Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). I have been on this journey with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) since I served on the Public Accounts Committee when she was chairing it—shockingly, it is now 10 years on from that. We began to deal with some of the domestic issues with companies that had international footprints—the large companies such as Starbucks, which we had before the Committee. I remember that rollercoaster ride and my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on that work.

Let us be clear what the impact of the lack of beneficial ownership registers is. Others have touched on security, but I wish to talk about the tax that is lost. We are in a cost of living crisis, there is a huge pressure on the Exchequer and we have an election looming, with each party that is likely to be in government wanting to make promises to the electorate. This money is being hidden away without people knowing where it is and that is definitely having an impact on the tax take; it is an absolute opportunity for tax avoidance and tax evasion, in particular, and it is key that we have this register. In my constituency, a lot of properties are owned by offshore companies, some of them in the overseas territories, and it is impossible for the residents of those buildings to know who their landlord truly is; they face an address with no name attached, and no responses come from those landlords. It is against natural justice for people who have their homes owned by others as finance vehicles not to be able to have access to them.

We need to make sure that this issue is dealt with, because if we do not deal with the issues of money laundering and economic crime across the piece, and we deal with them only domestically, without a strategy for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, there is a risk that the problem will simply move, rather than be resolved. People with money and advice about where to hide it, if they are minded to hide it, will find ways to do that where those ways exist. This loophole needs to be closed and we have a prime opportunity, with the Foreign Secretary, the very person who, as Prime Minister, was backing that a decade ago, now sitting in the House of Lords and at the Cabinet table. He could be driving this, so I urge the Minister to speak up for his new boss. I hope that the Minister has been given the go-ahead to give us some comfort today that this issue will finally be revolved. There are only a few weeks until the end of the year, and I hope he can give us some comfort on the timeline.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for your co-operation. For the first wind-up, I call Richard Thomson.

Birmingham City Council

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the appointment of Max Caller, who has a strong track record of making these difficult decisions and helping councils to turn around, but the Secretary of State will know that task and finish was a big part of what happened in Birmingham. Does he have oversight of which other councils are still doing that? Nearly 30 years ago, at Islington Council, we were looking at those issues and tackling them.

The big issue here—the elephant in the room—is local audit. Some 12% of audit opinions for the 2021-22 financial year have come in, even with the extended deadline. The permanent secretary and the National Audit Office have indicated that we need to focus on the current year and to forget previous years, but these canaries in the mine, these warning signs, were never heard because of the dire state of local audit. This has all been on his Government’s watch. Can he give us any reassurance that he really has a plan to get local audit back on track?

Papers Relating to the Home Secretary

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The backlog is a hugely significant issue. Among my heavy case load, I have a surgeon who cannot move hospitals because he cannot get his visa turned around, families who are separated and spouses who cannot live together. That is the real human impact. We are turning our back on good people who want to work and live in this country because they are caught in the backlog as a result of the Home Secretary’s actions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just before the shadow Home Secretary responds, I say to Members on both sides of the House that this is quite a specific motion on the papers relating to the Home Secretary. It is not a general debate on the Home Secretary or other Government Ministers, so please be mindful of that in any interventions from either side of the House, so that we can focus on what this motion is about.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman and I could have a completely separate conversation about ID cards, but I absolutely agree with what he says; I used to use that as an example of how it can be done affordably and well. But we have a disconnect in government on this issue. We have discussions about vaccine passports and talk about ID, but not ID cards. We have talk about vaccine passports by an app, but without ID. If vaccine passports are ever going to work, we need some form of verifying ID card. So it seems to me that the Government are arguing, counter to their 2010 position, for abolishing not just ID cards but fingerprints in passports, which took us way below the international standards on identity verification. We need to see a proper, coherent approach to this, not an approach that just stops the poorest from voting and cuts people out of exercising their basic democratic right, when the percentage of in-person fraud is minuscule. Yes, we could do more to tackle postal fraud and the harvesting of votes, but not this.

I want to touch on some of the environmental issues that are touched on in the Bill, although we do not yet know the detail. I am pleased that the Environment Bill is being carried over, but let us hope that we see more detail and more meaningful steps towards action on this issue. The Public Accounts Committee has spent some time over the last year looking at environmental and climate change issues, and we have found the Government wanting. They have been promising the Earth with big broad-brush headlines, but potentially really damaging the Earth through their inaction. There is no planet B, so we have to get it right now. Ambitious projects such as stopping production of petrol and diesel cars within nine years make great headlines, but there is a lot to be done in the nine years between now and then, and very little detail. So it is vital that that is got right, and I think that there is, or should be, cross-party consensus across the aisle that we need to tackle this generational issue for our planet.

On green jobs, again the Government make promises, but I have been looking at this for at least a decade. With COP26 on the way, we can expect a flurry of stage-managed headlines, but the detailed plans to achieve all these things are not there. Over the last decade or so, we have seen the privatisation of the UK Green Investment Bank, and even the removal of its absolute requirement to deliver green investment; we have seen the failed green deal, which cost over £100,000 per loan; and we have seen a fourth contest launch for carbon capture and storage, which would help to tackle some of our energy intensive industries. The first three fell at the first hurdle.

I want to touch on immigration. I proudly represent a constituency that is the world in one borough. We hear tough talk from the Home Secretary on this, and then we hear talk about how she is going to support the Windrush victims. We should be proud of our record of accepting people from the old empire, from the Commonwealth and from across the world when they are fleeing persecution to come to this country. We need to continue to support those people to find sanctuary where they are fleeing challenge, but we also need to better support those who are legally here but are unable to fully participate as citizens because of the barriers that are put up.

The cost and complications of our immigration system have gone through the roof. When I was elected 16 years ago, people had to apply for indefinite leave to remain. They then got five years and they could then apply for citizenship. It then went down to three years, so they had to apply twice to reach their five years for citizenship. They now have to apply three times, each time paying a fee. The Prime Minister talks about making Britain great again and about Britain having a big place in the world, so why is it that when someone comes from outside Britain to contribute to our country, we put these barriers in their way and make life difficult for them and, worse still, for their children?

I am proud to be working with We Belong and with my constituent, Chrisann Jarrett. This organisation represents young people who arrived in this country as toddlers or young children and who have now found that, because they are unable to pay these fees and their citizenship fee, they are excluded from university and often from the workplace. They are legitimately here in most cases, but they are being priced out. That is a crying shame and a stain on our country.

This Queen’s Speech has bits in it that I want to support, but I want to see the detail and I want to see delivery. I want to see movement on social care, on housing and on green jobs, of course, but on the basis of the last 11 years, we have seen failure after failure, promises made and not delivered and—crucially, from a public accounts point of view—lessons not learned and mistakes repeatedly made. Cheap headlines over substance just let people down. I will back what is good for my constituents, but on the basis of this Government’s record, and despite the Prime Minister talking about hope, change and opportunity, I am not very hopeful.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the next speaker, can I just ask for some self-discipline on the length of contributions, because I would like to get through the debate without putting a time limit on contributions later on?

Contingencies Fund (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

Committee of the whole House & Committee stage
Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The next speaker, by video link, is Jamie Stone. [Interruption.] Jamie, you may be on mute—I know that you are audio only. [Interruption.] We will try to get back to you. Waiting in the wings is Meg Hillier.

[Meg Hillier]

It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on the Bill and perhaps slay some of the misstatements that I have already heard in the short while I have been in the Chamber.

First, I should point out to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) that value for money in respect of taxpayer spending is not a new-found interest for most of us on the Opposition Benches. I have spent 27 years being responsible for either spending taxpayers’ money wisely or scrutinising that spending. I am very aware, as are the shadow Chancellor and her team, that every pound of public money saved is a pound to spend on something else. We may disagree about what that something else might be, but scrutiny is really important.

Contingencies Fund Bills are interesting pieces of legislation. They are about as old as the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair, and are an important mechanism for making sure that the Government cannot just routinely spend over budget. It is fair to say that in this House we are very bad at scrutinising Government spending. That is not down to individual Members or the official Opposition; it is because the structures of this place do not allow us properly to discuss estimates, excess votes and so on. In fact, some time ago the OECD said that as early as the 18th century our scrutiny of finances in this place was “reduced to hollow ritual.”

The change in this legislation, which will allow the increase in contingency funding, has been rushed through. I do not deny that it is necessary to have additional contingency. The way it works normally is that if a Department overspends on its budget as granted, albeit inadequately, by this House, the matter then comes to the Public Accounts Committee and we have to examine whether the excess is justifiable and reasonable. Pretty much our only weapon is the ability to call in the officials who have made a mistake and get them to explain the issue in public, but then a Government majority can certainly agree the excess vote regardless.

In Ghana—Mr Evans, you might be interested to know this, and officials might be quaking as I say it—if an official overspends taxpayers’ money, they have to go to court, and if they take an appeal to court, they have to pay up front half of the money that has been wasted. Certainly, that would sharpen minds.

The point is that it is right that we have a Contingencies Fund Bill. I accept it is necessary, but I welcome new clause 1, because the mechanisms for oversight of this are very flimsy; they are reports on paper after the event. This is not about more bureaucracy. I see it as being about greater transparency. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, which has had an important constitutional position in this place for 160 years, I get passed information by Government—from Ministers and senior officials—about issues relating to the finances of Government, sometimes confidentially, and that is counted as the scrutiny of Parliament.

I believe there is a very important role for the constitutional position of the Public Accounts Committee and thereby the Chair, a role I am privileged to occupy at the moment—it is not about me, it is about the position—but that is not enough scrutiny. We are in the middle of a pandemic, and spending eye-watering sums of money—hundreds of billions of pounds—with the public sector and the private sector. It does not matter where the money goes, in this sense; it is about scrutinising that expenditure and making sure that Treasury Ministers, whom I would have thought would be aligned with me completely on this issue, are clear that we are not allowing Departments to overspend willy-nilly. Although the Treasury has its checks, it is important and vital that Parliament has its checks too and that we have sunlight on these issues in real time. This is important, and I would say that the new clause is really pretty anodyne. It is saying that we want better reporting to the House of what the Contingencies Fund Bill already allows to the Government.

The National Audit Office has been much quoted, and I do not have the exact phrase in front of me—forgive me, Mr Evans, but for once I paraphrase, which I really try not to do—but the NAO has looked in detail, as other Members have commented, at the Government’s approach to procurement, and this is its clear message. All these allegations are out there, but part of the reason for that is the lack of transparency and the lack of information being published in real time on some of these issues. We have seen, heard and talked about in this place the many contracts that were not published on time, and that undermines public and parliamentary trust in the process. Whether or not anything has gone wrong, it is undermining trust, and people start asking questions and laying down allegations whether or not they are true.

It is in Government’s interests, the taxpayer’s interests and Parliament’s interests to agree to this new clause. I am disappointed—I am embarrassed really—that those on the Treasury Bench can come forward with a change at such short notice and not have a meaningful discussion about what is a reasonable new clause to allow this place greater scrutiny over what are unprecedented amounts of spending in the middle of a pandemic. At a time like this, we need more transparency, not less. This is actually a minor change. It is not about bureaucracy; it is about accountability and transparency, and taxpayers deserve better.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Four and a half years since the referendum, here we are. I accept we have left the European Union, we are in the transition period and at 11 o’clock tomorrow the shutters will finally come down on that chapter of European-British relations, but we have more than a thousand pages in an agreement and a hastily drafted Bill that runs to 80 pages, but that has to be read alongside many other pieces of legislation to be fully understood. We have five hours of debate today and I have three minutes, of which I have already used up half a minute, to talk about how poorly the Government are using this place.

This is not parliamentary scrutiny; in keeping with the festive season, it is much more of a charade. It does not give us the chance to do properly the job that we should be doing. This place does not always make good legislation, and this is clearly rushed legislation.

I have many concerns about this Bill. I have big concerns about Northern Ireland. As someone married to a dual Irish-British citizen, I spend a lot of time on the island of Ireland, and I see the real challenges of what is being put in place, and I saw the lack of thought about that land border right from the get-go in the run-up to the 2016 vote.

The security matters concern me, including SIS II, the European arrest warrant, and Europol. Services are not included in this agreement, despite, as others have said repeatedly, their accounting for a trade surplus with the EU. Professional qualifications and issues affecting musicians and others in the creative industries affect my constituency particularly. As a constituency Member for the City fringe, I am very concerned we still have not bedded in arrangements for financial services.

It is security arrangements that concern me most. They have been massively weakened by this agreement. I spent three years in government negotiating over access to SIS II, Prüm, the European arrest warrant, Europol, Eurojust and mutual legal aid. Those were all things that I dealt with day in, day out with our European neighbours, and we have thrown that away. We have thrown away so much of what we have been fighting, even in the last decade, to get much more closely involved with. We are now attempting to patch together, with more bureaucracy, the same things as we are giving up with this Bill.

The lack of scrutiny and the impossibility of reading the Bill properly make me unable to support it today. I am not voting against it, because I recognise that the votes in 2016 and 2019 give this Government licence to take us out of Europe, but I cannot be complicit in what is a wrecking ball in the name of sovereignty. We now need to drop the “remainer” and “leaver” labels. We need to unite to fill the gaps in the creative and performing arts, in the financial sector, in the recognition of professional qualifications and, above all, in security. It is because of those security measures, in particular, that I cannot be complicit with the Government and will abstain today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We had hoped to go to North Shropshire to listen to Owen Paterson, but the line has gone down. We do hope, Owen, if you are watching and listening, to come to you before the wind-ups a bit later on. We will try our level best.

Petition

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Merger of Department for International Development and Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that I am not the only Member who has written to Ministers in the past few months about serious matters yet had responses from quite junior civil servants. Although I respect all civil servants, when I write to a senior Minister on a serious matter of policy—not an individual matter—I expect a response from the Minister. Are you, Mr Deputy Speaker, prepared to give me guidance on how we can make sure that this practice is nipped in the bud?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Speaker has made it absolutely clear that he expects all Back-Bench questions to Ministers not only to be answered but to be answered promptly, and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will make absolutely certain that Ministers are made aware of that rule.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who, as ever, made some cogent points about the importance of process. I completely agree with him that the Government must lay out a process by which this House can begin to have a say in the proceedings and on the final deal.

I stand up today to talk with passion about the biggest constitutional change to this country in my lifetime and in several generations. I regret that I do not believe that we will reverse this decision, but I will not be supporting it. That is not because I do not recognise the result of the referendum. I cannot walk blindly through a Lobby to trigger a process without a shred of detail from the Government. There has been much talk of the Prime Minister’s speech—made not in this House, but elsewhere—but no White Paper and no detail. After seven months, it is really shocking that the Government can come to the House today and say so little.

There is still no real guarantee of parliamentary oversight. Although there was a vote to leave, there is a lot more detail below that decision that the House has a constitutional role to play in delivering. There is no certainty for business, as we stand here, and businesses in my constituency are very concerned about their future. There has been not a word of succour for EU citizens resident in the UK, an issue I have raised with the Prime Minister. There has been no answer about how the many regulations that will need to be transposed into our law will be dealt with. I suspect that we will see an explosion, at speed, of quangos. This is the same Government who wanted a bonfire of the quangos.

In the short time that I have, I want to focus my comments on EU citizens resident in the UK. At the last census in 2011, around 10% of my constituents were born in other EU countries. That was the case for about 27,000 residents across the Borough of Hackney, and the percentage is similar across London as a whole, where 841,000 people were born in other EU countries. If we look at student numbers, we see that 31,000 students from the EU were accepted in 2016, up 22% from 2010. That is a significant bunch of people who are contributing to our economy.

We cannot get figures for everywhere in our public services, but 5% of NHS staff UK-wide are from other EU countries. In 2015-16, nearly 11% of staff who joined the NHS were from European Union member states other than the UK. That has gone up from nearly 7% in 2012-13. That demonstrates that there is a big gap between our skills in this country and the skills and talents that we need to fill those jobs.

Let us look at the tech sector. I am proud to represent Old Street and Shoreditch, which is home to a burgeoning tech sector. Approximately 184,200 EU nationals work in tech. There are already issues with visas in this sector, because it is such a modern and emerging global industry. Often, jobs do not have titles—they do not exactly exist, in official terms—and there are real issues about where we get that talent from. Cutting off overnight the stream of EU citizens, who may be asked to leave this country, is a real issue.

Overall, 3 million EU citizens live and work in the UK. Those people pay more in tax than they withdraw in benefits, and they contribute at least £2 billion annually to our economy. A recent poll by BMG showed that a majority of UK residents believed that EU citizens’ rights should be guaranteed, with 58% agreeing with that position, 28% disagreeing and 14% saying “don’t know”. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) talked about the human misery that this is causing. I have had people ringing my office in tears because they are worried about their future. When I am on doorsteps talking to constituents, they cannot hold back their emotions, because they are fearful about what it will mean. What about the woman who wrote to me recently—a Dutch woman with a British partner and British children, who has spent 20 years in this country but does not know her future? What about another woman who is worried that, because she is a freelancer, she will not be able to stay in the UK?

Changing this issue would not require an amendment to the Bill; the Government could agree to it straight away. We should be very wary of turning on foreigners in our midst at this time. Instead, we should give them succour. The Government should do so in the next few days, allowing such citizens to stay and continue to contribute to our country and setting in train the process by which they have to do it. If we do not do so, we should look very closely at our tolerances in this country.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful point. I actually think it is tantamount to torture not to tell people from the EU living and working in this country that they can stay, as it is for British people living and working in the European Union. Does she not believe that both sides ought to get together as quickly as possible and put people out of their misery by telling them that they are allowed to stay, to live and to work in the countries where they currently are?

[Meg Hillier]

I agree with that position, but I believe the Government could go further and make a unilateral declaration. These people live in our midst, they are our friends and our neighbours, they work in our public services, they are contributing to our economy, and I believe that people who are exercising their treaty rights today should be allowed to stay. They have made their lives in this country with every expectation that that would be the permanent position, and I think it would be magnanimous of the Government to give way now.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

I was puzzled by the Minister’s speech because it sounded more like a rallying cry to a group of students than an attempt to address the new clauses and amendments. I should say, however, that I have no problem with rallying cries to groups of students in their place. In fact, not long before the election—when the Minister and I sat on opposite sides of the House—we addressed students together, and he announced that a Conservative Government would remove ID cards to an audience of about 25 people.

Let me make it absolutely clear that we tabled new clauses 2 and 4 as alternatives for the Government to consider as we try to find a way of providing some recompense to those members of the public who bought the cards in good faith. We would have preferred to have tabled a measure providing for a refund but, because there is no money resolution attached to the Bill, we could not. With that in mind, we intend to press both new clauses to Divisions, although if the first is agreed to, we will not need a vote on the second.

I need to pick up on a couple of points that the Minister made. We were not suggesting in the amendments—perhaps he should look more closely at them—that we expect the national identity register to continue. They were carefully worded to suggest migration of data to the existing passport database. In fact, the identity register would have been a modern passport database, had the Government had the courage to continue that approach.

New clause 4 is not about being helpful to those who already had passports or wanted a passport. It would allow cards to continue, but would attach them to the existing passport database. Accepting that the Government’s intention is to destroy the national identity register, it sought to find a solution to that. The Minister has not given very good answers about why that could not be done. Had the Government included a money resolution, it would have been possible—instead of sending two letters out to everybody—to provide a refund to those who had paid or those who had applied for a refund, which would not necessarily have been everybody. The Government’s approach is mean-spirited.

The Minister spoke about the state holding huge amounts of information. I hope that his Government still believe that the NHS should hold information on people, that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency should hold information, and that the passport database should exist. The national identity register was a modernisation of the passport database.

I assure the House and anyone else who may be watching proceedings today that there is nothing synthetic about our indignation. We recognise that both Government parties had clear policies on the issue, and we can do the maths. We know that we have limited options to improve the Bill, and we are trying to make the best of a bad job because the Bill does many things of which we disapprove. New clauses 2 and 4 attempt to provide some recompense to the people affected.

We have heard some disparaging comments. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) spoke about politics being tough. It is clear that his Government are saying that it is tough on members of the public who bought a card. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) spoke about the mugs who bought a card. That disparaging attitude may well be reflected in the Lobby, so let us be clear who is on the side of the consumer in this case. It is certainly not the Government.

The Minister used his cod maths when talking about the cost of the identity card scheme. It does not behove a Government Minister to be so flippant and free with figures when he well knows that the cards had to be paid for by fees. As is the case with the first issue of anything, when the first Mini rolled off the production line, it probably cost several million, if not billions of pounds, but for the last Mini, by definition, the cost per item was much lower because many thousand would have been produced. Identity cards had been issued for a few months at the time of the general election, but under Treasury rules they had to be paid for out of fees, just like passports, as the Minister knows. It ill behoves him to take that approach. I wish to divide the House on the new clauses.

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

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.