Summit on Illicit Finance Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateRebecca Long Bailey
Main Page: Rebecca Long Bailey (Labour - Salford)Department Debates - View all Rebecca Long Bailey's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is, as always, a pleasure, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall and for his excellent speech. I agreed with all the speeches made by colleagues today, and I do not get to say that very often. We have had some fantastic contributions.
For too long, the UK has been seen not only as a victim of illicit finance, but a destination for it. Dirty money has flowed through property markets, financial institutions and networks of shell companies. We have seen widespread tax avoidance while ordinary working people continue to do the right thing and pay their taxes every month. People look at that imbalance and ask an important question: why is it that those who play by the rules are expected to shoulder the burden while others are able to hide wealth behind secrecy and weak enforcement? Every pound lost is a pound that cannot be invested in our NHS, schools, social care system and local communities. It is money that cannot be used to recruit nurses, support teachers, improve public transport or rebuild the local services that people rely on every day.
Illicit finance does not simply deprive us of important public revenue; it actively reshapes our economy in very damaging ways. Nowhere is that more visible than in the housing market. Vast quantities of suspect wealth have flowed into UK property. We have already heard about million-pound mansions in Kensington, but it extends as far as entire new apartment blocks being bought by foreign investors in shell companies, with no notion of who they are and why they are investing here in the UK. It is a vehicle within which wealth can be stored and concealed rather than places for people to live. The result is higher prices, reduced affordability and a market that too often rewards speculation over social need.
That is why transparency—an important word that has come up today—must be at the heart of our response as a Government and this upcoming summit. No individual should be able to own property in the United Kingdom without their ultimate beneficial ownership being disclosed, verified and recorded on a public register. If ownership cannot be established transparently, that asset should not be capable of being bought, sold or transferred within the UK market.
I agree with colleagues’ comments on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I do not want to reiterate their arguments, but our Government must establish a fully public and independently verified register of beneficial ownership covering all UK land and property, including assets held through trusts and nominee arrangements.
Companies House must be transformed from a passive registrar into an active gatekeeper with the powers and resources necessary to verify company directors, beneficial owners and corporate filings before companies can operate within our economy. The Land Registry, Companies House and the National Crime Agency should be given stronger powers to investigate opaque ownership structures and pursue wrongdoing wherever it occurs.
We know, however, that rules are not enough; enforcement matters too. Agencies tasked with tackling economic crime remain significantly outmatched by and under-resourced for the scale of the challenge they face. Long-term investment is desperately needed in specialist law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Such investment could be funded in part, perhaps, through stronger economic crime levies on major financial institutions, asset recovery and financial penalties. We should also expand the use of unexplained wealth orders and remove the legal cost barriers that have too often discouraged their use.
We must also confront those who enable financial wrongdoing. The vast majority of lawyers—I was one—accountants and financial professionals act responsibly but, if individuals facilitate illicit activity, there must be meaningful consequences. Equally, we need stronger legislation against SLAPP—strategic lawsuits against public participation—to protect journalists, researchers and campaigners who, in the public interest, expose corruption and financial misconduct. Illicit finance does not respect national borders, so the UK must lead international efforts to improve transparency, tackle offshore secrecy and strengthen co-operation between Governments, regulators and law enforcement agencies.
This issue is ultimately about the kind of country that we want to be. Do we accept an economy where secrecy, wealth and influence can buy special treatment, or do we believe that everyone should contribute fairly to the society from which they benefit? I know that everybody in this room sees society in the same way that I do, because most people understand that very simple principle. When everyone pays their fair share, we can properly fund the public services that bind us together and invest in the future of our communities.