Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Alison Thewliss

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

This is an important Bill and there is much good in it, but I am afraid that a number of areas require further attention. Now is not the time for discursive speeches, but I regret to say that notwithstanding the good in the Bill, the Government have fallen into error in relation to the two Lords amendments that they seek to reverse.

Let me say first that while a measure to deal with “failure to prevent” offences is a good idea, this measure is too widely drawn. The Minister made a point about the burden of costs on small businesses, but the definition of a medium-sized business is significant: the risk is less to do with the size of a business than with where it does its business, and also its corporate structures. One of the important things we have learned from the United States is that “failure to prevent” offences are not simply about prosecuting, important though that is, but also about changing corporate behaviour. I did not hear a word about that in the Minister’s speech, and I think it might be better to reflect on it again.

Lord Garnier tabled an amendment to compromise on micro-entities; perhaps we should think again about a third tier, consisting of medium-sized as opposed to small entities. That would not be unreasonable, given that many medium-sized entities do significant work abroad where there is some risk, and given that the costs are tax-deductible from profit. I urge the Government to think again, because having done so much good in the Bill, it will be a shame if we weaken its enforcement by widening the net too much.

As for the cost caps, when the Minister said that no prosecutions had been brought yet, he did not add that that was because of their chilling effect. People will not risk bringing prosecutions if their budgets are going to be eroded after the event by costs being awarded against them. Only yesterday, in the House of Commons, I had the pleasure of meeting Bill Browder, who has set out very clearly why that has been the case for a number of years. The Serious Fraud Office tried to bring a prosecution a few years ago and got its fingers burned, and there have been few prosecutions since then. This is about behaviours rather than outcomes.

I have to say—with apologies to the Minister, whom I like and respect—that the Government have taken an unduly restrictive and literalist approach to these matters. It would be far better to find compromises—to think again, go back to the Lords, and see whether there is somewhere between Lord Garnier’s position and that of the Government. Perhaps that third tier of the medium-sized entity is a way around this. The Government are committed to a review of cost caps in 12 months’ time, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) said the last time this came up, what is there to review? The evidence is there: cost caps are chilling. As the Minister will see if he reads the evidence given to the Cambridge economic crime summit—at which I had the pleasure of speaking last week—it is overwhelmingly clear that not a single one of the experts could understand the Government’s position on this, so I ask them please to think again about it as well.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I strongly very much with what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said. Let us just agree with the Lords. Let us get on with this. Let us do this legislation, and do it properly.

Let me say first that it is important for us to have as much information as possible about those who own companies. It is clear from all the evidence that has come before us that the lack of such information causes people to find ways of hiding their money, and the UK has become a magnet for that. The Minister has suggested that there will be a significant cost to businesses, but businesses are already doing work on failure to prevent bribery. As Lord Garnier said on Monday, there is a clear read-across: it would be easy to add fraud to the current provisions. It would not be difficult, and it would bring about an economic benefit. The Minister also suggested that economic growth would be hampered in some way, but he himself has said that

“ a corporate offence of failure to prevent economic crime and money laundering would reduce the amount of money that is illegally shifted out of the UK into foreign jurisdictions and increase the amount of tax that is paid.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 220.]

Why does the Minister now disagree with himself? Why does he disagree with statements that he has made in the past? He knows that this is an important measure, and that this is an issue that we can deal with here today and it will be done. We will not have to come back to it, we will not have to keep debating it, and the Minister will be able to see that he has finished it off and done a good job.

On the issue of adverse costs, I agree with what Bill Browder said in his evidence to the Bill Committee. By not introducing such a measure, we are inhibiting law enforcement when it comes to economic crime. We know that those on the other side of the equation who want to hide their money have plenty of it to throw at the best lawyers and at the best accountants to make things look a particular way. If we are to be in this fight, we need to give the law enforcement agencies the resources that they require, and cost capping is a key element of that.

As I said the previous time we debated these matters, there is no need for a review. We need to get on with things. An election is coming, and we do not know when we will pass this way again. The Minister should accept the Lords amendments, and get on with the work.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Robert Neill and Alison Thewliss

Monday 13th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I have made it abundantly clear that it is not a living wage; it is a rebadging of the national minimum wage, and it is not good enough. [Interruption.] Would Government Members give me a break?

Long tenancies give a degree of certainty and reduce costs to housing providers, who know that a tenant is there for the long term and do not constantly have to manage the turnover of stock. That is costly for housing associations and local councils to manage, so knowing that a tenant will stay reduces their costs. The Government should think very carefully about this policy’s impact on well-established and strong communities.

This Government seem to be making a further attack on the social rented sector and its tenants, following the distress caused by the bedroom tax. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that only 6% of affected tenants were actually able to move, and that 50% of those who did not move fell into arrears. I am glad that the Scottish Government were able to mitigate that, but it is another example of a policy built to deal with a London problem that did not exist in Scotland, and which simply punishes people for their circumstances. The Scottish Government should not exist simply to mitigate the policies of another Government. That is unfair and unsustainable.

The Government are also in real danger of undermining their own work on city deals. One of the intended outcomes of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal is to help long-term unemployed people back to work, and if the actions of this Tory Government undermine that by slashing benefits and making life harder for people who are looking to work, that will undermine the potential success of the deal. We must co-ordinate and work together. We need job-creating powers in Scotland and more than the simple power to mitigate the wrongheaded approach of this Government.

Although I say that, the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) will be glad to find that I welcome the further development of city deals in the Budget. They will go some way to redressing the imbalance in the UK economy, and not before time. Looking at the rhetoric about the northern powerhouse, I would suggest that it is perhaps a final admission of the fundamental failure of the UK economy. London is indeed the giant suction machine that the former Business Secretary spoke of, and the map on page 67 illustrates that investment in the south and east of England is focused through the prism of how best to serve London rather than to build up those areas in their own right and advance the economy.

I have attended Adjournment and Westminster Hall debates on city deals for Aberdeen and Cardiff and I listened with great interest to the debate on elected mayors. I have also followed discussions on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill in the other place. I am keen to see the development of deals that meet local needs and have been disappointed in some of those debates to find that the wishes of local people seemed to rank behind the pet project of some local authorities and the requirements of business. If more powers come to cities, it should be to serve the ambitions and priorities of local people to raise their opportunities in life and to make things better according to local demands. They must also be the devolution of funding to match those powers, as devolution and the reform of local government cannot be a cover for passing on cuts.

I am of course delighted to see continued commitment to the city deal for Glasgow and Clyde Valley, which the UK Government established in partnership with the Scottish Government, each putting in £500 million, with £130 million coming from the eight local authorities involved. I hope, too, that the deal will involve listening to local people. It is early days and the work of the joint board is just getting under way. I commend the fledgling city deals for Aberdeen and Inverness, which are mentioned in the Red Book, and ask that attention be paid to potential deals in Scotland’s other cities.

In considering city deals, we must also consider how we support areas outwith large conurbations. Rural areas should not be left behind, and if they are it will only exacerbate the difficulties of rurality. The approach in Scotland has been about collaboration through the Scottish Cities Alliance rather than cutthroat competition, and I believe that that is more productive. Setting regions against one another and failing to seize the opportunities to make links will only waste money in the long run. I note with interest that an Oyster-type system is being considered for Manchester. That is of course welcome, but it should not operate in a way that builds barriers between different regions. There is much opportunity for interoperability rather than running in entirely different directions and I note with some concern the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) about incentives for businesses. If we are not careful, that could lead to a race to the bottom on standards in different areas.

I would also guard against the temptation to reach for shiny prestige projects at the expense of more sustainable projects that benefit local communities and urge that further attention is paid to the importance of community benefit policies within public contracts. They were used effectively in Glasgow during the Commonwealth games and on other projects and are a simple way to ensure that local people get jobs, training and investment in every large or small infrastructure project that comes along.

A Westminster Hall debate last week touched on the fact that elected mayors had been rejected in some areas in local referendums. It would seem to me to be unwise to overrule that democratic right, but the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), said:

“I reiterate that where there is a request for the ambitious devolution of a suite of powers to a combined authority, there must be a metro mayor, but no city will be forced to take on those powers or to have a metro mayor, just as no county will be forced to make any governance changes.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 187WH.]

That seems to make no sense and to disrespect local democracy. People can have the funding, but only if they have the mayor. If people do not want a local mayor and think that the power is better vested in their local authority and local democracy, the Government should respect that. Members might also like to note that there is no such obligation for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley plan to come with an elected mayor.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting point, but if she trusts local authorities in that regard it is legitimate to trust them to vary certain levels of taxation within an area and to increase their prudential borrowing against a revenue stream. Would she support us on such measures?

[Alison Thewliss]

Having come from local government, of course I trust it to do those things, but it should not be forced with a gun put to its head.

I will close by asking the Secretary of State to reflect on the purposes of power being devolved, and on how best we support local communities. People will be unsurprised that we in the SNP reject the austerity agenda, and the people who voted for us support our policy. That austerity agenda has already led to so much damage to the fabric of our communities, and there is only so much that people can take.