Given the scale and types of economic crime, the number of referrals is likely to get worse, not better. That is a good thing if we are starting to highlight and refer more cases as we start to clean up our systems. However, we then need to deliver on that; otherwise, the downside is that we will reduce confidence among those doing the referrals that anything will actually happen.

Nigel Kirby of Lloyds Bank said in his evidence to the Committee:

“I think the SARs regime and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 itself actually need—well, not necessarily to be turned upside down, but to be looked at as a whole.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 19, Q26.]

I think we have some agreement that the system itself is important, essential and necessary but that it needs wholesale reform to make it more efficient and effective and to ensure that it does what we ask of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

We all think that SARs is a helpful regime. I wonder whether the Minister has been given the information by the NCA. It got more than half a million SARs, but how much of that data did it use to get the millions that it got in? That is a heck of a lot of data, which should yield a huge amount of valuable information.

[Tom Tugendhat]

First, not every SAR leads to an actionable offence. Many of them are simply, and quite rightly, reports. They are reports because there are suspicions, but suspicion does not necessarily mean guilt. Many times these are companies that are taking on clients or that have clients who are suspicious, and they want to be sure they are doing the right thing so, responsibly, they report in. We should not confuse the absolute number of reports with a level of criminality. That would not be fair on the British population, those doing the reporting or the NCA, which is looking into these things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am trying to untangle what the Minister said. If he is open to further discussions, I do not think that there is a rating regime. All we are saying is that there should be a rating regime so that the most urgent cases come at the top. My understanding is that that does not exist. There may be some form of triaging that I am not aware of. We just want to introduce a rating regime. If he is willing to engage in discussions before Report, I am happy not to put the matter to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 72

Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision: powers and duties

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out a further power and duty for the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision.

(2) The power referred to in subsection (1) is the power to impose unlimited financial penalties on Professional Body Supervisors that fail to—

(a) adopt an effective risk-based approach to anti-money laundering supervision;

(b) impose proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for non- compliance with anti-money laundering requirements; and

(c) fail to separate their advocacy and regulatory functions.

(3) The duty referred to in subsection (1) is the duty to publish the details of any sanctions imposed on Professional Body Supervisors, and its reviews of Professional Body Supervisors with data disaggregated by body rather than by sector.”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 74—Failure to prevent fraud, false accounting or money laundering: director liability—

“(1) If an offence under section [Offence of failure to prevent fraud, false accounting or money laundering] is committed by a body corporate and it is proved that the offence—

(a) has been committed with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body corporate, or

(b) is attributable to any neglect on the part of an officer of the body corporate, the officer (as well as the body corporate) commits the offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘officer’ means—

(a) a director, manager, associate, secretary or other similar officer, or

(b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will speak for a little longer on new clause 73, but hopefully we will get through the others more quickly. It is probably one of the most important new clauses that we have tabled. It sits with new clause 79, which we will come to a little later. If we can make progress on this issue, we will be putting some better meat on the bones of what is still quite timid legislation.

We all want to do all we can to prevent economic crime from occurring in the first place. Prevention and early intervention is obviously the best, cheapest and most effective way of tackling the problem of dirty money. We want to stop it happening in the first place. We also all know that much economic crime takes place because lawyers, company service providers, accountants, bankers or estate agents either enable or collude with bad actors, helping them or turning a blind eye to the things that they do, thus enabling money to be laundered, crime to be committed, and our systems to be used to commit financial crimes.

There is currently too little in our laws and regulations that will stop the enablers—accountants and all the others—supporting and enabling economic crime. Companies and individuals are not held to account for what they do. The new clause aims to put a halt to that. We need to reform our outdated corporate liability laws so that not only companies but senior managers can be prosecuted if they fail to prevent fraud, false accounting and money laundering. It is not because we want to have endless prosecutions, or to fill prisons with these enablers, but because the threat of criminal prosecution will act as the best and most vital deterrent in preventing professionals from helping criminals to launder and manage their dirty money.

As we have said time and again in Committee, most professionals act with integrity. Those professionals with integrity have absolutely nothing to fear from the new clause. Indeed, the majority, who act responsibly, should welcome the change, because it will help us to clean up their profession, get rid of the bad apples and restore our reputation as a trusted jurisdiction. The Minister knows very well—I am trying to find the right Minister—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I know as well.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Both Ministers know that reform has been promised, and delayed, for a long time. The 2015 Conservative manifesto committed to making it illegal for companies to fail to put in place measures to prevent economic crime. The 2017 Ministry of Justice consultation on corporate liability reform sat for three and a half years. Inexplicably, it found that there was not enough evidence to pursue reform. I can only imagine that the Ministry was strongly lobbied. It said there was not enough evidence despite the fact that 76%, or three out of four respondents, said that the identification doctrine, which we will come to, inhibits the holding of companies to account for economic crime, and that two out of three respondents thought that corporate liability reform would result in improved corporate conduct. Despite all that, the Ministry chose not to pursue reform.

We then got the Law Commission’s review in 2022. It found that the current situation was “highly unsatisfactory” and that, on the status quo on corporate liability, “the identification doctrine”—for fraud and money laundering, the way in which we determine whether the people involved represent the “directing mind and will” of the company and can therefore be held responsible—

“is an obstacle to holding large companies criminally responsible for offences committed in their interests by their employees.”

The commission said that the status quo is “unfair” and that if the law remains unchanged it

“will continue to enable large companies to be acquitted for conduct which would see small businesses convicted.”

It also stated that that

“could diminish confidence in the criminal law”

and, finally, that the status quo incentivises poor corporate governance and

“rewards companies whose boards do not pay close attention.”

Given all that, I cannot think of a stronger indictment of the status quo.

There are endless examples of where our failure to modernise our criminal liability law has led to failure in the courts. The Barclays bank action is probably the most infamous, or famous, of them all. In 2008, during the financial crisis, Barclays wanted to avoid nationalisation and entered into a deal with Qatar, from which it received more than £11 billion and a loan of £3 billion. The bank, however, also set up what was called an advisory service agreement—in a sense, as I can say under parliamentary privilege, it was a bribe—and, under it, £322 million was given to those who facilitated the deal between Qatar and Barclays bank.

The Serious Fraud Office tried to prosecute the bank and its chief operating officer with charges of conspiracy to commit fraud and charges involving “disguised commissions”—in my interpretation, bribes. The court threw out all the charges, saying that the alleged criminal dishonesty of senior officers “could not be attributed” to Barclays. So the chief executive could not be held responsible for what the bank did, because the chief executive was not the bank, but reported to the bank. It was a crazy judgment. The court also dismissed cases against other individuals, as they could not be defined as the “directing mind and will” of Barclays.

There was, then, a Barclays fiasco, but there were other examples, such as the LIBOR rate-rigging scandal. No criminal prosecutions were brought, although the individuals prosecuted gave evidence that their managers knew what they were doing, so the company itself was liable. If the Minister for Security will allow this comparison, the US brought criminal enforcement action against 12 of the banks in the LIBOR scandal—British banks—and extracted $3.4 billion in criminal fines. Other examples include HBOS—to which the Under-Secretary often refers—Serco and the tagging contract, London Capital & Finance, and so on and so forth.

In 2022, four parliamentary Committees called for the reform of corporate criminal liability legislation. In February 2022, the Treasury Committee urged the Government to

“act quickly in bringing forward any legislation flowing from the Law Commission’s review. In the meantime, corporate criminals will continue to be able to escape prosecution for economic crimes.”

I probably do not have to quote this one, as the Minister might remember it, but the Foreign Affairs Committee called for

“reform of outdated and ineffective corporate criminal liability laws which mean that it is difficult to hold large companies to account for economic crimes.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, I remember it very well.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Anyway, I thought it was a speech in favour of the intent of this new clause.

Failure to prevent offences have proved effective elsewhere, as the Minister himself has said. We use them to tackle bribery and tax evasion, and the Minister always raises the best example when he refers to what used to go on in the construction industry. In my youth, people would regularly have terrible accidents on construction sites, some of which were fatal. It was only when a duty was introduced for those who ran construction companies to ensure the health and safety of their workers in the workplace, meaning it would be a criminal offence if they failed to do so, that miraculously, overnight, deaths on building sites came almost to a 100% halt. We have lots of examples of where a failure to prevent does not end up with people being locked up but does change behaviour. That is what we are trying to do.

I have lots of examples of areas where the Bribery Act 2010 has been successful and this is not one. This is the last legislative opportunity we will have in this Parliament to put into effect something that Members across the House think is important. There is so much evidence from so many bodies emphasising the importance of this bit of legislation. I cannot see any argument for delay. Before they reached their great, really important roles on the Front Bench, both Ministers argued passionately, frequently and loudly for this reform. I hope they will accept the new clauses, together with new clause 79, on the identification principle. With the inclusion of those three new clauses, we can hold our heads up high and say that we have done good work in Parliament.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking. The passion and eloquence with which she spoke was exemplary in terms of reminding us about what is at the heart of the Bill and one of the top priorities that we want to achieve. I do not want to say much more; how can I follow that?

New clause 73 would introduce a new offence of failing to prevent fraud, false accounting or money laundering, and new clause 74 would extend that offence, so I shall take them together. In effect, the new clauses would extend current failure to prevent offences beyond bribery and tax evasion to other economic crimes, money laundering and fraud. The offences would be applicable both to companies themselves and to senior managers or directors.

The Labour Front Bench team welcomes the new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking as vital to help to drive cultural change and corporate governance standards for the prevention of economic crime in the UK. They would also standardise criminal rules for holding companies to account across different economic crimes.

The call for this change is supported by a number of stakeholders, including Spotlight on Corruption, which made the following argument in written evidence to the Committee:

“Most urgently, a new failure to prevent fraud offence would help address the UK’s serious fraud epidemic. Fraud accounts for 40% of all recorded crime, but fraud prosecutions have fallen from 42,000 in 2011, to 13,500 in 2021 in the last decade, a 67% decrease. According to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): ‘an extension of the “failure to prevent” model to fraud, false accounting and money laundering would be unlikely to require companies to do more than what they would already be expected to do under the current law (which relies on the identification doctrine) but it would enable prosecutors to hold them to account more effectively where they fail to do so’. The heads of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the CPS have both recently called for new failure to prevent offences.”

I refer the Minister, in addition to the stakeholders that support the call for change, to his own words on Second Reading. I will not replay his greatest hits—that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has already done so—but he has stated clearly that he sees this offence as “the No. 1 measure” that we need. The Opposition fervently hope that both Ministers will agree with their former selves that this is the No. 1 measure we need in the prevention and detection of economic crime. We urge the Conservative Front-Bench team to accept the new clause as a necessary and urgent provision to tackle economic crime that would have support across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am delighted to speak on the new clause. As the right hon. Member for Barking correctly identifies, it touches on many areas that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have spoken about on numerous occasions, and we are not alone in having done so. Section 172(1)(b) and (d) of the Companies Act 2006 speaks about the interests of employees and of the community being the responsibility of directors as well, so having an emphasis on directors’ responsibility in corporate legislation is not new. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has also spoken about it in building safety legislation, which the right hon. Lady cited.

There are many different examples of our recognition that the interests of the whole of society and of the whole United Kingdom are better protected when directors understand that they are there not simply to advance shareholder value, but to further the interests of the whole community of their employees and wider society in actions and responsibilities they undertake. Although I see all of the responsibility laid out and I take very seriously the point the right hon. Lady made, we still need to do a little bit of work on how this can be made to work. There are arguments, some of which hold water, about whether the 2017 money laundering regulations include elements that already cover some of these areas, and there are arguments about whether the Law Commission will want to look at different bits of this. I can assure the right hon. Lady that I will look at this extremely seriously, because she is absolutely right that the Bill offers an opportunity to introduce different reforms. I will look to make sure that any opportunity is fulfilled as quickly as possible.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Companies Act 2006—I cannot remember which section. In the days when Tony Blair changed our jobs every year, I was lumbered with taking through the biggest Act in Parliament. We deliberately put that section in, in the face of massive opposition. At the time there was a front page story in the FT that said, “How dare you talk about any interest but shareholder interest?” But the provision has stood the test of time, I am pleased to say, and I am glad to hear him cite it.

I do not want to embarrass Ministers today by putting the issue to a vote. I know that they feel strongly about this, but so do we—really strongly. The Bill will not pass any litmus test of its potency if the new clause is not included. I know there will be resistance because the professions that would be subject to the new potential criminal liability are very strong in lobbying. They are probably strongly lobbying the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, as well as the Treasury and other Government Departments. I say to Ministers that they have to resist that lobbying with every bone in their bodies, because this is not an attack on any profession. There ought to be a new offence that cleans up the profession, and we will pursue this issue right through every phase and stage of the Bill’s passage.

I want to say one final thing to the Minister. Of course we need to make the new clause work, but for goodness’ sake, we have the same offence in the Bribery Act and the tax evasion legislation, and it works perfectly well.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady makes a very important point about vested interests. We have previously discussed the influence of people who may not be keen on these kinds of clauses. I would say to anybody in the financial services sector who is making these claims that there are potentially huge benefits from preventing fraud across the board, because 70% of online fraud, which costs banks a lot of money, comes from platforms, and this kind of legislation could make the platforms responsible for removing content. So the sector could see benefits as well as potential new obligations.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister for reinforcing my argument. I would add simply that the same is true of the online harms Bill. If we had director liability there, I think we would see a lot of the online harms disappearing, but that is for next week.

On how the new clause would work, we can mirror processes that take place in other bits of legislation. To say that it is already covered is a nonsense, because we would not have had the failure of the Barclays case and all the other cases that I cited to the Minister had we already put in place legislation that was appropriate for ensuring that companies and their directors are held to account. I will not put the matter to a vote, but this is a hugely important issue. I look forward to our debating it further at other stages during the course of the Bill. I wish Ministers well in their attempts to get it past the Government, but if they do not, Parliament will do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 75

The Economic Crime Committee of Parliament

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a body to be known as the Economic Crime Committee of Parliament (in this section referred to as “the ECC”).

(2) The ECC will consist of nine members who are to be drawn both from the members of the House of Commons and from the members of the House of Lords.

(3) Each member of the ECC is to be appointed by the House of Parliament from which the member is to be drawn.

(4) The ECC will have the power to meet confidentially.

(5) The ECC may examine or otherwise oversee any regulatory, enforcement or supervision agencies involved in work related, but not limited to—

(a) tax avoidance and evasion by corporations;

(b) illicit finance;

(c) anti-money laundering supervision;

(d) tackling fraud;

(e) kleptocracy and corruption; and

(f) whistleblower protection.”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

I have been promoting accountability for years now. In the work that I did with the Minister as we thought about how we could tackle economic crime and turn round the tanker, we always said there were four ways in which we had to respond. One was through having not more regulation, but smart regulation. The second was through tough enforcement. The third was through broad transparency—the ruling of the European Court of Justice last week is an absolute nightmare that could create real difficulties for us in the economic crime space. The fourth was accountability, and with the new clause we are suggesting a way for us to have that accountability.

There is interest in this subject across the House. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) has written a paper on these issues. Can we find a mechanism for holding the regulatory bodies properly accountable to Parliament for what they do?

A lot of these questions arose when I chaired the Public Accounts Committee and we first started looking at tax avoidance. The rule is that everybody should be equal before the law in tax, but there was always a suspicion that sweetheart deals were being struck with certain big corporations and high net worth individuals. In fact, early on we came across one involving Goldman Sachs; on the back of a story in Private Eye, we uncovered a sweetheart deal. To this day, though, I do not understand whether Google is paying the correct tax or whether there is a deal there, and I could say the same about a lot of the big multinational companies. Because of the confidentiality of taxpayers’ interests, Parliament has no way to get the information that it needs to assure itself that the tax authorities are treating all taxpayers equally.

I have worked with all the agencies in this area—the NCA, the Serious Fraud Office, the Metropolitan police and so on—so whistleblowers, or just people who come across something that is wrong, often come to me, and I give the case to one of the agencies—and that is the last I ever hear of it. I always pursue the cases, but all too often I get the response, “Oh, there are security reasons for you not being given the information.” There was the Savaro case, which I referred to BEIS at the time. It went through BEIS and I still do not know whether anybody was pursued. Certainly, there were people behind that explosion in Lebanon, which led to so many deaths and loss of property.

I think that Parliament needs a better hold on what is happening and better accountability around how those agencies are operating. In the new clause, we suggest that we mirror the Intelligence and Security Committee, which meets under Privy Council terms. The proposed economic crime committee could be a Committee of both Houses, meeting under Privy Council terms and overseeing all the regulatory bodies in this space—in financial services and economic crime. It could call for papers relating to individual cases, which would remain confidential because the ECC would meet in private. The ECC could then produce reports on systemic changes that are necessary, arising from consideration of those individual cases.

I think that that would massively improve accountability, as well as the performance and effectiveness of the agencies. With that information, members of the ECC would have a better understanding of what, if anything, they needed to do as legislators to improve the situation. I believe that this committee will happen one day, but I am proposing it today as a new clause in this Bill. I know that the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden and those who support him in this mission would be happy to support me today, and I hope that Ministers give it a good hearing.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am happy to support new clause 75, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, which would require the Secretary of State by regulation to establish a body to be known as the economic crime committee of Parliament.

The new clause is driven by and based on the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability. Our call for those two principles to be adhered to is important because it recognises that the structures for reviewing progress, and scrutinising and reviewing economic crime, are simply not good enough. There is too much siloed thinking. This aspect of scrutiny does not sit neatly within BEIS, the Treasury, the Home Office, or the Ministries of Defence and of Justice; it really spans the waterfront, yet those Departments are all vital parts of what should be a systemic approach to tackling economic crime.

The proposed committee would consist of nine Members drawn from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, with each member of the ECC appointed by their respective House of Parliament. The ECC would have the power to meet confidentially; it could examine or otherwise oversee any regulatory enforcement or supervision agencies involved in work related to, but not limited to, tax avoidance and evasion by corporations, illicit finance, money laundering, fraud, kleptocracy, corruption, and whistleblower protection.

We welcome the new clause as it would introduce a vital mechanism for transparency and accountability within the Bill. If the Minister does not agree with it, we hope that he will acknowledge that the existing mechanisms are unfit for the kind of joined-up, systemic, expert-driven scrutiny that is needed to keep pace with and keep ahead of economic crime. Throughout this Committee’s proceedings, my colleagues and I have tabled amendments and new clauses designed to increase the scrutiny and transparency of the measures that the Bill will introduce, so as to ensure that when they are implemented, they are as effective as possible. If the Minister is not able to support the new clause, Parliament and the country more broadly would need him to come up with something better.

--- Later in debate ---

How the House decides to scrutinise the ministerial and bureaucratic elements of the Government is up to the House. The right hon. Lady can see that I am a strong supporter of parliamentary scrutiny, and there are ways that it can be done without a Committee. Some have argued—but not on this in particular—that we now have so many Members on so many Committees that a quorum is sometimes difficult; whether it would be in this or not, I cannot possibly comment. While I understand her point, I will not support this for the reasons that I have identified, but I sympathise entirely with her intent.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am sure that, in that spirit, the Minister also accepts that scrutiny by the Executive is different to scrutiny by the legislature.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Of course.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

What we are seeking is scrutiny by the legislature. I take what he said, and will reflect on it. There is cross-party support for this concept; whether we have got it quite right is open to debate, and we will have to find another means of getting it debated in the House. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 76

Whistleblowing: economic crime

“(1) Whistleblowing is defined for the purposes of this section as any disclosure of information suggesting that, in the reasonable opinion of the whistleblower, an economic crime—

(a) has occurred,

(b) is occurring, or

(c) is likely to occur.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, set up an office to receive reports of whistleblowing as defined in subsection (1) to be known as the Office for Whistleblowers.

(3) The Office for Whistleblowers must—

(a) protect whistleblowers from detriment resulting from their whistleblowing,

(b) ensure that disclosures by whistleblowers are investigated, and

(c) escalate information and evidence of wrongdoing outside of its remit to another appropriate authority.

(4) The objectives of the Office for Whistleblowers are—

(a) to encourage and support whistleblowers to make whistleblowing reports,

(b) to provide an independent, confidential and safe environment for making and receiving whistleblowing information,

(c) to provide information and advice on whistleblowing, and

(d) to act on evidence of detriment to the whistleblower in line with guidance set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(5) The Office for Whistleblowers must report annually to Parliament on the exercise of its duties, objectives and functions.” —(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

This new clause relates to another issue on which there is cross-party support: reform of whistleblowing. It has been put together for me, although it is in my name, by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), who leads the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing. I must put it on the record that she has been a fantastic campaigner in this area and an outspoken champion for the countless courageous individuals who have dared to speak out. As she rightly says, for most of those individuals whistleblowing has shattered their lives, with many losing their health and livelihood. What we are talking about here is really important.

Our new clause would introduce an office for whistleblowers, which would protect the whistleblowers and ensure that their disclosures are investigated and information provided is passed to the relevant authorities. In clause 4, we set out ways in which whistleblowers would provide that service. I think that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is the Minister replying to this debate; I know that he is passionate about this topic, because he has said so on lots of occasions—most recently on Second Reading on 13 October, when he said:

“We do not protect or compensate whistleblowers, and that is wrong. Those people do the right thing and come forward but—not to put too fine a point on it —we hang them out to dry.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 309.]

He went on to say:

“It is pointless having lots of law enforcement people charging around not knowing where to look. Whistleblowers tell us where to look. Some 43% of all financial crimes are identified through whistleblowers, yet it is something we do not talk about. We do not just need more regulators; we need somebody to point us in the right direction. Regulators will always be watchdogs, never bloodhounds. We need the bloodhounds in the organisations who are willing to speak up if things are going wrong.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 121.]

Hear, hear to that, but let us have some action arising out of those passionate words.

Whistleblowing plays an absolutely key role in addressing economic crime, whether it is for money laundering or other crimes. Think of the Panama papers 2016—we would never have had them—or the Paradise papers, the Russian and Troika laundromats, the Azerbaijan laundromat, the FinCEN files and the Pandora papers. Let us look at just one of those—the Panama papers—which were 11.5 million legal documents held by the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. It basically made its money by creating offshore companies and bank accounts to launder and hide the money. The story was given to a German paper, then 370 journalists got involved in investigating the data, working in 80 countries.

Just think what came out of that. Twelve current and former world leaders were named in those papers. There was a $2 billion trail to Putin through his close friend Sergei Roldugin, known as Putin’s wallet. The money went all over the world, including into an upmarket ski resort in Leningrad owned by a company funded by this dirty money and where Putin gave his daughter a sumptuous wedding. The Icelandic Prime Minister resigned off the back of the papers. The Pakistani Prime Minister was removed from office due to allegations of corruption and fraud.

Through the leak, some £1.2 billion of tax revenue was restored to 23 national Governments. In the UK, there was an extraordinary list of the rich and powerful, from Kevin Keegan to Nick Faldo, Lewis Hamilton, Tiger Woods, Gary Lineker, Madonna, Keira Knightley, Simon Cowell, Nicole Kidman, the Barclay brothers, Stuart Gulliver of HBSC, and political figures like Arron Banks, Michael Ashcroft and the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). They were all named and exposed.

Going back to my Public Accounts Committee days, the work we did all came from whistleblowers in the area of economic crime. I referred earlier to the Goldman Sachs sweetheart deal. That emerged from a whistleblower—a lawyer working in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We had a very frustrating session. We knew something was going on, and we interviewed the head of tax at HMRC, but he would tell us absolutely nothing. I then got a bundle of papers from a lawyer who was working there, and in that bundle was a sheet of paper that had on it two things. It said that a meeting was held by the head of law, and he had said that the head of tax had shaken hands on the deal, which the head of tax had denied at the Treasury Committee. He also said that the deal was unconscionable.

We called back the head of tax and head of law and interrogated them. They still said nothing. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) said to me, “Put the guy on oath. He might tell you something.” That had never happened in a Select Committee. I turned to the clerk, who told me that I could put him on oath, and said, “Go and find a Bible.” It took them 20 minutes to find a Bible. But the point is that all that from a whistleblower led to the trail that I think has certainly ended up with me being on this Committee considering the Bill today.

What is so terrible about that story is that the then head of tax left public service, and I asked the person who became the permanent secretary in HMRC every time she appeared before the Committee, “Are you looking after that whistleblower? Is he okay?” She always gave me assurances that he was, but actually they raided his computer and telephone. His marriage broke up, and in the end life became so intolerable that he had to leave public office. It is one of the things I feel great shame about really—that I was not able even in that position to protect him, even though it was his revelations that enabled us to start discovering what was going on.

Whistleblowing helps everywhere. It is a vital way of revealing wrongdoing in all sorts of sectors. It was a child sex abuse whistleblower who helped reveal the child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. The NHS is full of workers who blew the whistle on things such as the lack of personal protective equipment. The Public Accounts Committee saw another example, relating to Serco, where a GP contract was done in Cornwall but they were lying about their performance. A whistleblower came to us, but Serco’s response was simply to rifle through everybody’s lockers to try to find out who the whistleblowers were. Serco was not interested at all in the fact that the information it provided was inaccurate, or in trying to improve the quality of the service.

Interestingly, whistleblowers in America are treated very differently, particularly on the issue of compensation. To give one example, in the JPMorgan case, there was a $45 million settlement after two whistleblower employees at a Georgia mortgage broker alleged that the bank had scammed a programme that was intended to make it easier for veterans to qualify for loans, and had submitted fraudulent claims to the Government. The whistleblowers were awarded $11 million. Facing the same charges, Wells Fargo later settled for $108 million. A whistleblower revealed massive robo-signing at the four banks that were the country’s largest mortgage providers. The companies had allegedly relied on a company called Docx to forge signatures on thousands of mortgage documents. The suit was settled for $95 million, and the whistleblowers received $18 million for helping to expose the fraud.

The Minister well knows the facts that I will give him now. In 2018, 40% of whistleblowers reported going on sick leave—that is the pressure in the workplace. Only 4% of whistleblowers who bring claims under the current legal structure succeed. Of the 1,041 whistleblower reports submitted to the FCA in 2021-22, only three have resulted in any significant action. The Minister must agree that enough is enough. We in this country cannot go on failing to treat whistleblowers with the respect, support and advice that they deserve. Our new clause starts the process of reform. It does not do everything—for example, it does not do financial compensation—but it is a start.

Finally, please do not just say, “We are looking at this.” Do not tell us you will come back. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady makes an interesting point about how compensation works in the USA. She will be aware that Protect, the most high-profile whistleblower organisation in the UK, is against a compensation scheme similar to that in the USA. There is good reason for that: very few whistleblowers in the USA actually get compensation, which is one of the flaws in the scheme. Does she agree that we must think carefully about how we introduce whistleblower reform? It needs to be well thought through, rather than simply rushed.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I agree that we have to think carefully, but setting up an office for whistleblowing, which is what our new clause would do, could be the start. We might get some proper expertise in there, so as to think through some of the more complex issues.

Minister, grasp the opportunity and agree with our proposal. It would set up a new office—a central place for any would-be whistleblower to come for advice. It would support regulation in organisations. It would be a central place for setting standards, monitoring, evaluating and reporting. It would ensure that those who inflict or suffer detriment will be properly held to account or properly compensated. An office for whistleblowers would drive up standards across both the private and public sectors, increase transparency and restore public confidence. Whistleblower discrimination is a global problem, and the new office would set a global standard here in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think this is the last occasion I have to address the Committee, so I thank all Members for their contributions. We have had very constructive debates throughout the days that we have looked at the Bill. I thank the officials for all their work in these areas.

Not for the first time, I am very sympathetic to the new clause and to the previous one on failure to prevent. Nothing I have seen or heard since I started as a Minister only a few weeks ago has changed my mind on the things I have said in the House and other places about the need for whistleblower reform and failure to prevent reform. There is no conspiracy behind the scenes here. There is a difference between arguing against the principle of something and arguing against the provisions of something. That is where we probably differ a little.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central said, I have said before that 43% is the stat for the discovery of financial crime. In my experience, it is much higher than that—about 100%. Everything I have dealt with has been brought to the attention of authorities through whistleblowers, not least Ian Foxley, my constituent who was very important to the case on GPT Special Project Management Ltd that the right hon. Member for Barking referenced. He was the bloodhound in that case. We need those bloodhounds.

Since taking over as Minister with whistleblowing in my portfolio, I have asked officials to prioritise this review and to get it moving properly, and that is what we have committed to do. There are differences in where we go with it: do we do something to address the cases like Ian Foxley’s and the others the right hon. Lady references? Sally Masterton addressed those cases. Do we do something longer term and more complex? It is either low-hanging fruit or something more radical.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has done fantastic work in this area. I am keen to engage with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) to make as much progress as we can as quickly as we can. Ian Foxley’s case is interesting because he was prevented from getting compensation. He was very successful in getting that case highlighted and the authorities successfully prosecuted it, but he was denied compensation because the PIDA rules on what it describes as an employee did not cover his particular category. That is a relatively easy issue to fix and something I want to look at.

The other part of the current legislation is around prescribed persons. There are 80 prescribed persons at the moment: people to whom others can make a protected disclosure. We are extending that this week when I introduce a statutory instrument on extending the number of prescribed persons to whom whistleblowers can go to seek assistance. Indeed, some of those prescribed persons are in this room. Members of Parliament are prescribed persons, as are some Ministers, but so too are our agencies. That is probably my biggest concern.

I took the case of Sally Masterton, who was key to highlighting the HBOS Reading scandal, which I have referred to many times in Parliament, to the Financial Conduct Authority. When I asked Andrew Bailey, who was then the chief executive of the FCA, whether he had followed his own whistleblowing procedures in relation to Sally Masterton, who was terribly mistreated by Lloyds Banking Group, he refused to answer the question because I was not a relevant person, under the relevant legislation. That is quite astounding, when it was Parliament that legislated to introduce the whistleblowing protections in the first place.

There are things that we need to do quickly that would address many of the problems, but we have done much. We have improved the guidance on what a prescribed person needs to do. We have a requirement on people to make public annual reports on what they have done in terms of whistleblowers, but I am keen to hold regulators’ feet to the fire in this area. I ask the right hon. Member for Barking not to pre-empt the review that I am urgently undertaking, because she knows how serious I am. I would like to bring forward effective reform very quickly, and to effect change more quickly. I fear that the new clause would delay the reform, when we can make progress by other means.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I hear what the Minister says. I simply say to him that finding legislative time will be a battle, so I hope that he has some mechanism to get the reform through.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are things that we can do without primary legislation that could move much more quickly.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I hear that. This matter will be debated by others on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 79

Identification doctrine

“(1) A body corporate commits an offence listed in Schedule 8 where the offence is committed with the consent, connivance or neglect of a senior manager or senior managers.

(2) An individual is a ‘senior manager’ of an entity if the individual—

(a) plays a significant role in—

(i) the making of decisions about how the entity’s relevant activities are to be managed or organised, or

(ii) the managing or organising of the entity’s relevant activities, or

(b) is the Chief Executive or Chief Financial Officer of the body corporate.

(3) A body corporate also commits an offence if, acting within the scope of their authority—

(a) one or more senior managers engage in conduct, whether by act or omission, such that, if it had been the conduct of only one representative, that representative would have been a party to the offence; and

(b) the senior manager who is responsible for the aspect of the organization’s activities that is relevant to the offence — or the senior managers collectively — fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent that offence being committed.”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

This goes with the failure to prevent, so I will not speak to the new clause. It literally just sorts out the legalese to ensure that we can get at companies and their directors.

[The Chair]

Order. Does the right hon. Lady still wish to move the motion?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes, because I want it on the record. I am just conscious that Members want to get on, and that the argument is the same.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We fully welcome the new clause, which we think is very important to ensure that all perpetrators of economic crime are caught and dealt with.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I merely point out that, while the new clause addresses many of the points that the right hon. Member for Barking has raised before, it also raises many of the same challenges. For that reason, I will object to it.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will not at this point press the new clause to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 80

Forfeiture of recoverable property obtained through economic crime

“(1) Where the conditions in paragraph(2) are fulfilled, a notice may be served in accordance with subsection(4) by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Serious Fraud Office, or the Director General of the National Crime Agency (hereafter, ‘the Director’) upon the holder of an account held at a bank in the United Kingdom.

(2) The conditions mentioned in paragraph(1) are that—

(a) the Director has reasonable grounds to believe that property held in the bank account is recoverable property obtained as a result of an economic crime offence;

(b) in relation to the bank account or any property in the bank account, a consent request has been made to an authorized officer under Section 335 of the Proceeds of Crime Act;

(c) an authorized officer refused the consent requested;

(d) a court has granted an extension of a moratorium period for 186 days under section 336A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; and

(e) a court has granted approval to the Director to serve the notice.

(3) A notice under this section shall be a notice by way of representation and shall—

(a) state the name of the holder of the bank account to whom it is addressed;

(b) specify the details of the bank account and of the property or part of the property in the bank account which in the opinion of the Director is recoverable property;

(c) state a date on which, and a place and time at which, the holder of the bank account is required to attend a hearing of the Court to show cause why the property so specified is not recoverable property and should not be forfeited; and

(d) be served on—

(i) the holder of the bank account, and

(ii) the bank at which the account in question is held,

and if an address for service on the holder of the bank account is not known, service on the bank only shall be taken as sufficient for the purposes of this paragraph.

(4) In this section and section [ Forfeiture of recoverable property obtained through economic crime: summary procedure ]—

(a) ‘economic crime offence’ means an offence listed in Schedule 8 of this Act; and

(b) ‘recoverable property’ has the meaning given in section 304 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 81—Forfeiture of recoverable property obtained through economic crime: summary procedure—

‘(1) If the person on whom a notice under section [Forfeiture of recoverable property obtained through economic crime](3)(d)(i) served (the “respondent”) fails to attend the hearing as required by the notice, the Director may apply forthwith for a forfeiture order, and the Court may make such an order, without further notice to the respondent.

(2) If the respondent appears (whether in person or by a legal representative) at the hearing, the respondent may—

(a) at the hearing, satisfy the Court that the property is not recoverable property; or

(b) request that the question of whether or not the property is recoverable property be determined at such later date as the Court may order.

(3) If the respondent makes a request under subsection(2)(b), the respondent must provide an affidavit in answer to the notice within the period of 21days beginning with the date on which the matter is placed on the list, satisfying the Court that the property is not recoverable property.

(4) Unless the respondent satisfies the Court that the property is not recoverable property obtained as a result of an economic crime offence, the Court shall, upon the application of the Director, make a forfeiture order in relation to the property specified in the notice or any part of it.

(5) Property which is forfeited pursuant to a forfeiture order under this section shall be paid into the top slice of the Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme run by the Home Department.’

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will speak to this very quickly, too. This is an interesting new clause, because its purpose is to tackle the issue of suspicious wealth remaining frozen in bank accounts and serving no useful purpose. We propose a new, more straightforward, pragmatic solution to deal with suspicious wealth, enabling our enforcement agencies to confiscate the moneys in the bank and repurpose them so that much of the wealth can be used to fund and strengthen our anti-money laundering enforcement capacity and perhaps be given back, in some cases, to the nations from which it has been stolen.

When a banker sees a suspicious transaction, he or she is required to ask for consent from the police to allow the transaction to go ahead. If the police officer refuses consent, the moneys can be frozen in the bank account. Under our new clause, the money would then remain frozen for six months, and the director of the Serious Fraud Office could apply to the courts to confiscate or seize the moneys. They will be granted that application unless the respondent proves to the court that the funds do not have a criminal origin. The onus is on the respondent to prove that he or she has obtained the assets legitimately. The SFO does not have to prove that the respondent committed a criminal activity; it is up to the respondent to prove that the funds are legitimately and honestly acquired and are not linked to acts of criminality. The new clause is modelled on unexplained wealth orders.

This would add an important new weapon to our arsenal in the fight against economic crime, as it provides for the non-conviction-based confiscation of frozen assets. Although they are not my favourite people, the people of Jersey have introduced a very similar law and recently managed to secure £1.7 million that was frozen in accounts there. That was money paid to Lieutenant General Jeremiah Useni, who had held office in the Abacha regime in Nigeria, and the allegation was that it was the proceeds of corruption. Although he tried to get his money back, he could not, and a lot of the £1.7 million went back to Nigeria.

The British Bankers’ Association thinks that we have up to £50 million held in frozen accounts, untouched. We need a little touch of boldness from the Minister. He should not just accept the message of “resist” that he gets from his officials. He should give good consideration to this sensible, practical, good idea of seizing money stolen by bad people and giving it back to the citizens who have been robbed, or repurposing it to strengthen the fight against economic crime.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We welcome these new clauses, which would give effect to the Government’s stated intention to unlock the proceeds of crime held in bank accounts to fund law enforcement efforts to tackle economic crime. Their adoption would also optimise the potential of the defence against money laundering regime and streamline the process of UK law enforcement identifying tainted wealth and being able to seek its forfeiture.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the right hon. Member for Barking. While I agree with the intent behind her new clauses, I argue that they narrow slightly the scope in which the state can already recover much of the proceeds of crime. While they attempt to simplify, the reality is that we are already recovering large sums. I am not saying that we could not do more—we certainly could—but I am not convinced that the new clauses would add significantly to existing legislation. Last year, for example, a record £115 million of proceeds of crime were recovered under existing powers.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That is not a brilliant argument, but I will pursue this issue on Report, as we are doing with other issues around seizing and freezing assets. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 84

Compensation for Victims of Economic Crime

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 90 days from the date on which this Act comes into force, publish and lay before Parliament a strategy for the potential establishment of a fund for the compensation of victims of economic crime.

(2) The strategy may include provisions on the management and disposal of any assets realised by the government, or any body with law enforcement responsibilities in relation to economic crime, under relevant UK legislation.’—(Stephen Kinnock.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy on the potential establishment of a fund to provide compensation to victims of economic crime.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stephen Kinnock]

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

As this is the last time I will be on my feet, I thank the Committee; it has been an excellent set of debates, and I look forward to further constructive engagement with the Government on these matters.

The context of new clause 84 is the devastation caused by Putin’s barbaric and illegal war for the lives and livelihoods of Ukraine’s population. This demands a concerted cross-party and international effort, of which the UK should be at the forefront, as the staggering costs of reconstruction are sure to remain a key challenge long after the war itself has reached its inevitable end.

The new clause would require the Government to prepare and publish a wide-ranging strategy for efforts to ensure that the necessary financial compensation is made available to victims of economic crime, wherever they may be. This could and should be applied to victims of international crimes, of which the war in Ukraine is without doubt an example, but it could be applied more broadly as a means of providing a measure of justice to the victims of any other kleptocratic regimes around the world. The new clause would provide a mechanism for compensating victims of economic crime in the UK, including the thousands, or perhaps even millions, of British victims of online scams and other kinds of fraud. We therefore commend the new clause to the Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

As this is probably the last time I will speak in the Committee, I thank you, Mr Robertson. I also thank the right hon. Member for Barking for her input into the Bill not just today, but over many years and as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. The way in which she has championed tackling economic crime, drawn the House’s attention to it, and focused the country on the real threats that we have faced has been impressive to us all, and I am personally enormously grateful to her. She certainly helped my work enormously when I chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee, and she has now helped to focus my work as a Minister. I am very grateful that I have had the privilege of working with her.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I forgot to thank you, Mr Robertson, for chairing the Committee and for showing such an interest in what we are doing. I also thank the Ministers and Members of all parties who have spoken and participated. I look forward to working further to get even more into the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

If anybody thinks that I was trying to soft-soap the right hon. Lady in order to shut her up in future sittings, they do not know her very well. It would have not worked, and I have not tried it. All I have done is to pay credit to somebody who has definitely earned it. I also thank my fellow Minister and the Whips, who have got us through at lightning speed.

On the new clause, the powers in part 4 already increase the focus on victims. The compensation principles of the Serious Fraud Office, CPS, the National Crime Agency and others have committed law enforcement bodies to ensuring that compensation for economic crime is considered in every relevant case, including where there are overseas victims, so I believe that the Bill already focuses on many of the aspects that we have discussed. That said, we are coming to Report. As always, I will be listening, but I have yet to be convinced about the new clause, because I believe that it has largely been covered.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make a little progress, if I may. I appreciate that there are a large number of Government amendments, hence the need to make some progress. I would like to reassure the House that they are intended to ensure that the measures in the Bill will work as intended, and in most cases they reflect issues raised in Committee.

I will briefly summarise our amendments relating to parts 1 to 3 of the Bill. First, and importantly, our new clause 15 requires the Government to publish an annual report on the implementation and operation of parts 1 to 3, which includes reforms to Companies House.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will give way to the right hon. Member on that point, because her many speeches in Parliament have led to some of the changes we have made.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am very grateful that the Government have listened to our representations on accountability. I would simply say to the Minister that there is also a new clause down on this issue—new clause 16, put together by Back Benchers from across the House and members of the all-party parliamentary groups—which has more detail. Would he be willing to incorporate the detail of that amendment into his new clause? At the moment, his new clause 15 seems a little vague, and we would just like to button it down a bit better.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Again, we discussed this at length in Committee. The right hon. Member’s perspective is that we should be very prescriptive about how the registrar—Companies House—should operate and set out specific things it should do. We would prefer those at Companies House to do what they think is right. They are the experts at making sure the register is accurate, and we have given them the resources to do it, which is crucial. I think it is wrong to specify exactly how the registrar should do its job. We are parliamentarians, not experts in registers and Companies House.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way again. This is not telling Companies House what to do; it is the information that Parliament would want to hear. I think that, in discussions with him, he actually suggested we set out in greater detail the sorts of areas we wanted to cover, and that is what we have attempted to do in our new clause. It is not a question of instructing Companies House; it is a question of enabling Parliament to really hold Companies House to account on the breadth of issues for which it will be responsible.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to respond to the right hon. Member’s new clause later when we have debated it. I have read it, and it sets out some interesting ways of doing this. I absolutely agree with the principle of Parliament holding Companies House to account, which is why we want it to report annually on the implementation and operation of this legislation. That is how I think we should do it. I think we want the same thing, and I am happy to have an ongoing discussion with her. Many of the things she has listed in her new clause are already reported on by Companies House, so I think it is important that we do not overly prescribe how Companies House should operate, in my view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend is right about keeping our legislation up to date. He says that with great authority. We must recognise that those who seek to perpetuate economic crime are always innovating, and unless we are aware and informed, we will not move our legislation and processes on with that. There is also a vital point about the information that comes to the House. Today, we are debating reporting and information. There will be further debate tomorrow about the appropriateness of the structures through which that information is assessed.

New clause 16 seeks to specify further some of the information that should be brought forward and, crucially, calls for a detailing of instances—or maybe even numbers, depending on the reasons—in which exemption powers under the Bill are used by the Secretary of State. The Minister will be aware of the concerns that we raised in Committee about the need for Parliament to have transparency even on the number of uses of exemption powers under the Bill.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution to the debate. The point is that the Government’s new clause 15 simply reflects reporting on the process of implementation—[Interruption.] That is how I read it, and that is how the Minister spoke to it. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. Through new clause 16, we are trying to hold the whole of Companies House’s works to account and ensure that it delivers what we have in mind in being at the front end of fighting economic crime through the data that it collects.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should be ambitious for the registrar and for Companies House in tackling economic crime and being a beacon around the world for how a nation should do that. She makes an important point about where the new clause goes further than the Government’s proposal. Along with the report and the data in it, importantly, there would be recommendations about whether further legislation should be brought forward in response to that report and the information in it. That is extremely important, because that is where Parliament will have to make choices about whether it chooses to take further action.

Issues of concern that the report may draw attention to, and which we could encourage the registrar to look at, could include investigations of unusual patterns of directorships and companies registered at one address. All of that would also enable Parliament to hold Companies House to account for its performance. We are willing to work with the Minister to strengthen the Government’s new clause so that it becomes more purposeful and effective—and, in doing so, collectively achieve the outcomes that we intend for the Bill.

I turn to further amendments tabled by Labour Front-Bench Members. New clause 22 seeks to disqualify any individual convicted of a serious breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, such as a deliberate refusal to pay the national minimum wage, from serving as a company director in future. In Committee, the Minister stated that it was

“right to identify the scale and nature of the problem before we legislate”.––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 3 November 2022; c. 240.]

He said that he was “keen to do so.” He also said:

“There have been 16 people convicted under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I want to do some further research on that to see what has happened to those people and their director qualification or disqualification. That might inform debate more clearly.”–[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 3 November 2022; c. 233.]

Since then, we have not heard a satisfactory answer to the central question: should an individual convicted of an offence for a serious breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, such as a deliberate refusal to pay the national minimum wage, be prevented from serving as a company director?

--- Later in debate ---

Our amendment would change the focus of those objectives from minimising risk to proactively seeking to identify suspect uses of the register for criminal purposes and to act accordingly. It would be a strong enabler of the risk assessment-based approaches to detecting and preventing economic crime that are set out in the important amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), among others.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Does my hon. Friend agree there can be absolutely no objection to that approach? In the Minister’s opening remarks, he said that the reforms will give Companies House much more proactive capability. If the Minister sees that, and if we want that, what on earth is the objection to putting it in legislation so that Companies House knows darn well that that is what we expect of it?

[Seema Malhotra]

The Minister has heard what my right hon. Friend says. If that is what Parliament wishes and intends, we should have the courage to put it in the Bill. The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and others—including new clauses 17 and 19 and amendments 102 and 103—are important, and we support what they are calling for. Separately, we strongly encourage the Minister to look at amendment 101.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his confirmation. The legislation is not as tight as we would like it to be, but if he puts his intentions on record, that does take us a step further.

Amendment 107 would require a limited partnership dissolution notice to be published on the registrar’s website and to remain published for a minimum of 20 years. The Minister has previously said that he would like to explore with Companies House the feasibility and costs associated with introducing that requirement. I should be grateful if he confirmed that he has concluded those discussions, and tell us what decision he has reached.

New clause 20, which we support, concerns resourcing. It would raise Companies House fees to £100 to help to properly fund the fight against crime. The current fee of just £12 makes this country the sixth cheapest place in the world in which to set up a company. The Treasury Select Committee recommended a fee of £100. Will the Minister tell us what his plans are? Having a plan to resource Companies House is fundamental to achieving the goals of the Bill.

I thank Scottish National party Members for their amendments, whose arguments are similar to ours. In particular, we support new clause 36 and amendment 109, which deal with reporting and unique IDs—although we think that some minor changes might be made to new clause 36—and would also support any attempt to push them to a vote.

New clause 26, which is being debated today but will be subject to a decision tomorrow, would amend provisions in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to require the introduction of open registers of beneficial ownership in each of the UK’s overseas territories. There should be no double standards in the legal requirements for transparency of beneficial ownership across different parts of the UK, including the overseas territories. We have 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. According to the spin that the Government chose to put on the wording of the 2018 Act, its obligation had been met simply by the publication of a draft Order in Council, regardless of when, or even whether, such an order might actually come into force. The result is that we are here yet again, nearly five years later, still discussing how to ensure the implementation of registers to the same standards across all the UK’s territories. Surely it should not have been beyond the wit of Ministers, even in this Government, to have sorted this out by now. [Interruption.] With the exception of the Minister who is present today.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend is raising a really important point, which has been put into some question by a judgment of the European Court of Justice by an action relating to a shell company in Luxembourg. I know that this is not entirely in the Minister’s control but it is particularly important because, although the Crown dependencies agreed in 2018 or 2019 to publish registers of beneficial ownership, we never passed the legislation because we got their agreement verbally. I am really concerned that they will now go back on that in the light of that judgment. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s views on that.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention and for the discussions that we had on this matter prior to the Report stage.

In summary, this legislation is essential, but as we have heard from across the House today, there are still areas in which it must go further if we are to catch up after years of being on the back foot on economic crime due to years of inaction. These are thoughtful and purposeful amendments that will improve the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I think I heard the Minister acknowledge that Companies House needs more resources, and that those resources should be raised not through a one-off fee when setting up a business but through ongoing registration fees. I also think I heard him say that he rather likes our proposal to increase the fees every year to reflect inflation. I think he substantially agrees with the thesis of new clause 20, so this is a great opportunity for him to endorse it so that Companies House is able to start budgeting right away.

I heard the Minister make the valid point that he wants to ensure the budget is worked from the bottom up, and that an arbitrary number should not be put into legislation. I have sympathy for his point of view, but I want him to understand the urgency of the matter. I want him to appreciate that we have waited long enough for this Bill, and that the Treasury Committee will therefore not allow this measure to be kicked into the long grass. We will continue to scrutinise progress, and we expect that progress to be urgent and rapid.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

At this point in the cycle, I cannot believe there is not a resource budget. Even within the constraints of the Bill, there should be a budget because the negotiations will be starting. It would be interesting if the Minister could reveal that figure.

My second point, with which the Minister might agree, is that we so under-resource the enforcement of existing anti-money laundering regulations in this country that, even if this figure of £100, which the Treasury Committee and other Committee came up with, proved too much, which I doubt, setting up an economic crime fighting fund would mean that other enforcement agencies, such as the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office, could use those resources to provide better defences against economic crime.

[Harriett Baldwin]

The right hon. Lady makes some excellent points. Once the Minister does this work, it may well turn out that £100 is a good starting point. Other things are budgeted for, and I understand the budget for the work that is under way is £20 million for the financial year just ended. A further £63 million is expected to be needed up to 2024-25 and was allocated in the last spending review.

Forgive me if I am cynical about the budgets for public sector computer procurement projects, as they sometimes come in somewhat over budget. I urge the Minister in his response to new clause 20 to make sure that he can move swiftly to change the amount that it costs to set up a business, while making sure that it remains competitive in terms of economic parameters. It is not every day that Back Benchers say to Ministers, “Here’s some more money for you. We think this is going make the UK much safer and a centre that is less vulnerable to economic crime.” That is the purpose behind our support for this new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I welcome the Minister to his place. I enjoyed working with him for a number of years on the Back Benches. We have co-operated well, and I look forward to that co-operation continuing now that he is a Minister. I am pleased to be working closely with his successor at the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who has tabled a number of the amendments put forward by the APPG.

I join others in welcoming the Bill. I welcome the fact that we are having this debate. This could be legislation that fundamentally transforms the landscape that has enabled economic crime to flourish in the UK. It could be the moment when we, in Britain, through the decisions that we make here in Parliament, give a message loud and clear to the world that there will be zero tolerance of money laundering fraud and other economic crime in our country. It could be the moment when, by acting against economic crime, we lay the foundations that would enable our financial sector, and with it our economy, to flourish and grow. As I have often said, we will never achieve sustained economic growth on the back of dirty money, but we could achieve it as a trusted jurisdiction that openly and firmly rejects illicit finance. It could be all of those things.

The Bill before us is welcome; it enables us to have these debates and to legislate, but in its current form it fails in too many ways. First, as it currently stands, I fear that it cannot achieve its stated purpose. Omissions and loopholes mean that there is a real danger that we could be setting up a new Companies House that will fail. One library filled with dud information will simply replace another. Secondly, in my view and that of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which we will certainly make clear in tomorrow’s debates on new clauses, the Bill is too cautious and unambitious in its scope. It fails seriously to tackle the challenge that we in Britain face because of the exponential growth of economic crime. It is worth the House remembering what that is. Every year, economic crime costs this country somewhere in the region of £300 billion. That is a conservative estimate—in fact, I think it is a gross underestimate. That is 14.5% of GDP.

To look at just the fraud element of that, reported fraud affects one in 11 adults. I have been a victim of fraud that I have never reported, and we all know that there are victims of fraud who do not report it. One in 11 adults are affected, so this is a massive issue. That figure of £300 billion is double what we spend on the NHS. We are talking about mega sums that get lost in the UK economy every year and impact on all sorts of things: the quality of our public services, the raising of taxes, the economy as a whole and the reputation of the UK. There is an endless impact, and we have to tackle it.

I ask the Minister, as we did in Committee, to put aside the natural instinct to resist amendments tabled by Back Benchers. Our purpose is simply to strengthen the Bill, so that when it is passed, it can support our shared mission across the House to eradicate money laundering, fraud and other economic crime. I urge him and the Government to support our amendments, and I hope that Members in the other place will reflect on our debates today and in Committee when they consider the Bill in detail over the coming weeks.

I welcome the new clause that the Minister has tabled in relation to the accountability of Companies House. However, if he were to accept new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), it would improve what he wants to do and the information that we in Parliament expect to receive about the performance of Companies House.

I warmly support all the new clauses tabled by members of the all-party group. As the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) said, those measures would strengthen the duties of Companies House, which is really important; giving powers is one thing, but duties really matter. Those duties would ensure that we can validate the information contained in Companies House and that it has the integrity it needs to fulfil the purpose for which it is intended.

I look forward to tomorrow’s debate on important issues such as the reforms to corporate criminal liability, the strengthening of support for whistleblowers, tackling the growing problems associated with SLAPPs and introducing new powers that could help us to seize as well as freeze the assets that the Government control from people they have sanctioned.

I will focus my comments today on two sets of amendments that we in the all-party group are convinced are necessary to ensure that the reforms work and that the appropriate resources are in place to properly fund the reforms. Otherwise, our legislation is in danger of simply gathering dust on the shelves of the Library.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am always interested in what the right hon. Lady has to say. We have shown that we are willing to engage with her suggested amendments, although we perhaps draft them in a different way, and the debate we had in Committee has been useful and fruitful for both sides.

On the question of duties, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) also referred to, I point Members to clause 1. It is very clear that the registrar

“must… seek to promote the following objectives.”

The first is to ensure that documents are delivered to the registrar. The second is to ensure that the documents delivered are accurate. The third is to ensure that those documents do not create a “false or misleading impression”, and the fourth is to minimise the extent to which companies and others carry out unlawful activities. That is a duty—the registrar must do those things—so Members’ concerns should be assuaged by that clause.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

It is an important clause—I agree with the Minister on that—but equally, if we introduce a duty to ensure that persons with significant control of companies are who they say they are, it will strengthen the Bill. It will not undermine or contradict any of its clauses; it will simply strengthen it. With all my experience in this House as both a Minister and a Back Bencher, I know that if we are not very specific about what we place in legislation, we come back to it in subsequent years and regret that lack of determination. We see that particularly in our attempts to fight economic crime; so many times we think we have achieved something, then we come back and find it has not worked.

I turn to the first set of amendments that we in the all-party parliamentary group think are necessary, many of which have been tabled by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. We have tabled several amendments to create new duties on Companies House, rather than giving it powers, the most critical of which is about corporate service providers. If the Minister does not accept that, I predict that we will end up creating another database that is infected with falsehoods and errors, and will simply reinforce in people’s minds across the globe the growing acceptance that the UK is the best place to hide and launder dirty money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

The disease of not listening troubles me. I am not saying that the Government are not listening, but they are not listening enough. On my right hon. Friend’s point, there are still thousands of properties in London and across the country that have unknown offshore owners and we do not know where the money comes from. Will the Bill, or its previous incarnations, do anything to resolve that issue? I am not convinced that it will.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because we legislated last year to create a register of properties that are owned through corporations in foreign jurisdictions, but I understand that Companies House is having real difficulty in establishing it, because it is very difficult for it to assess the real beneficial owners of trusts and companies incorporated somewhere such as the British Virgin Islands. That is why the amendments tabled by the Labour Front Bench to ensure that company service providers are located here so that we have better control and supervision are hugely important.

Last week, as I am sure the Minister saw, Danske Bank agreed to forfeit $2 billion in the US courts as part of an agreement to resolve the criminal liabilities facing it. On top of that, civil litigation has led to a fine of more than $400 million and individual employees could yet be charged by the US courts. That is massive. It is worth reflecting on the words used in that court verdict, including that

“Danske Bank, the largest bank in Denmark, deliberately disregarded U.S. law of which it is well aware, facilitated the laundering of criminal and suspicious proceeds through the United States, and placed the U.S. financial network at risk, all in the name of its bottom line.”

The judgment also says that it

“lied and deceived U.S. banks to pump billions of dollars of suspicious and criminal funds through the U.S. financial system… If you want to use the U.S. financial system, you must play by the rules. If you don’t, we will hold you accountable.”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Member is raising a very important case, which she rightly says I have referred to on many occasions, and I welcome that fine. One of the things I know she will be debating tomorrow is corporate criminal liability, which I think would have a profound effect on companies willing to turn a blind eye to that, as Danske Bank did.

May I raise a couple of points about what the right hon. Member said earlier? It is always the Government’s position on this Bill that any overseas company service provider needs a UK branch and needs to be regulated by a money laundering supervisor. That is not something we were asked to do, but something we very much wanted to do.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), which the right hon. Member mentioned, about the register of overseas entities, the onus is on the entity itself to register the person who is the enterprise’s beneficial owner. If it does not do so—and it has to be done by the end of this month—it cannot sell or lease the property, and there are sanctions available such as fines, or potentially criminal prosecutions can be taken forward. That is the method of making sure we have such information.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

On the last point, the Minister is right that such companies cannot sell or lease the property, but I think it is probably almost impossible to verify whether the data they provide is accurate, because it is based on the incorporation of an entity in a foreign jurisdiction. That is the problem, and as I understand it from discussions I have had with those at Companies House, it is a problem it is currently facing.

I think the Minister and I would both wholeheartedly endorse the words of the court in the United States—I hope he would; I am sure he would—but let us start by recognising the truth. UK limited liability partnerships and companies were the preferred vehicle for all those clients, most of whom were not Latvian at all but were called non-resident clients—the Russian kleptocrats, drug smugglers, people smugglers and all those sorts of people—who used the Latvian branch of Danske Bank. It was UK company formation agents who worked closely with that Danske Bank branch in setting up those shell British registered companies.

To give one example in today’s context, it was a UK registered company, registered by a UK company service provider that set up Lantana Trade with an address in Harrow, and that company then set up a bank account in the Latvian branch of Danske Bank. According to the whistleblower in the Danske Bank case, the real beneficial owner of that company, which of course has now been dissolved—surprise, surprise—was Igor Putin, Putin’s cousin. The real purpose of setting up that company was to launder money stolen from Russian citizens out of Russia, and our company service providers facilitated that.

We know from an analysis of the FinCEN files submitted to various Committees by the people we have mentioned before—Simon Bowers and Richard Brooks, two very good investigative journalists—that the UK stood out in the FinCEN files as the jurisdiction where there was the largest concentration of companies about which suspicious activity reports had been filed. Over 3,000—3,267—shell companies revealed in the FinCEN files were UK companies. We know that just four of the largest company formation agents in the UK were associated with over half of those 3,267 companies, and they were named in those leaks. We also know that an address in Potters Bar was used by over 1,000 companies featured in that body of leaks. So again, company service providers facilitated the creation of companies that then appeared in that massive FinCEN leak.

My final example comes from a story last week in The Guardian and concerns the infamous Mr Usmanov, the Putin ally whose wealth is said to amount to £14 billion—I have seen different figures in different publications. He claims to have divested himself of most of his UK assets before he was sanctioned on 3 March last year, seven days after Russia invaded Ukraine, but ever more evidence is emerging suggesting that while he has created companies and trusts, using our company service providers to do so, with nominee owners, nominee trustees, nominee shareholders, nominee directors, he remains the real beneficial owner and controller of his assets.

This concerns not just his homes—Beechwood house in Highgate, said to be worth over £80 million, or the 16th century Sutton Place estate in Surrey—but his investment in Everton football club, now bottom of the league. He claims to have sold his interest in the club to his friend and long-time colleague Farhad Moshiri. Our professionals helped to structure these transfers of assets; our company service providers were involved. Yet when Everton was interviewing potential managers after 2016—after he claims to have sold his interests, but before he was sanctioned—Usmanov was always there. According to The Guardian, one candidate to become Everton manager said Usmanov stated during the interview that he owned the club, and another candidate said Usmanov left him with the impression the club belonged to the tycoon. Even Frank Lampard said that when he attended his interview

“Mr Usmanov was on Zoom call with Mr Moshiri”.

I have chosen just three examples, but there are too many bad apples among our company service providers, the people we are proposing to entrust with providing verified, reliable data for the new Companies House register.

We also know that, as colleagues have mentioned, the current system for supervision is broken. The Treasury commissioned a report that found that 81% of the bodies responsible for the legal and accountancy sectors were not supervising their members effectively on anti money-laundering regulations.

[Catherine West]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that the US model is worth looking at? Law enforcement agencies that are successful get a percentage of the proceeds of their success back to recycle to employ more people to do more enforcement. It is a virtuous circle, whereas our rather hands-off approach is perhaps less effective.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I will refer to that a little later in my contribution.

There is another report on HMRC’s supervision of company service providers. It looked at 672 of the company service providers and only 95—14%—were found to be compliant with checking that AML regulations were enforced by their members. More than half—352—were non-compliant, but only a third of those 352 were ever deemed to be non-compliant and were pursued through the courts; they received an average fine of £8,000.

This litany of ills demonstrates why we need to sort out the supervision of company service providers before we enact the legislation, and that is why our amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness are so important. We need to be certain that the company service providers have been properly checked and supervised before we let them loose on verifying data for the new register.

The Treasury is already reviewing the supervision mechanism. I saw just recently that consultation on that review will start in the second quarter of 2023. What I am saying to the Minister is: where there is a political will, there is a political way. There is absolutely no reason why the review should not be completed and implemented concurrently with implementation of the legislation contained in the Bill. By putting that in the Bill, we would make certain—with my greatest love for every civil servant in the country—that that gets enacted. If we do not do that, we will end up with another dud register. We are giving him and the Government a pragmatic and practical suggestion that will simply make the Bill work as it is intended.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

We have wrestled with a similar issue on tax agents, where it has become clear that people are filing tax returns on behalf of their clients when they are neither competent nor perhaps have the right ethics to hold that power. However, it becomes hard to sort that out once they are existing in the system and filing returns. Does the right hon. Member agree that it would be much better to get only the right people authorised in the first place and that, by doing that up front, we would not have to come back afterwards to try to kick off people who have a heavy investment in carrying on?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The hon. Member makes a valid point, as he always does. That is a parallel argument for ensuring proper supervision and regulation and then checking and disciplining people in a professional capacity so that we get rid of the bad apples right across the piece. I was thinking about lawyers, because I think that only one case has been taken by the Solicitors Regulation Authority against one firm of solicitors on implementation of AML regulation. It is pathetic how little has been done in that context.

I turn briefly to the resourcing of the regulatory enforcement agencies and new clause 20. Our failure properly to resource these agencies is a disgrace. We should all share blame for where we are to date. In the USA, Biden sees economic crime as a security issue. As we now know from Russian activity in relation to the invasion of Ukraine, it is a security issue, and yet, if we look at our records, expenditure in the USA is going up by 31%, whereas here in the UK it has been cut by 4%. That is absolutely crazy. The Americans are much more aggressive and assertive in pursuing economic crime in both the civil and criminal courts. There is the Danske bank case, and there is the HSBC case that involved the Mexican drug cartel—the Minister will know about that. In America, in 2012, HSBC was fined $1.4 billion. In Britain, by 2021—nine years later—we managed a fine of only £64 million. Let us also look at the case of Standard Chartered—a UK bank. There again, the USA fined it $842 million. What we did in the UK? A fine of £102 million.

Let us look at the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010—legislation that we all think is working quite well—with a “failure to prevent” duty in it. In the UK, we have seen 99 criminal convictions since its introduction. In America, where there is a similar legislative framework, 236 criminal convictions—more than twice as many—have been completed.

Despite our timid approach to pursuing economic crime, and despite our pathetic response, it still pays to pursue it. In the five years between 2016 and 2021, the enforcement agencies brought in £3.9 billion to Treasury coffers. So it is not just a good thing for all those other arguments we have given; it also helps to support the public finances.

It is pointless passing laws and then failing to agree appropriate funding that would enable the Government to put those laws into practice. Our amendments aim to do just that, at—I stress this fact, which I think the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) mentioned—no cost to the taxpayer. We are doing it through raising the fees, which do not appear on the public sector borrowing requirement. We are not doing it by demanding any bit of public sector funding towards that cost.

It is absurdly low, whatever Members feel, to pay £12 to set up a company. To put that into context—this is a figure I used in Committee, but I will share it with the House—it costs £1,220 to get a visa for a skilled farm worker. We have just got the priorities completely, crazily wrong. If we look at the cost of incorporating a company across the world, even in those jurisdictions that are not the best, the British Virgin Islands charges £1,000 to set up a company and Jersey charges £425 to set up a company. In America, it varies from $570 to $1,400. Luxembourg—not my favourite jurisdiction—charges €1,100. It is only Greece and Slovenia who charge less than the UK.

We propose £100. That is a figure slightly imagined rather than grounded in fact, but it is the figure the Treasury Committee chose and the figure that the House of Lords’ Committee on fraud put forward, so we thought it was a better one. I do not accept that it is a barrier to any business, whether it is run by women or men. I just do not accept that argument at all. If you are setting up a business and you do not have £100, you have to question, whatever the nature of the business, the motivations for establishing it.

[Liam Byrne]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Minister does not agree with new clause 20, he is in effect asking for powers without giving the House any confidence that we can actually summon the resources to implement those powers if we so grant them?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Absolutely. The Minister always assures us that he will be on top of it, but he will not be there forever, much as he might like to be. We therefore have to embed these issues in legislation, otherwise we will never to the position where funding for the enforcement of economic crime will be a priority for a Government of any colour. That is why setting it here is really important. I have to say to the Minister that I just do not believe that the figures are not around. I think that by this stage in the cycle, he will have figures that demonstrate how much is required. If we have more duties, it may go up. That is not a bad thing, because if it goes up it means we will be more effective at policing the system, and therefore preventing and detecting.

[Nigel Mills]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and then I will give way to the Minister.

[Nigel Mills]

I am not sure I should pull rank on the Minister, but I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Does she agree that it is not just the set-up fee we need to get at the right level, but the ongoing annual registration fee? Ensuring companies have the correct records on an ongoing basis is as important as having them on day one. There is probably a lot more money to be raised for Companies House with an annual fee, rather than a one-off at the start.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

If that has been proposed, it has not been proposed in the Bill. I am not hostile to that; it is a perfectly good suggestion. At the moment, all we have is a fee which we are trying to tie to inflation so it does not get caught up in annual arguments over priorities in the Budget. However, if there is a proposal, it would have been nice to see it. If there is a proposal to fund it in a different way, that would be great.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) has made absolutely the right point: as I said earlier, there are annual fees as well as incorporation fees, and we should look at both elements.

On the question of specifying a fee in the Bill, as the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) says, we do not even know yet what duties will be required of the registrar, because the Bill has not yet passed through both Houses. The registrar may end up having more duties that will cost more to perform, so it is impossible to say right now what resources she will need. As the right hon. Lady says, we may discover further down the line that more will be required, so why would we set out the fee in the Bill rather than in regulations, where we can vary it more easily?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My simple response to the Minister is to invite him to share with us the current budget estimate for Companies House, if the Bill is enacted in its present form, and to tell us what that will mean. I just cannot believe that the information is not in the mix somewhere, but the Minister is not choosing to share it with us Back Benchers at this point.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated dissent.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Well, an estimate must be available, because we know where we are in the cycle. We know that somewhere or other this is being discussed. If the estimate changes, there is nothing to stop us changing the new clause at a later date.

More importantly, if 100 quid is too much, if the registrar does not need that much, or if the Minister wants to change the law and move from charging a fee on incorporation to charging an annual fee, I can see the logic of that, but presumably he would still have to come back to the House to put that in legislation—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

In regulations.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Okay. But if the fee is too much, I still suggest that the Minister looks at subsections (5), (6) and (7) of new clause 20. We hope that he will set up an economic crime fund. Any surplus that results from raising the fee to 100 quid could then be well used by the NCA, the Serious Fraud Office or another agency with access to the fund. Our new clause would ensure that the money is ringfenced for use against economic crime, rather than being taken away by the Treasury and used for other purposes.

We also suggest that the Minister comes back to us on the issue of penalties to fund the fight against economic crime. Since 1984, all forfeiture proceeds in the USA have gone to an assets forfeiture fund. Just think what it will do with the $2 billion it has got out of the Danske Bank criminal settlement! We do not have that system in the UK: at the moment, something like 40% of the current fines and penalties go towards fighting economic crime. That is too little: it should be 100%.

There are precedents. The Information Commissioner has announced a new arrangement with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport whereby it can retain the money that it accesses through penalties to support its arguments and its work against the big tech companies. The Gambling Commission accepts contributions to compensate victims or payments to charity, rather than imposing a fine: that is another ringfencing hypothecation. Ofwat’s penalties levied against Southern Water were used to reimburse customers.

I have spoken for too long, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have focused on two of the issues that I consider most critical among today’s group of amendments. That is not to say that the others do not matter—they do—but these are practical, common-sense proposals that are supported by the all-party group, and I know from conversations with Members that they command wide support across the Chamber. There is no badge of honour for Ministers in the Government if they fail to listen to their Back Benchers.

More importantly, we have to make this reform work. If we ignore these proposals, we will risk consigning much of the reform to the dustbin. The fight against economic crime is utterly vital. We all know that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We know what the problems are, and we know that the solutions are multifaceted and complex. For heaven’s sake, let us work together and do what we can to make these reforms effective, efficient and fit for purpose. In that spirit, I will wait for the Minister to cheer me up by saying that he will accept these amendments from by Back Benchers of all political parties.

[Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 17, 18, 19, 101, 102 and 103 in my name, and to support new clause 20 in the name of my friend the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). I am grateful to her and to members of the all-party groups on anti-corruption and responsible tax and on fair business banking for their support. I should say that I do not plan to press any of those new clauses to a vote today.

The Bill is the second part of a package designed to prevent the abuse of the UK’s corporate structures and to tackle economic crime. It is a good Bill which will go a long way towards achieving its aims, and I certainly welcome the Government new clauses and amendments, but we have to go beyond “good”. Those who seek to exploit our open economy and our corporate structures to enrich themselves—whether organised criminal gangs, fraudsters, kleptocrats or even terrorists—are better than “good”. They are singularly motivated to find opportunities to enrich themselves and their clients, and to abuse our systems in doing so. They are good at it because it is a profitable endeavour for them, and because it is unfortunately too easy for them to exploit the systems in which we operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is an operational matter for Companies House; it is not for me as the Minister. The registrar clearly has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the database, and how she seeks to do that will be up to her.

Amendment 101 is clearly key. The Government are committed to ensuring that the checks carried out by ACSPs are robust. ACSPs will be required to carry out checks to at least the same standard as the registrar, who will be able to query any suspicious information. The registrar will establish a robust scrutiny process with AML supervisors for onboarding ACSPs. If necessary, she can suspend or de-authorise an ACSP to exclude it from forming companies. The vast majority of accountants, lawyers and other agents who make filings on behalf of companies operate to high standards. It would be disproportionate to block them all from making such filings while the Treasury works through the reform of the supervisory regime—something that we all clearly want it to get right.

New clause 34 requires the Government to report on the number of foreign corporate service providers that have been registered at Companies House. Clause 63 gives the Secretary of State the power to permit the authorisation of foreign corporate service providers subject to equivalent AML regimes abroad. That is obviously in the context of a potential trade deal that is not currently on the table.

On amendment 104, tabled by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, I cannot agree with this fifth objective for the registrar. The Bill already places a legal duty on the registrar to seek to promote the objectives, which inherently demands proactivity. Tentative use of her powers would result in the registrar being in danger of failing to satisfy the duty.

On the accuracy of existing data, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), whose new clause 36 would have the registrar ensure the accuracy and veracity of all register information prior to the commencement of the Bill’s reforms. Clearly, that constitutes many millions of pieces of information, with many thousands being added every day—the analogy of painting the Forth bridge springs to mind. If we were to do what she asks and the registrar were to fulfil the requirements of the new clause, it is unlikely that the beneficial reforms of the Bill would ever be realised, because of the duty it would place on the registrar.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I have been told that I need to make progress, but I thank the right hon. Lady—my former partner in fighting economic crime—for her amendment on Companies House fees, which is clearly key. It is critical that the registrar is sufficiently funded to carry out her duties.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) is wrong to say that the Bill does not provide extra resources to Companies House to implement the measures, because clause 90 sets out exactly what areas will be taken into account when fees are set. The Bill gives the Government more flexibility to increase the fees and charges by broadening the range of functions that can be funded through those fees. The Government are reviewing funding arrangements in the context of the reforms and are committed to ensuring that Companies House is fully resourced to perform its new role and functions. As I said earlier, Companies House levies a range of fees, not just the up-front charge on incorporation, and I confirm that we are exploring a range of options about how fees will evolve.

New clause 22, on the national minimum wage, tabled by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, seeks to ban those convicted under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 from being appointed as directors. The national minimum wage enforcement team at HMRC, whose resources have been doubled over the last six years, as have the penalties for non-compliance, already refers appropriate cases to the Insolvency Service, which, as part of its normal remit, considers director disqualifications where appropriate. Indeed, three people were disqualified in 2021 for such transgressions.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) for his new clause 18, which would require a person who controls more than 5% of the shares in a public company to disclose that information to the registrar. I very much note his concerns about shareholder transparency. However, we must balance transparency concerns and the benefits of having additional information against imposing undue burdens on businesses.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Very briefly, and just to the right hon. Lady.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Will the Minister accept any of the amendments or new clauses brought forward by Back Benchers today?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the right hon. Lady knows, new clause 15, which we tabled today, is based on some of the debate we had and the ideas she brought forward in Committee. So I say to her that she should keep bringing forward the ideas, and we will certainly consider them.

The Companies Act already requires traded companies to maintain up-to-date lists of their shareholders and report any changes in shareholders above 5% on an annual basis.

New clause 37—and indeed amendment 112—on phoenixing, which was debated by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), requires the registrar to block the registration of companies that share common characteristics with more than three companies wound up in the preceding five-year period. Successive companies being wound up in this manner is known as phoenixing. We feel there are provisions that will be implemented through this Bill that will provide safeguards against such behaviour. Suitable coverage is already provided by the existing rules, and there are new powers in the Bill that give the registrar of companies a power to compel people to provide information in the context of the examination of information on the register, and to interrogate and share that data with other authorities.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

The Bill is concerned only with economic crime and corporate transparency, and the regulations will cover only that. Many Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor, have spoken about SLAPPs—I will touch on them later—but the reality is that they require a separate jurisdiction and a separate Bill.

Government amendments 48 and 49 concern information sharing. In Committee, Opposition Members rightly pointed out that our proposed definition of large accountancy firms did not include insolvency practitioners, auditors and tax advisers. I thank them for that. These amendments will rectify that omission by expanding the scope of the indirect information sharing clauses to include those sectors.

In addition to the Government amendments, several other amendments on a broad range of topics will be debated today. As in Committee, I look forward to what I anticipate will be a lively but extremely well-considered debate. The contributions of all hon. Members who participated in earlier debates have helped to shape the Bill into an effective tool to tackle illicit finance and ensure that the UK is a great place to do legitimate business.

I know that there are places where hon. Members would like the Bill to go further and do more. Indeed, I am as keen as many of them to solve some of the outstanding problems that we all wish to address, but we need to ensure that those ambitions are delivered in the most effective way and that we use the appropriate legislative vehicles to ensure that they have the desired outcome. Limiting the scope to just economic crime can, in several cases, create more problems than it solves, and I assure right hon. and hon. Members that I have strenuously tested what can be effectively delivered within the scope of the Bill.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Will the Minister expand on that interesting point? How would any of the amendments on SLAPPs, a duty to prevent or seizing assets limit what could be done in future?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The question is at what stage do we bring a Bill forward—do we wait for it to be perfect or do we bring forward what we can get at a certain point? The right hon. Lady raises some interesting points. She knows my views on SLAPPS; indeed, in a former incarnation, I may have expressed them extremely clearly. She knows that we share views on asset seizures too. I should point out, however, that no common law jurisdiction has successfully solved the question of asset seizures, although many of us have tried and, indeed, some of us are in conversation with others to try to work out ways of doing it—forfeiture and seizure are not quite the same thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

That is precisely the point. There is an opportunity to generate revenue that could be deployed to address the causes of the problem. It is a win-win. We have criminals. We need to crack down on those criminals. We need to ensure that the agencies are given the resources to do that. It is the criminals who should be paying for that process. That seems logical to me.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Further to that point, does my hon. Friend agree, and I hope that the Government agree, that if they were more assertive in pursuing the people who enable economic crime and those who commit economic crime, more fines could be generated, which they could ringfence for a fund to be used in part to compensate victims of crime? It need not be a burden on the taxpayer and it could be a just way of ensuring that the victims of economic crime do not suffer inappropriately.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Again, my right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We need a war chest and that should be built up on the basis of moneys paid by criminals. That war chest should also be looked at and used, where possible, to support the compensation of innocent victims of economic crime. The new clause is a two-pronged attack on the issue. The opportunity is there because the better we get at going after these criminals, the more we will have coming into the war chest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, he was a Minister in the Ministry of Justice when the Bribery Act was brought into force at the end of the 2005 Parliament, and he has direct experience of this issue. He is absolutely right that the Bribery Act has been of huge value. In fact, under the regime of deferred prosecution agreements that the Government brought in in the early part of the last decade, of the 11 DPAs that have been made by the Serious Fraud Office with corporates, nine were for “failure to prevent offences”—failure to prevent bribery—and just three were for the offence of fraud. That accounts for 90% of the £1.7 billion in revenue that the SFO has brought in through DPAs. It is clear that that has been an important step change in the way we deal with wrongdoing or indeed the threat of wrongdoing.

For people who think this is some sort of academic exercise, I draw their attention to the LIBOR scandal and the forex rate rigging scenario. There was no bringing to account of anyone involved—there was impunity. That is not good for the rule of law or the economic wellbeing of this country.If we want people to invest in the United Kingdom—we do and we have excelled in direct foreign investment over generations—then they need to have the confidence that if there is a problem, there is redress of grievance, accountability and a way of recouping the loss or making sure their investment is safe. That is what I believe the new clauses go to.

We have been careful in the test we wish to apply to the “failure to prevent” offences that form the subject of new clauses 4 and 6. It was tempting to follow the recommendation in the report by the House of Lords’ Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, chaired by my noble Friend Baroness Morgan of Cotes, to apply the wider test contained within the Criminal Finances Act 2017 relating to failing to prevent tax evasion. That would not require an intention by the corporate or the individual to confer a benefit on the company or a benefit on a person to whom the suspect—the defendant— is providing services on behalf of the company. I have sought not to go that far, but to replicate the Bribery Act test, which is the intention to confer a benefit. It is important that when we seek to draft legislation, we are as mindful as possible of not widening it to an extent that could in many ways create further unfairness. We have an obligation to ensure that balance is maintained.

I have set out three separate offences in the provisions: fraud, money laundering and false accounting. I think fraud and false accounting are probably self-explanatory, but the Government might have a bit of a question about money laundering. They might be thinking about the 2017 money laundering regulations, and regulation 92 in particular, where there is already a corporate offence where, with the consent or connivance of an officer of the company, an offence is committed or an offence is attributable to neglect on their part. What I would say gently to the Minister is that I do not think that cuts it. It still leaves significant evidential and prosecutorial challenges. The Financial Conduct Authority has, I think, used it vanishingly rarely. Therefore, I urge him very strongly to look carefully—I hope he will accept the thrust of my argument, even if he cannot accept the detail of my new clauses today—at bringing forward provision that covers money laundering as well as fraud. That would be my strong exhortation to him today.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I want to add to the excellent speech that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making and to thank him for it. In the Barclays case, there was an attempt to prosecute both Barclays bank and individual directors of Barclays bank. There was an unsuccessful appeal against Mr Justice Jay’s decision, in which the SFO argued that the dual rulings would allow directors to “insulate themselves from liability” and make such alleged offences “impossible to prosecute”. Later, Ms Osofsky, who runs the SFO, said she felt herself completely hamstrung by the directing mind principle. She told parliamentarians in evidence that

“I can go after main street but I can’t go after Wall Street.”

In other words, she could prosecute small companies, but not corporates with layers of control.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Lady leads me to the thrust of my argument on new clause 5, which is the identification doctrine itself. She deals with the precise point of the doctrine. In the Barclays case, Mr Justice Jay at first instance was widely seen as having defined it by a narrow interpretation—I do not criticise the learned trial judge, but many people saw it that way—but the decision was upheld on appeal. With a real-life set of facts, a trial judge made a ruling that had quite important consequences for the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am always grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend; I greatly enjoyed our time working together as Law Officers, and I yield to no one in my respect for him. He is right to make that point. I think I couched my remarks in a way that was faithful to the Law Commission’s options, which say that the Government do not necessarily have to do it all—there is a choice here, potentially. On a wider basis, I think that the identification doctrine needs to be looked at. There could be an opportunity for further refinement, perhaps in the other place, and for provision to be made that refers specifically to the offences that I list in new clause 5.

Let me take my right hon. and learned Friend’s point in the spirit in which he made it, and build on it. New clause 5 includes the specification in Law Commission’s option 2B that an

“organisation’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer would always be considered to be members of its senior management.”

We have sought to be faithful to option 2B.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s excellent speech again, but does he share my view that we are past the stage of consultation? There has been a lot of consultation on the issue, from 2015 to 2017 and up until the Law Commission’s proposals in 2022. Choices now have to be made. The opportunity must be grasped to legislate on this issue, on which there is such wide consensus and such strong feelings.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

If not now, when? I entirely agree.

I had not quite finished outlining the Law Commission’s point correctly refuting, or at least addressing, the perception of any problems with a knock-on effect on civil law liability. It sets out the case very well, giving two basic reasons why it does not think that there will be extensive consequences.

First, the Law Commission rightly says that in civil law, vicarious liability or liability for negligence will very often apply to civil disputes between companies and third parties even if the identification doctrine test threshold is not met, so those very important parts of civil liability will not be undermined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

There is no doubt that the more recent you are, the more salient the case. Frankly, I can remember being ashamed of a British Prime Minister hosting Putin at the Olympics only a few years after Litvinenko was murdered in our country in the most cruel and overt act of state terrorism. Neither Government dealt with that. Cameron’s action was grotesque in the extreme, but neither Government dealt with it. Similarly, both Governments kowtowed to China after Tibet and all the rest of it. That has been done too many times. It is the entire system, not just one Government or another.

London is a fabulously attractive place for the Russians or the Chinese. If you want to be somewhere else than Russia, this is the place to be. We have facilitated that at every turn. Here comes the issue to which SLAPPs relate. We have a legal system that is probably the most brilliant in the world in delivering fair outcomes and good justice, but it is also phenomenally expensive, which means it is one-sided in its operation between an oligarch and an ordinary citizen, journalist or whoever they may be.

In conjunction with that are the things that flow from it, such as the behaviour of solicitors, to some of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who is not in his place, gave a fair old pasting yesterday, but one that was deserved. The private investigators industry, unregulated, undertakes crimes to gather information for use as weapons against other people. Our courts—not uniquely, but outstandingly—allow that information to be used. In each individual case that might be the right decision, but the collective effect of that is to suck criminally based information into our system and therefore engender and help the industry.

All that is why new clause 1 and 2 are vital. That all had the effect of creating a vast, possibly unintentional institutional cover-up for criminal activity: money laundering, fraud and concealment of evil actions abroad. Let us bear in mind that some of the oligarchs we are talking about are murderers. The system murders people. It is evil activity. That is why new clauses 1 and 2 are incredibly important.

What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill is proposing in new clauses 1 and 2 is a second best option. We already heard the best option in earlier interventions: a freestanding Bill immediately, because this is happening now. There are court cases going on as I stand here in which people are having their lives destroyed by SLAPPs. The next best is to have it in the Bill of Rights, but we know that that is way down the timetable, for all sorts of reasons. We may not see it before the next election, in which case we will have lost two more years.

The new clauses amount to a way of dealing with this criminal—or near criminal—activity in a way that is not susceptible to a finely turned piece of law. I listened with fascination to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) on that point. Getting that right is difficult; getting this right is not, because the greatest enemy of evil is a free press. In our country in the last couple of decades we have allowed our free press to become gagged and crippled. If we can take that gag away and remove those bonds, we will suddenly expose all the things that we need to deal with. We will see the weaknesses I talked about—the SFO and the NCA—and put them right, one by one. That is why we should support new clauses 1 and 2. I talked before about the weaknesses of the SFO and the NCA. We will see those weaknesses and we will put them right, one by one. That is why we should support this measure today.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I shall be very brief, because I took a lot of time in the House yesterday. I strongly support many of the new clauses being moved by Back Benchers across the Chamber today. If I can just say something about politics, this heartens me and shows that there are ways in which we can work together to pursue the national interest across the political divide. It breathes a bit of confidence and life back into the political process that we have all chosen to join in our careers, so I commend those individual Back Benchers who have put themselves forward and who are speaking today.

The proposals from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) on strengthening the support for whistleblowing are hugely important. Whistleblowers are an essential part of our armoury in the fight against money laundering and fraud, and we know that, despite all the legal rights, they are not protected. People lose their jobs, their families get destroyed and they are left penniless. Therefore, the establishment of a capability that will do nothing other than protect and promote whistleblowers in the crucial work they do is really important, and I hope that it will be adopted.

The importance of legislating to tackle the abuse of our legal system by oligarchs and others, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has just talked about so eloquently, is also really important. I want to be blunt about this and say to those on the Government Front Bench that, if they do not accept this new clause, they will not get a Bill during this Parliament. I bet that is right, so for heaven’s sake let us use this opportunity to get this bit of legislation in. It does not cover everything we would like it to cover, but it will have an impact. It will also give us the experience to see whether we have got the legislation right. I am sure that all the lawyers who helped to draft these new clauses put their best brains into them, but if they have not got them right, we will be able to learn those lessons when we come to extend these measures beyond economic crime.

The right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) made an excellent contribution on the reform of criminal corporate liability, and I want to say something about that. It is not that we want to suddenly bang up a whole load of lawyers, accountants, companies, service providers and all those people who we know are the ones that facilitate or collude with much of the economic crime that takes place. Only the best preventive mechanism that we can think of will force a change of behaviour, and we are not doing that on the back of hope; we are doing it on the back of reality. We know from the Bribery Act 2010 and from the regulations on tax evasion and on health and safety at work that putting this sort of liability on individuals and corporations is the only way to transform behaviour. Last week’s amendment to the Online Safety Bill by the Conservative rebels showed the mood of the House, and I would urge Ministers to think about that. The mood of the House is to use this effective tool to try to transform behaviour in all spheres of life, whether in relation to online harms or to economic crime.

I hope that we will hear from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) soon on the issue of “freeze not seize”. I know he is going to make a number of propositions, and I hope he will not mind if I say something about this. We have been working with an extensive group of lawyers to see whether we can move to a position where we do not just freeze the assets but seize them in order to repurpose them and, particularly in the current context, use them to support the reconstruction of Ukraine. We have finally got a chink in the armour in that regard, but let me say something else first. The lawyers we have talked to work with non-governmental organisations in this field, and the advice they give is always going to be slightly different from the advice that comes from the lawyers working in the Government service. I think we bring a new perspective, and I urge Ministers to listen to what we have to say. The chink is worth examining at this stage, even if we do not go for the further propositions, to show that we mean it when we say that we want to seize this money.

[Tom Tugendhat]

If the right hon. Lady can come up with a way to seize assets and use them for the purposes we have been discussing—notably for the reconstruction of Ukraine, but for other purposes, too—I am all ears. I have had long conversations with the representatives of Governments around the world, and I am yet to hear an idea that works. If she has one, I am happy to hear it.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

This is not our idea. It comes from a recent seminar we held with lawyers who support the Royal United Services Institute and Spotlight on Corruption. I will leave it to the hon. Member for Huntingdon to expand on it, but I think it is a very interesting chink that we can exploit, although it is not the total answer.

A draft Bill is being prepared by another group of lawyers, but I do not think we can add it to this Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. I am sceptical that we will find a chance to introduce the draft Bill in this Parliament, but I assure the Minister that we will pursue it after this Bill has passed. I just hope the Government examine the chink we have identified and run with it.

New clause 21 on cost caps, which stands in my name, is part of the way in which we could better fund the enforcement agencies in their fight against economic crime while also preventing economic criminals from exploiting our legal system. At the moment, we have a “loser pays” law, which has two consequences. First, when our enforcement agencies embark on litigation and lose, there is a massive cost to the public purse. We saw that with the unexplained wealth order against Kazakhstan’s Nazarbayeva family. Subsequent investigative journalism suggested that the family told mistruths to the court, but that has never been rectified. Nevertheless, the costs vary from £1.5 million to £2 million.

The SFO took a similar case against Serco involving prisoners who were—I have forgotten the word.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Tagged.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I thank the Minister. I am having a senior moment.

The SFO had clearly prepared the case badly, but there was a discovery point that got the litigation thrown out of court, and a huge sum was claimed in costs. The cost to the public purse is enormous.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I understand the right hon. Lady’s point about the cost to the police and other authorities of failed investigations but, in my experience, much of the problem stems from the division of the spoils in those cases that succeed in securing the proceeds of crime. As she will know, the money is divided between the Treasury, the Home Office and the police.

When I was at City Hall, we tried to cut a better deal in which the police would effectively recover the full cost of a prosecution, and any profit would then be split, so that pursuing such prosecutions would be costless to the police. Tim Godwin was then deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police, and his view was that the police would then have a strong case to invest even more in this line of investigation, and they would therefore have more success and there would be more money to go around for everyone. It is not necessarily the case that legislation will solve the problem. It is more to do with the deal between the police and the Government.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Indeed, and we considered an amendment in yesterday’s debate to address that specific issue, so that any funds arising from a confiscation order, or other such order, could be enjoyed by the enforcement agencies themselves, which would provide an additional incentive. We discussed last week’s Danske Bank settlement of criminal issues in the United States, from which the enforcement agencies received $2 billion. Just imagine the amount of enforcement activity that could be funded from that fee. We are timid in that regard, so I completely concur with the right hon. Gentleman on that.

The other argument in relation to cost caps is that the fear of facing huge costs if one fails in a case provides a disincentive to the enforcement agents to pursue as vigorously as one would like economic crime prosecutions. The Minister has said to me previously that there is no evidence to back that up, but I just do not buy that. A proper analysis of how people in the NCA, the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies think before they decide to pursue a prosecution would very quickly reveal that there is a disincentive. It is for those two reasons that we considered cost caps. The US is our model. Each party bears its own costs, which is much more effective. We heard figures yesterday—I will not repeat them because I have to get on—that the US gets much more money in and it does not cost as much to its enforcement agencies.

Those are the things that I wanted to cover. I hope that, in summing up, the Minister will please give us some concessions. I urge him to reflect on the degree of unanimity across the House and on the very senior figures on his own Back Benches who have chosen to work, in particular, with members of the two all-party groups to reach consensus. We do argue these things out. We come to a view after an extensive debate on a subject; it is never an open and shut case. Back Benchers are in a better position at present than those on the Front Bench, so I ask the Minister to listen to us because we may just be right and it would be good if there was a concession on something.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name, and the names of Members across the House. It would require the Secretary of State to set up an office for whistleblowers within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, and as chair of the all-party group for whistleblowers, I wish to register my interest.

The office for whistleblowers would be an independent body, which reports to Parliament and would have three main duties: to protect whistleblowers from detriment resulting from their disclosures; to ensure that these disclosures are investigated; and to escalate information and evidence of wrongdoing that is outside its remit to the appropriate authority, including regulators or, if appropriate, the police.

I thank the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who introduced this new clause at Committee stage and spoke to it robustly and with the knowledge and passion of someone who has been pursuing this for many years.

Despite a complete lack of reference in the Bill, whistleblowers and whistleblowing have a pivotal role in the fight against economic crime. Indeed, when this proposal was debated at Committee, the right hon. Member for Barking referenced her time as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and noted that all the work that the Committee did on economic crime came from whistleblowers, and yet, in a Bill that seeks to tackle economic crime, whistleblowers are not referenced.

One statistic that has been shared many times when debating this subject in Parliament is that 43% of economic crime is detected and exposed through whistleblowers. However, in his response to the Committee debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) noted that he believed that about 100% of economic crime detection could be attributed to whistleblowing. Once again, that appears to be confirmation that, if we want to know where an economic crime is being committed, it is most likely to be a whistleblower who exposes it.

The objectives of the office I propose in this new clause would be to encourage support and advise whistleblowers, providing a safe place to share information and acting on evidence of detriment to the whistleblower. We simply must protect whistleblowers who speak out, risking retaliation, as we have heard, harassment and losing their job—or, in the case of serious organised crime, possibly a much worse outcome. The office will enhance protections of those who whistleblow, while at the same time incentivising such disclosures by providing a safe space to share information.

There is evidence that an office for whistleblowers does incentivise disclosures. In 2020, the International Bar Association measured countries with whistleblowing legislation against a list of 20 best practices. The UK met just five of the 20. Meanwhile, the United States, where an Office of the Whistleblower sits within the Securities and Exchange Commission, met 16 of the best practices. That office received 12,300 disclosures in 2022, nearly double that of 2020, and, as its chief stated:

“The significant increase in the number of whistleblower tips and awards since the program’s inception shows that the program, with its enhanced confidentiality protections, is effectively incentivizing whistleblowers to make the often difficult decision to come forward with information”.

This is a cross-party, cross-departmental issue. Whistleblowers are to be thanked for, among many things, uncovering waste in our public services, highlighting poor or dangerous medical practices and conduct, and revealing the laundering, funnelling and theft of vast amounts of public and private money. When people steal from the public purse, it is society that suffers and our constituents who pay the price. According to law firm Pinsent Masons, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs received nearly 14,000 tip-offs regarding misuse of the covid furlough scheme. In just one case, £27.4 million of taxpayer money had been falsely claimed by a fraudster who, despite never having been to the UK, registered four companies in London and claimed furlough for more than 2,700 non-existent employees. Some £26.5 million of public money was recovered as a result, in a case that also reinforces the importance of Companies House reform.

We have heard details of the Danske Bank money laundering scheme in previous debates, so I will not delve into the details again, but in that case we know that criminals took advantage of UK limited liability partnerships. That is why the reforms at Companies House and to limited partnerships are needed. However, once again, it was a whistleblower who brought that $230 billion economic crime to light, halting the stream of illegal Russian money laundering. Without him, it might never have been uncovered and might have continued for years.

That was before Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but we know that illicit finance helped to fund the war and will continue to fund it, unless it is stopped. I welcome the swift action the Government have taken to tackle the scourge of financial crime, first by passing the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, then by introducing the Bill we are debating today. However, while the Government have introduced measures that will go far in preventing economic crime, as it stands, neither piece of legislation supports those very people who are key to its detection.

Having spoken to many dozens of whistleblowers over the years, I know that someone who reports wrongdoing can risk jeopardising their reputation, their career, their mental health, their wellbeing and that of their family. It is not a decision made lightly. Whistle-blowers who expose economic crime must balance the risk to themselves in the name of doing what is right. That should not be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. and learned Friend is certainly more learned than me, and I will certainly be listening to his views. There are a number of areas that I am sure we will be able to discuss, and I am sure we will reach a conclusion that is acceptable to all sides.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful for the assurance that an amendment will be introduced in another place, but may I also have an assurance that it will cover both corporations and individual directors?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend makes the other point, and these measures are about the delicate balance that we want to strike, ensuring that the right provisions are in place to prevent fraud without putting undue burdens on business. I am pleased that those interventions reflected both those positions so that we can see the legislation holistically rather than just through the lens of failing to prevent fraud.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If I may, I will make a little progress on that point.

We believe that the six non-Government amendments for debate would pose significant and disproportionate burdens on business, penalising reasonable companies and businesspeople with limited evidence that the burdens would be outweighed by any meaningful benefits. I will go into each amendment in detail, but I will begin by emphasising the Government’s position. We must insist that the balance achieved in the Bill through Government amendments made in the other place is maintained.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, because it was on that point that I wanted him to give way. Does he not think that any honest, upright business, whether large, small or micro, would aim within its own procedures to avoid fraud or money laundering?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The vast majority of the business community is honest and upstanding—that is the point. What we are trying to ensure is that those businesses are not disproportionately affected by putting in controls, checks and balances. I speak as a businessperson who did have to implement failure to prevent bribery and tax evasion measures in our business, and I tell the right hon. Member that there were significant administrative burdens around that legislation, and I believe they would be more so for fraud. I will come to that point in more detail.

I turn to Lords amendment 23. The inclusion of lines 84 to 96 would require all UK companies to declare whether they are holding shares on behalf of or subject to the direction of another person or persons as a nominee, and if so to provide details of the person or persons. Fundamentally, that is not necessary. Provisions in the person with significant control framework, as strengthened through the Bill, already require the disclosure of a person of significant control behind a nominee on pain of criminal sanction for non-reporting. That achieves the same intent. A combination of measures already in the Bill, the material discrepancy reporting regime in the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Regulations 2022 and Companies House’s new intelligence hub will more effectively flush out undeclared PSCs and deter the provision of false information.

I am afraid that the proposed approach is something of a blunt instrument. It would apply to all shareholders, when we should be focusing on the transparency of individuals exerting significant influence as already provided for under the PSC framework. As such, we would risk burdening millions of companies and their shareholders with new information requirements for no useful purpose. The proposition may sound sensible, but nominee arrangements can be complex, including having multiple layers of nominees and large numbers of beneficiaries for entirely legitimate reasons. For example, pension funds that own shares in a company would be caught. Listed companies would be particularly impacted as their shares are often held by nominee arrangements for legitimate administrative reasons—for example, in stocks and shares individual savings accounts, by custodian banks and by corporate sponsored nominees.

Listed companies report similar information about those owning 3% or more of their shares to the Financial Conduct Authority, so the Lords amendment would partly duplicate existing arrangements. In summary, lines 84 to 96 of the amendment risk disproportionate burdens on legitimate actors and would most likely be ignored by illegitimate actors. Those acting as nominees on behalf of shady individuals behind the scenes are already adequately on the hook if found to have provided false information, as is the company itself.

The effect of inserting those lines into part 8 of the Companies Act 2006 would be to cut across a tenet of UK company law: those running a company—usually the directors—must know its legal owners and act in the interests of the legal owners of the company. Those legal owners are recorded on the register of members. Companies shall have regard to their members record and not, for example, to anyone holding any underlying beneficial interest in their shares.

Lords amendment 115 would introduce two new duties for overseas entities. It would first require event-driven updates on beneficial ownership information and, secondly, require overseas entities to update their record no more than 14 days before the completion of a land transaction rather than the existing requirement to do so annually. Although the amendments are well intentioned, they would significantly increase burdens on both overseas entities and third parties transacting with them, as well as introduce an element of risk in land transactions that the annual update prevents.

As my ministerial colleague Lord Johnson of Lainston explained in the other place, in the case of an overseas entity that owns large commercial premises split into units, the amendment could result in the entity needing to provide updates twice a month, which is a disproportionate burden. There are a number of other technical challenges and impracticalities with setting such a duty on these entities. The Government are not alone in those views. The Law Society of Scotland, the Law Society of England and Wales and the British Property Federation have all expressed their concerns. The Government therefore cannot support the amendment.

Lords amendment 117 would make information about trusts submitted to the register of overseas entities publicly available by removing it from the list of material listed as unavailable for public inspection. It is important to note that the information on trusts is already provided to the registrar when an overseas entity registers on the register. Furthermore, the registrar already discloses trust information to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, law enforcement and other persons with functions of a public nature if and when necessary and appropriate. This is not a loophole.

In the other place and in this House, including from the right hon. Member for Barking, the Government have heard and acknowledged that there is a case for broader transparency over trust arrangements beyond law enforcement agencies. The Government therefore added a regulation-making power in the law to allow third-party access to trust data in certain circumstances. That will enable individuals such as civil society organisations and investigative journalists to access such information under certain circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

If the threshold is not reinserted, the new offence will apply to every single UK business and therefore increase the cumulative burden on UK businesses more than eightfold, from just under £500 million to £4 billion. That burden would disproportionately be shared by small business owners. All Members of this House will have hard-working businesses in their constituency, so we cannot support that. It cannot be taken in isolation; we must be aware of the cumulative compliance costs for SMEs across multiple Government requirements or regulations.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I hear the Minister’s plea on behalf of SMEs, and I have sympathy that we do not want to overburden them with regulation, particularly small businesses. However, the threshold that the Government have chosen to set for exclusion from the failure to prevent fraud is extremely high. If I take just one example, law firms—he will know as well as I do that lawyers are among the key enablers of many schemes that lead to both fraud and money laundering—out of the 10,400 law firms in the UK, only 100 will be caught by the legislation as it is currently framed. Is he willing to negotiate with us on the Back Benches and members of the House of Lords to look again at the level at which he defines an SME in this legislation?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The threshold is set at one of these three: 250 employees, £36 million turnover or £8 million in gross assets. We think that is the right level. We always listen to what the right hon. Lady has to say. The legal sector is covered by current money laundering regulations, as is the estate agent sector, for example. It is not right to say that they are not covered by money laundering regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I think that that will be covered in the points I am going to make, including around the steps that the Government need to take further.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

On that point, there is discussion in the Bill about reasonable arrangements, which will be decided through secondary legislation. It will be necessary to ensure that the processes through which small and medium-sized enterprises show that they are preventing fraud and money laundering can be done in a way that is not burdensome on those businesses or a detriment to them. The same arguments took place over the bribery legislation, when there was concern about an attempt to have an SME exemption. That failed at that point, and all the research since that legislation was enacted shows there has been no detriment to SMEs or to their ability to export.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. Indeed, she pre-empts some of the content of my speech, which is absolutely fine—we can reference it twice. She makes an important point about the Bribery Act 2010, which has also been referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon.

The important point here is that it is for the Government to get this right, and I think we can all agree that there should not be disproportionate costs for small businesses. Lord Vaux, an experienced professional in these areas, also expressed concern over the credibility of the Government’s figures on the estimated costs for smaller businesses. Another important argument is that these policies can also protect SMEs, which are also the victims of fraud. We can sometimes lose sight of that. In 2022, 64% of UK businesses experienced fraud, corruption or other economic crime. That is much higher than the global average of 46%, and second only to South Africa. This is a matter of a cost to businesses as much as a cost for businesses, and what the extent of that would be in reality.

We have also looked at the safeguards—particularly since my conversation with the Minister last week—that are in place to avoid disproportionate costs for SMEs, which the Government can use to get the balance right. Spotlight on Corruption has noted:

“It is open to the government to make clear in guidance issued for the offence what reasonable procedures would be proportionate for SMEs, and in what circumstances it would be reasonable not to have them at all.”

The offence also contains a defence for companies to be able to argue, in the event of legal action, that its procedures were reasonable in all the circumstances or that it was not reasonable to expect the body to have any prevention procedures in place. That is important for informing the debate today and it is the reason that, after deliberations and listening to the Minister last week, we have decided that we should support the debate in the Lords and that we do not want to see the exemption for SMEs taken out of the Bill.

Amendment 159, on failure to prevent money laundering, was tabled by the noble Lord Garnier. It would expand the scope of the Government’s new offence of failure to prevent fraud so that the offence would also cover money laundering. The Government argue that this amendment is not needed as we already have an anti-money laundering supervisory regime, but I remind the Minister that a Treasury review into our anti-money laundering regulations published in June stated that

“significant weaknesses remain in the UK’s supervision regime.”

Hugely frustratingly, the Government have responded to that with yet another consultation.

In addition, since the most recent money laundering regulations were brought in, the UK has had only one corporate criminal conviction for money laundering, so it is pretty clear that the existing safeguards against money laundering are not enough. Here is a chance to take stronger action and to include in the new offence a failure to prevent money laundering, and the Government should take it. We will be supporting this amendment to stay part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Exactly, and that is the point. What the Government have done is set up a legislative Aunt Sally. I welcome their putting in place mitigating measures to deal with parent companies and subsidiaries—Lord Bellamy explained that very well indeed—but the threshold they have set is entirely unnecessary. It does not reflect what the Law Commission said in its report. When I was in office, I was delighted to ask the Law Commission to do the work on failure to prevent fraud. It did the work and, hey presto, it produced proposals that had nothing about thresholds in them, so where on earth has that come from?

I am sorry if I might have inadvertently upset my hon. Friend the Minister by mentioning His Majesty’s Treasury, but I detect the hand of my friends in Parliament Street. I know their view about failure to prevent fraud; they do not like the offence and never have done. They have always put up arguments against it. Perhaps it is their role to do that—I do not know—but I detect their hand in this. That is an unfortunate coda to what would have been a magnificent symphony, had my hon. Friend the Minister stuck to the line and done what I thought he was going to do.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, I agree that the United States is a litigious society. We, in the United Kingdom, do not necessarily want to go down that road when it comes to civil litigation, but what the United States does well is prosecution of fraud. It regularly and rigorously enforces the criminal law of fraud, particularly in the jurisdiction of New York and in other major financial centres, which enhances the reputation of that jurisdiction as a safe place to do business.

Here is the argument that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, do not hear, in contradistinction to the argument about the regulatory burden. Where there is a criminal legal framework that is clear, certain and stable, that can only encourage investment into the United Kingdom, not discourage it. A jurisdiction with a robust and independent judiciary and a fine legal tradition, which rigorously polices the law of corporate criminal liability, is one that investors can have the greatest confidence about investing in. What on earth is happening here to undermine that very powerful argument?

Prosecutors, including the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, have made the case consistently that a “failure to prevent” offence of this nature would help them in the important work they do in bringing wrongdoers to book. We do not want to be a jurisdiction where it is too easy to commit fraud that benefits corporates. We do not want to be that sort of place—that is not a healthy place within which we should be operating. If we are truly committed to a vigorous free market economy, then, in the traditions of Adam Smith, we should be absolutely committed to its policing and its boundaries. I sound a bit evangelical about this—a bit biblical, a bit Old Testament—because it is important that we get this right at this last stage of the Bill.

That brings me to my noble Friend Lord Garnier’s amendment about money laundering. He made the argument very well and, having read his entry in Lords Hansard, I will adopt it. I am in danger of sounding like a broken record, but I make no apology for that. Money laundering is already a criminal offence. The regulatory argument does not cover the full gamut of what we are dealing with, and Lord Garnier’s amendment is a sensible reflection of the importance of ensuring we cover offences of money laundering. Remember again that this is about benefiting the company; it is not money laundering in general, but a targeted offence, with the same caveats and qualifications that I mentioned in the context of the “failing to prevent fraud” offence. So I say to my hon. Friend, “Repent!”. He should follow the true path and come back and finish the job. We can all then take equal pride in the work that he and others have done to make sure that this jurisdiction is a fairer and better place in which to do business.

Let me end on this note. I will not dwell too much on the rather milquetoast amendment about the capping of cost orders for proceedings for civil recovery. We know that it is a problem. We know that it is a disincentive to the bringing of civil proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We should just get on with it. The particular rules and proposals about costs are well reflected in other parts of legal procedure and other types of proceedings, so this is nothing new. I think that it is time that we grasped the nettle rather than having yet another report.

Finally, Lord Agnew made a very powerful point: just a few words is all it takes to make a difference when it comes to trusts and the arguments that have been very cogently made about that by others. Only a few small steps need to be taken by my hon. Friend and His Majesty’s Government to allow us to reach that promised land. I urge him to take us there and then we can all celebrate in a land of milk and honey.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I shall start where that brilliant speech by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) ended. I would also say to the Minister, and also to the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) were he still in his place, that they have shown from their time as Back Benchers a real understanding of all the issues around economic crime. They knew what needed to be done. They helped to develop the agenda that would work through smart regulation, transparency, tough enforcement and proper accountability. When the Bill arrived in the House, it was, I hope the Minister will agree, a bit half-baked. I am not blaming the civil servants in the box, but it was a bit half-baked. It was full of loopholes and serious omissions. But in this year that we have been considering the legislation, it has gone through tremendous transformations, so I salute the Minister for what he has done, but urge him to go that step further. I thank the Labour Front-Bench team for their assiduous and detailed work on this, but I particularly salute the Back Benchers—Back Benchers from all parts of this House who have joined together to bring forward a set of pragmatic, practical amendments that really will make this Bill fit for purpose. I also thank those in the House of Lords who have worked across parties, with the Cross Benchers, to ensure that we have some serious amendments that will give us a good framework to start the eradication of the malignant infection that we have with dirty money.

I say to the Minister: do not undo that good work; do not emasculate what has happened and where we have got to; and do not give into the voices of enablers who want to make a fortune on the back of dirty money. I wonder, as the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon has wondered, why on earth is the Minister not listening to what we are saying. Everybody in Parliament wants this. Everybody in the country wants this. Nobody supports dirty money. As I have said time and again, the country will not sustain economic prosperity and wealth on the back of dirty money. There is no future in that. I give the Minister another commitment, which I really regret having to say. I will not be here, but I want a future Labour Government to commit to never having a system that allows any political party to exist on the back of donations of dirty money. I say: do not let this opportunity go. Do not betray the principles and do not cave into the lobbying. The Government should look at the excellent amendments and please go forward.

I wish to focus on some new points. Lord Agnew’s excellent amendment in relation to trusts needs to be considered. The Minister said that he did not accept the research that was published today by really respected academics. These are people I have worked with over the years in whose work I have total and utter confidence. I challenge the Minister to bring them in and talk to them and then see if he comes to the view that what they are saying is not true. What they are saying is that we do not know the beneficial owner of 70% of the properties identified as owned by an overseas entity. And we do not know the beneficial owner of two thirds of that 70% because there is a trust that hides the real beneficial ownership. The Minister should have regard to what they say, as they are distinguished. I urge him to talk to them. I am happy to join in a meeting with them. In 87% of cases where information is either missing or inaccessible, it is because of Government choices in the design of the scheme. It is not because people are not obeying the law. It is because the Government have chosen to design the scheme in that way.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am conscious of time, but I will give way to the Minister.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

When the LSE looked at beneficial ownership, I think that it included tenants of properties rather than the ownership of properties, and the register of overseas entities only deals with the ownership of those properties. There is definitely some disconnect between the Government’s position on this and the legislation and the interpretation that has been taken with this research from LSE.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I have met the key academics involved in this on a number of occasions, and I urge the Minister to do so as well. I think the differences are between the entities and the properties. We started asking for a register of properties that were owned by overseas entities in 2012, 2014 and 2016. It was absolutely ages ago. It was when David Cameron was Prime Minister. It was finally enacted last year, but it has been enacted badly. I have to say that it is the secrecy that matters. We can have transparency and we can protect vulnerable people. Transparency will enable all eyes—many, many more eyes—to interrogate the data and the Minister knows that to be true.

Let me put in this basic point. He and I own properties. We are not ashamed of showing the ownership of those properties. Why should we reveal the ownership of the properties in which we live, when rich people—often kleptocrats, often criminals, often money launderers—are able to use trusts as a mechanism to hide their ownership? That is a basic unfairness that the Minister should deal with. May I quote to him the words of one of the firms of lawyers that is exploiting the loophole? It is Payne Hicks Beach—Baroness Fiona Shackleton is a member of that firm. The firm says:

“On the face of it, the lacuna would seem to defeat the purpose of the legislation”—

this is lawyers saying this—

“so may be tightened up”—

hopefully tonight—

“in the future, but for the time being, using a nominee to hold UK property will continue to provide privacy as far as the ROE is concerned.”

Lawyers are exploiting that loophole, and we should stop it because—I hope that the Minster will agree with this—it is damaging our sanctions policy. Usmanov has been able to hide a lot of his wealth in property through trusts. Abramovich has done it, Fedotov has done it, and it is time that we brought it to a stop.

The other key issue is the failure to prevent. I will quote to the Minister what he said time and again. This is not about additional burdens on SMEs, or filling the courts with criminal cases; this is about trying to change the behaviour in our society, so that preventing fraud and money laundering becomes embedded in our culture, in the same way that preventing bribery has become embedded in business culture. The example that the Minister used when he was on the Back Benches is very potent. When we used to have a lot of accidents and deaths on construction sites, we reformed the health and safety at work legislation. We did not suddenly fill the courts with builders and construction people being taken to court, but overnight the number of accidents went down by over 90%. That is the principle that we are working on. That is the evidence that we want to use, and it is vital that we do it here.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I will take that qualification. I was seeking a short cut because time is brief. My hon. Friend is right to mention the agency point, but it is still a much narrower ambit of the offence than fraud in general. That is the point I would ask him to take away, because I am not persuaded. I think the amendments should remain within the body of the Bill as amended, and I will be voting accordingly.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that we must vote in five minutes to remain in order, so I will simply say that economic crime is a national security issue and should not be a partisan issue in this House. I urge the Minister to set aside the party political views that he is expressing and to go with the consensus that has been built, not just in the House of Commons but in the House of Lords and in the non-governmental organisation sector outside.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady is right. It is not just the parties but the different sides of the natural arguments over authority, libertarianism and civil rights that are not divided. I am a strong defender of the right to be presumed innocent, but there needs to be a rebalancing in this area, where the criminals we are up against are very sophisticated and will use smaller companies to get around this if they need to.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

In the interest of trying to get to the vote on time I will close my speech, but I urge all Members to please support the amendments proposed by Conservatives in the House of Lords, which are eminently sensible, rational and pragmatic.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and speak very strongly against Lords amendments 151B and 151C, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. I am surprised at Lord Garnier’s lack of any conception of what it is like to run a small business and the cumulative impact of Government regulation thereupon. The limits that are drawn here will draw in all manner of businesses, not least some eminent barristers who will fall foul of some of the numbers. Indeed, the average town-centre or city-centre pub will be covered by these regulations, such is their level of turnover and employees. It is worrying that I am perhaps the only small-business voice here and that there are not enough small-business people in the House to point out the problems with this issue.

As the Minister has said, hundreds of thousands of businesses will be drawn into the net. This is not necessarily about the compliance cost. The kind of regulation that comes with the prospect of a criminal offence has a chilling effect on small businesses. I speak as somebody who has owned one for nearly 30 years. When the Revenue, health and safety or trading standards show up with some new regulation, a whole industry cranks into place to terrify the owners of small businesses into some kind of compliance. Then along come the consultants, the accountants, the webinars and the newsletters telling us what we do and do not have to do. All of this distracts us from what we should be doing, which is trying to create employment and wealth and paying tax to the rest of the country.

The other issue is that this misunderstands the dynamic of businesses of this size. If a business of this size is going to engage in fraud, it is very possible—more than likely, actually—that the principal will be the instigator of that fraud. The idea that, alongside all the other offences, they should take steps to prevent themselves from perpetrating fraud seems ridiculous. Added to those general difficulties are the specific ones presented by the Heath Robinson-type calculation that every business will have to undertake every month: adding together how many employees there are and how many are employed in each month in year P, then taking away the number you first thought of and dividing it by the number of months. We are all going to have to do this every single month to work out whether we are above the threshold or not. Should we have the steps? Should we not have the steps? It all seems particularly nonsensical.

We know that a vast amount of this fraud takes place in larger companies, and they have the capacity and the wherewithal to deal with it. If my hon. Friends really think that senior barristers, whose turnover and assets will be more than the threshold, should be taking and showing procedural steps to avoid conducting fraud—do not forget that they are sole practitioners—then I am afraid we have gone through the looking glass of what Conservative Members think is appropriate.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Margaret Hodge Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me point out—it may not be obvious—that we only have until 1.51 pm to complete this business. I therefore appeal for brevity. I am not going to impose a time limit, because given that everyone present is a distinguished and experienced Member, we should not need one.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to be clear about this. I assume that we can speak until 1.51 pm, and vote after that. Is that correct?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is. Let me say for the purpose of clarity that the right hon. Lady is absolutely correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I think my right hon. Friend may suffer from the same affliction, dare I say; but I will draw a veil of charity over that.

My hon. Friend—and my friend—the Minister has campaigned assiduously with us in the trenches on this issue for many years. I yield to none in my admiration for him, and I want to put on record how grateful I am that he is in this place, in that spot, doing the job that he is doing. We have come a long way. I well remember being on the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee giving authorisation for this Bill in the first place, and knowing then that it would require heavy amendment during its course.

It was inevitable that, in the light of the appalling incidents in Ukraine and the changed world situation, the Bill would develop and mature, and mature it has. The identification principle changes are truly radical and reflect a view long held by the Law Commission and others that we needed to update the Tesco v. Nattrass principle, which is now 50 years old. I salute the Minister and colleagues in the Lords for making sure that that has happened, but I must press him again about the basis upon which the Government make assertions, very much at the last minute, about the regulatory or administrative cost burdens on small and medium-sized businesses. I do not think that they are going to be as dramatically high as they assert. We have not had proper time to test the estimates, and I do not think that they stand up to scrutiny. They do not reflect the Government’s position on previous “failure to prevent” offences—namely, for tax evasion and bribery—and this begs a huge range of questions.

There is no doubt that my colleagues in the legal profession—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on every occasion, and I do so now—will feast upon these threshold definitions. Worse than that, unscrupulous operators in the field will exploit these threshold definitions and find clever ways around the law. We know what that means. We will see shell companies and people of straw. We will see the same behaviour that we are rightly trying to eradicate because we want this country to be one of the best places in the world to invest.

This is chiefly an economic argument. Yes, there is a morality to it, but chiefly it is an economic argument. That is why, at the last minute as we come up to Prorogation, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the increased majorities in the other place for these amendments and in particular of the attempt we have made to compromise with the Government. At the last minute, I imposed myself upon the goodwill of the Clerks in order to get a further amendment in before the time limit. It was a manuscript amendment to increase the period of one year mentioned in the amendment to 18 months. It has not been selected for debate, but the important political point that we wish to make is that we are seeking at the last minute to come up with reasonable compromises.

I will give the Minister another idea. Bills normally come in with Royal Assent, which we imagine will happen either today or tomorrow with the Prorogation ceremony. Two months is the normal period for Bills to then come into force but he has the power to lay commencement orders to ensure that certain parts of this Bill do not come into force until a statutory instrument has been laid. He has that power, so why not use it in this case and accept the amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)? He can see that we are commanding all the ingenuity that we have to come up with reasonable compromises that will allow the Bill to pass in the best possible order. I make a last-minute plea to him to accept these exhortations and not to oppose the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and me. I can say no more to my hon. Friend the Minister, other than to thank him and ask him to go that extra yard.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

This is another leg in a long journey. I want to focus on the amendment that stands in my name, which is supported by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).

May I place on the record my thanks to everybody across the House, some of whom are here today, for the way in which we have managed to work together as Members of Parliament and put our political affiliations behind us in trying to find a common-sense, pragmatic way to tackle a horrific problem and to improve the Bill that was laid before us almost a year ago? I also pay special tribute to Members of the House of Lords, who have again worked incredibly hard to improve the Bill in a practical way. In particular, I thank Lord Garnier, Lord Agnew, Lord Vaux and Lord Edward Faulks, all of whom have moved important amendments that have been supported by Members across the House, many of whom are members of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax.

I draw to Members’ attention what happened to the amendment to the “failure to prevent” measures. When it was first considered by the House of Lords it was passed by a majority of three. When it was considered a second time, it was passed by a majority of 26. When it was considered a third time, last week, it was passed by a majority of 41. So the strength of feeling in the other place about the importance of the propositions in the Bill simply grew over time, as the argument was heard by more and more members of the House of Lords, and I bet that if it goes back again, it will get through again with an even greater majority. I say to the Minister that people are voting for this and it is not just a partisan issue; Cross-Benchers and members of the Conservative party are either voting or choosing to abstain. That is why we are securing those majorities in the House of Lords.

Our amendment is moved in the spirit of compromise. All we are saying in that amendment is that we would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review a year after Royal Assent, with a report to Parliament within 18 months of Royal Assent, where it would assess the impact of excluding so many businesses from having duties to prevent fraud. It would also look at the impact of that on the incidence of fraud and assess the potential merits of bringing more companies into scope.

I want to take Members back to when the Government promised to introduce a “failure to prevent” offence on the basis of new clauses introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst when we considered the Bill on Report. They were detailed new clauses to which we had given great thought. The Government agreed at that point to adopt our proposals on the basis that we would not seek to divide the House on the issue. We kept our side of the bargain but, sadly, the Government have failed to deliver on their commitment. So Lord Garnier tried valiantly three times to hold the Government to their word, and every time he put it to a vote he got a greater majority in favour of what he was proposing.

This measure was first championed when the Minister was a Back Bencher, as he is well aware. He was the individual on our all-party parliamentary group who argued the case for it with the greatest passion and commitment, so it is especially sad that the effectiveness of the new offence has been so undermined and weakened by the changes he has chosen to make or been forced to make by colleagues in his own Department or in the Treasury. He often argues that we were the first country to introduce a “failure to prevent” offence. I agree with that, but I would simply say to him we are also the jurisdiction of choice for dirty money, so surely we have a duty, more than any other jurisdiction, to lead on reforms and to clamp down on this evil matter.

The Government’s changes have substantially weakened the power of the new offence, and the Minister has to accept that. He has taken out the failure to prevent money laundering, and the offence now covers only fraud. He has excluded all medium-sized, small and micro-businesses. That means that his carveout has excluded 99.9% of all businesses. It has excluded two thirds of all the people employed in private enterprise. It has excluded half the turnover that flows through private enterprise. I say to the Minister that this is a missed opportunity by his Government that represents a failure to act firmly and decisively against the scourge of dirty money.

The Government’s own report, “National SME Fraud Segmentation”, found that medium-sized companies employing between 50 and 250 employees were significantly more likely to experience fraud than larger companies. The Metropolitan police and UK Finance have warned that SMEs are particularly vulnerable to fraud, and the procedures to prevent companies from committing fraud are exactly the same as the procedures to prevent companies from experiencing fraud. Why on earth and on what basis have the Government chosen to excuse them? I cannot understand the logic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Lady is making very important points. However, the “failure to prevent” offence, as drafted, would not cover that situation, because it covers only situations where the benefit is to the corporation concerned or an officer within it. A situation in which a third party hijacked systems would not be covered, whatever the threshold.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That is an interesting point. The simple response is that, obviously, the drafting of the “failure to prevent” offence needs further improvement to ensure that it covers that sort of instance.

There were similar arguments about the burden on SMEs when we introduced the Bribery Act 2010. In 2015, a survey of SMEs found that nine out of 10 had no concerns or problems with the Act, and 90% also said that it did not affect their ability to export. Although fears are expressed before legislation is introduced, once it is on the statute book people find that it actually helps them. Under the terms of the Bill, SMEs already have an appropriate defence, as the Minister well knows: that they should only take actions that are reasonable in all circumstances. That test of reasonableness would protect microbusinesses and SMEs from having to engage in overly bureaucratic procedures.

Although the argument is overwhelming, the Minister does not agree. We had hoped that the Government would support and accept our amendment. If they were to do so, we would not put all these amendments to the vote. This means that the next Government—a Labour Government, we all hope—will seize the opportunity that the Minister has missed and grasp the issue. Labour will become the anti-corruption champions, saving our country and our economy.

This Bill arrived in a sorry state and we have improved it—I accept that—with the identification doctrine, clauses on strategic lawsuits against public participation, the improvement of accountability with an annual report to Parliament, and the reluctant acceptance that there may be an increase in fees for Companies House. But there are still large gaps. Trusts have not been covered, as they should be, and authorised corporate services providers could end up with a future dud register. Cost caps, which other hon. Members have alluded to, are not in there, the whistleblower regime is not in place, and asset seizure still has to be tackled.

We hear whispers that there is a third economic crime Bill. I am pleased about that, but if we had achieved more with this Bill, we might not have needed another one. After all the work that all of us have done to achieve cross-party consensus, and given the values that we all share, I would hope that the Minister would be bold enough to accept our tiny little compromise and put this Bill to bed so that the proposed legislation could be passed by the time we prorogue.

[Liam Byrne]

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), which gives me an opportunity to thank her for her extraordinary leadership on this agenda. Our country is safer and stronger for the work that she has helped lead in this House over a long period.

Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I am grateful to the Minister for ensuring that, by and large, we have approached this Bill in the spirit of compromise. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, unfortunately, the Bill arrived in this place in a sorry state. Of course, the best way to examine that is to look at the fantastic manifesto of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which, of course, the Minister used to co-chair. When I look at that manifesto, which we launched together in Westminster Abbey not too long ago, I see that this Bill covers a fair number of its proposals, but not all of them. That is why something of a mystery still hangs over the Chamber today, and that mystery is that we know that the Minister probably wanted to go much further in this Bill. He has been collegiate enough not to explain to us, either in public or in private, just how his hands were tied and why he has pulled his punches on so many of the policy proposals, including those that we are debating this afternoon.

I want to underline why the “failure to prevent” clauses are so important and why the responsibility for failing to prevent fraud and money laundering should apply to all companies, not just 9% of UK plc. We know, as my right hon. Friend said, that unfortunately this country is now one of the two global centres for money laundering and fraud. That is a badge of shame. There are think-tanks in places such as Washington that now write reports about what they call the UK kleptocracy problem. That is because we have left our financial services and Companies House too weak to police what is a growing problem.

To underline how fast the risk to our country is growing, I asked the House of Commons Library to look at the amount of foreign direct investment that was coming into our country. Foreign direct investment comes into Britain through companies that are set up at a moment’s notice, from UK offshore accounts, from dictatorships and from countries that are only partially free, and the reality is that that money has grown fivefold since 2010. A quarter of a trillion pounds of foreign direct investment has come into Britain from UK offshore accounts, dictatorships and countries that are only partially free. Overwhelmingly, I am sure, that money is clean and good, but we all know in this House that some of it is not. We have a responsibility in this place to make sure that our regime for policing corrupt money is as strong as it possibly can be. This Bill, although it makes progress, still leaves weaknesses in the argument.

The Minister has based his arguments more recently on whether we are creating undue, over-burdensome costs to business. Like him, I was in business previously—I was in the wrong place at the wrong time—and was elected to this place in 2004. I know what it is like to grow a business from two people around a table to a multi-million pound enterprise that employs lots people. I know about the responsibilities on company directors, but we grant special privileges to company directors in this country and we grant special privileges to companies. That regime was introduced in 1855. When Viscount Palmerston moved that legislation through the House, he said that the Limited Liability Act 1855 was important, because it would act for the common good of the country. Yet, if we have a regime that does not ensure that directors have responsibilities that match those privileges, frankly, that common good is undermined.

As my right hon. Friend said, we already have a regime in this country that bestows some important responsibilities on directors, including the failure to prevent bribery and the failure to prevent tax evasion. Therefore, there are already important regulatory requirements on directors, which we as a House have judged to be essential to keep our economy clean. Asking those directors to take one more responsibility, which is to prevent fraud, is not a significant extra burden.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that if we are to have a successful financial services sector, we will never get it on the back of dirty money? Therefore, it is ever more important that, in relation to both fraud and money laundering, we have a “failure to prevent” offence, which is not about banging up people in prison but about changing the behaviour of companies and those who work in them?

[Liam Byrne]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a point of cross-party consensus. I know it is a point of cross-party consensus because it was the Minister who used to use precisely the same argument to argue for some of the changes that we see in the Bill.

We all know that our country does well, because, by and large, we have a reputation for clean trade around the world. When companies file and incorporate in this country, that is a credential that does them well around the world. That is a credential that we must do everything in this House to protect, which is why the amendment is so important. We cannot leave a weakness in our armour as crime and fraud multiplies.

The Minister said that the proposal would be a cost to British business that we could not withstand or sustain, but the truth is that, while it might be a cost to some British businesses, it would also be a saving to British business, to the British economy and to British taxpayers, because it is always cheaper and more effective to prevent fraud in the first place than to have to police it or to prosecute fraud after the event. When 64% of businesses—small businesses—in this country are victims of fraud, we can only imagine how widespread that cost of fraud has now become. That average is much higher than international averages and therefore there is an additional argument that we need to go that one step further to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to prevent fraud from arising in the first place.

All we ask in this amendment is for the Minister to face the facts. He should bring the facts together, put them in a report, assess them, analyse them and present some conclusions to the House. How can we have a situation where the Minister is essentially asking for the freedom to look away? That simply cannot be the basis of good policy. I am grateful to my new colleagues on the Business and Trade Committee who agreed yesterday that we will ask representatives of Companies House to come before us for hearings. Frankly, if the Minister is not prepared to put the facts around fraud in one place, I shall ask the Select Committee to do the job for him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Perhaps the Minister can tell me what he means when he says that he will keep this matter under review. What precisely does that mean?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The way that we have legislated here, and the reason for doing so in that way, have always been informed by information that has come from third parties—from Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International and others—that have been interested in the Bill. The right hon. Lady and I have worked together on this issue in the past in various all-party groups. Those are the kind of bodies that will inform progress as we implement this legislation, which again I say is world leading.

The shadow Minister talked about a level playing field and said that these measures move away from that. I could not disagree more. The key thing is that we do not have a level playing field now. In small companies, it is much easier to identify who is responsible for a fraud. That is why it is more difficult in large companies, which is why we are applying this to large companies. Fraud is fraud whatever the size of the company. This legislation does not allow smaller or medium-sized companies to facilitate fraud—if they are guilty of fraud, they are guilty of fraud and it is far easier to identify the people concerned.

Let me address the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and thank him for all the work that he has done on this legislation and on the Justice Committee. I ask him not to doubt my motives; I have not been influenced by the Treasury at all. I am influenced by wanting to do the right thing in terms of both tackling economic crime and making sure that we do not put undue burdens on businesses. I can assure him that, for as long as I am in this role, we will keep this under review and make sure that the threshold is fit for purpose.

My hon. Friend talks about good business, but it is good business to make sure that we do not put undue burdens on business. I can promise him that, from my experience—while I was chief executive of my company—we implemented the rules on bribery and tax evasion, which were significant in our business. These would be significant measures for businesses. I say to him and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) that they will have a real impact on businesses and significant costs of implementation. I do not think that they would be proportionate or needed within smaller enterprises, because of the ease of identifying the people responsible if fraud were facilitated in an organisation.

I appreciate the kind words of my right hon. and learned Friend and the work that he has done. I remember lobbying him on this issue when he was the Secretary of State for Justice—and a fine job he did. We have got much further this time than we did at that time, which shows our collegiate way of working all the way through the Bill’s passage.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has also done fantastic work in this area, and I appreciate all her efforts. She says that we do not agree. We have a right to disagree where we disagree, and we honestly disagree about whether this proposal is required. We do not want to put unnecessary burdens on businesses.

I completely understand the strength of feeling of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on this matter. I, too, feel strongly about implementing the right measures to tackle economic crime while not putting undue burdens on businesses, so I say to her again, in the spirit of good will that we have operated under for many years, we will keep this under review. If the threshold needs to be changed, we can do that under secondary legislation.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) on his election as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. I know that he will do a fine job. He is right that, in that spirit of good will, we have achieved much in the manifesto that we launched just over the road. Again, I hope that he does not doubt my motives in what we are doing to tackle economic crime without putting undue burdens on business.

I urge everyone to support the measures that we have in place already, and I ask those in the other place to respect the clear will of this House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.