Energy Prices Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Colleagues will know that this debate has to finish at 7.30 pm. After the shadow Secretary of State has spoken, I will put on a three-minute time limit. We will then go to the SNP. I will try to get as many people in as possible, but we will not, realistically, be able to have wind-ups. I therefore suggest that people who do not get in perhaps prepare for what they might to like to contribute in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement today that this scheme should be time-limited to six months and that a different scheme should be developed against the possibility that energy prices remain very high for the months thereafter. I do not think that we can go on indefinitely at the rate of the cost of this particular scheme over the winter. If this continues, we need to target the support much more clearly on the many people and families in this country who could not afford the bills otherwise and leave those who have rather more money and are using rather more energy on luxuries to pay more of that for themselves. We have time to sort out a scheme that we can target better. I am sure that this Committee, and the dialogue that will continue, will make sure, through pressure from Back Benchers and Front Benchers, that we do not leave anybody out. It is very important that everybody has proper support one way or another so that they can afford their energy bills this winter and beyond.

I am also sure that the long-term solution is more domestic energy. We cannot carry on relying on unreliable imports, which can, at times, force our country to pay extreme prices on world markets to top up our gas or electricity because we do not have enough for ourselves. We are a fortunate country with many opportunities to produce fossil fuel and renewable energy. We have been a bit lax in recent years in not putting in enough investment, so I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at the incentives—as I am sure he will—and at the predictability of contracts and investment, so that Britain is a great place in which to invest for these purposes, and so we can exploit more of our energy and have more reliable supplies, even generating a surplus in some areas so that we can help Europe, which is very short of energy and does not have many of our natural advantages.

My concluding point is that we cannot go on for too long with a complex net of subsidies, price controls and interventions without damaging the marketplace more widely and sending the wrong signals, so I am glad that this measure will be short-term. We need a better system for the future so that there can be plenty of support for those on low incomes if energy prices remain high, but also much more investment to solve the underlying problem.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck; and if it looks like a tax and takes money like a tax, it is a tax.

This Bill introduces another windfall tax, not on the oil and gas producers but on the renewables producers. It is in the form of a cap on the revenues that renewable and nuclear companies can make. The electricity price is set on the basis of the wholesale gas price, and when the gas price went up companies saw an increase in the price they were paid for the electricity that they produced, although they did not have to pay the increased gas prices to produce it. When the Minister for Climate, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), told the Select Committee the other day that this was not a windfall tax, his official tried to persuade us that it was simply a reframing of the regulations, but in fact the Government are trying to force those companies into a retrospective contract for difference, and they should be honest about it.

But look who benefits! The Government continue to allow the oil and gas companies to make excess profits from the global crisis, and also give them a way to claw back the windfall tax under the investment allowance scheme by claiming as a tax break 91p in every pound they invest in more production in the North sea. The Minister must explain why the Government are compensating these companies for the windfall tax, and also why the renewables companies—which are the ones we really need to incentivise to invest in more capacity—are being hit by this revenue cap, while not being given a similar investment allowance.

Before the temporary windfall tax the UK levied the lowest tax take from its oil and gas producers anywhere in the world, and even with the temporary windfall tax it still taxes a full 6% below the global average. If the UK taxed these companies even at the global average, it would recover an extra £13.4 billion for the Exchequer each year. The Committee on Climate Change wrote to the previous Chancellor—when he was the previous Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but one—saying that he should support a tighter limit on production with stringent tests and a presumption against exploration. He took no notice, and the measures in this Bill are the consequences of the Government’s now being forced to protect consumers and business from their past failure to invest in renewables.

Last year, energy prices meant that an average family was paying £1,100. After the windfall tax and the unfunded borrowing, that will now be limited to an average of £2,500. The cost would, for the two years, be £31 billion, but given the statement from—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

Energy Update

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I might have to write to the hon. Member on the question of remeterage. The £144 million discretionary fund is supposed to be disbursed at the discretion of local authorities, in the right way. I think his question is more about heat networks. In the British energy security strategy, we announced that heat networks will in future be regulated by Ofgem—I say that on the assumption that he supports the Energy Security Bill that is making its passage through Parliament at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman’s point that somehow the UK can declare some kind of unilateral declaration of independence from global energy prices is, I am afraid, simply fanciful. Even Norway, which is one of the world’s biggest domestic producers and almost certainly the largest surplus energy producer in the world, is facing these same challenges of rising domestic energy prices. It is simply not possible for the UK to isolate itself from these global trends. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I call Patricia Gibson.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The energy price cap is set to double. Businesses have received no support with energy costs, households have simply not received enough and those in park homes have been completely ignored so far. On top of that, the cost of supplier failures means that the poorest, who use less energy, will continue to be disproportionately impacted by punishing standing charges. Today the Minister has said nothing about any of these issues, because today’s statement is about a zombie Government giving the illusion of activity. When will we see urgent and decisive action to tackle this increasingly painful and in some cases life-threatening crisis for businesses and households on the brink?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I hear the hon. Gentleman loud and clear. Northern Ireland is very much at the forefront of our discussions and our considerations. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched a new taskforce in relation to Northern Ireland, recognising its difficult position of not having a Northern Ireland Executive and also recognising that electricity is a devolved matter. We are actively on that case to make sure that Northern Ireland consumers and businesses do not miss out on the support being given by the UK Government, quite properly treating the United Kingdom as a whole.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for his statement.

Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The Business of the House (Today) motion just agreed to by the House provides for the two motions under item 4 on the Order Paper to be debated together. At the end of the debate, I will put the Question on the first motion. When that is decided, I will ask the Opposition to move the second motion formally, and I will then put the Question on it.

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this we shall take the following motion:

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Liability of Trade Unions in Proceedings in Tort (Increase of Limits on Damages) Order 2022 (S.I., 2022, No. 699), dated 22 June 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 June 2022, be annulled.

[Jane Hunt]

The purpose of the first instrument is to lift the current ban on employers bringing in agency staff to help them cope with industrial action. The second instrument makes a long-overdue change to the maximum levels of damages the courts can award against trade unions that take unlawful industrial action.

I will start by examining why the Government are making these changes. Our trade union laws are designed to support an effective and collaborative approach to resolving industrial disputes. They rightly seek to balance the interests of trade unions and their members with those of employers and the wider public. While the Government continue to support the right to strike, it should always be the last resort. The rights of some workers to strike must be balanced against the rights of the wider public to get on with their daily lives. Strikes can, and do, cause significant disruption. That is particularly the case when they take place in important public services such as transport or education. It cannot be right that trade unions can, as we saw in the case of the recent rail strikes, seek to hold the country to ransom if their demands are not met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just to give prior notice, there are many more speakers than have put down to speak, so I suspect a time limit will be imposed. Members should bear that in mind. I call Angela Rayner, shadow Secretary of State.

Fairness at Work and Power in Communities

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the deputy Leader of the Opposition, I must point out that this is a very well subscribed debate and that in order to get everybody in, I ask that Back-Bench speeches are no longer than 10 minutes each.

Long Covid: Impact on the Workforce

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The caring responsibilities are greatly increased, as is the prevalence in children. I was alerted by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) to a case of a parent who is asking for dispensation for her child from taking examinations because she has missed so many days of school. I am talking to the Education Secretary separately about that point, but long covid affects the entire family, not just the workforce.

Some 1.5 million people have long covid, but 989,000 people say that those long covid symptoms adversely affect their day-to-day activities and 281,000 people report that their ability to undertake their day-to-day activities had been “limited a lot”. That often means they must take part-time instead of full-time work, and sadly it often means they are unable to recover well because they are pushed to try to get back to work.

The effect on business is now being better documented. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that a quarter of UK employers cited long covid as one of the main causes of long-term sickness absence among their staff. For small businesses, the effects can be devastating. The Federation of Small Businesses has shared guidance on how to help with statutory sick pay and arranging for temporary staff cover.

However, I am concerned that the ACAS guidance right now is pretty sparse; I hope the Minister might take that up. The guidance signposts to other websites but does not make it clear that one of the most important things to do with long covid is often to let someone rest. People say “listen to your body” when it comes to medical things; I am afraid that with long covid that is actually the treatment plan.

If someone is forced or encouraged into work by their employer—often inadvertently, if they do not have proper guidance—it can set them back and cause even more problems down the line. One of our main calls is for employer guidance, but I also urge the Government to look at the ACAS website, for example, and ensure that it is clear to employers how they can help and support their employees to stay at home and rest as long as they need to, so that they come back and we do not unnecessarily lose people from the workforce.

A legal expert speaking to the APPG described the lack of access to financial support and said,

“lots of people with Long Covid find themselves starting for the very first time to be involved in the obstacle course which is our benefit system”.

It is clear that long covid is having a serious impact on the ability of our workforce to do their jobs, and we can only expect that to get worse as the virus spreads through the population again and we get more cases of long covid.

What can we do? The all-party group has released a report on long covid this week; if the Minister has not seen it, I would be happy to give him a copy. In it, we make 10 recommendations, but I will highlight just a few. First, the Government need urgently to prioritise research treatments for long covid patients. We welcome the money already committed, but we would contrast it with the United States, for example, where $1 billion has been earmarked for this, because the US recognises the effect long covid could have on its economy and sees this as an investment. I urge the UK Government to find similar ambition.

Secondly, we call for employer guidelines, set out by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Care, to help all businesses to help their employees back into work. Thirdly, we call for the UK Government to launch a compensation scheme for all those frontline workers currently living with long covid, similar to the armed forces compensation scheme.

The Minister will perhaps be aware that the process for the designation of an occupational disease is ongoing; we are hopeful that that will report back soon, and we are discussing that with the Department for Work and Pensions. That designation could be game-changing, particularly in those public sector areas where prevalence was incredibly high, such as education, the health and social care workforce and public transport, which had some of the highest prevalences of covid, particularly at the beginning.

The Office for National Statistics survey points to where we need to look. However, I urge the Government not to wait for that designation. Many of those workers, as in my examples, have already left the professions. They are leaving the sector or deciding to take early retirement, and this is a time when our economy needs a boost. It needs those experienced workers. At the moment, we are not paying any attention to that.

The main reason we secured this debate was to urge the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look ahead and take this seriously. The best thing we can do right now is to help hard-pressed people in the UK in our fight against Putin, against the cost of living crisis and all the rest. If we are to get our economy back on its feet, we must get our workers back at their desks. If those workers have long covid, there is currently very little out there to support them or those businesses that desperately want them back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I think we can get everybody in with a reasonable amount of time, if everyone limits their comments to a maximum of eight minutes.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The selection paper includes three manuscript amendments that the Chairman of Ways and Means has selected: amendment 63, in the name of David Linden; new clause 41, in the name of the Secretary of State; and amendment 64, in the name of Kevin Hollinrake. A separate paper containing those amendments is available from the Vote Office.

Clause 1

Overview

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

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

Amendment 24, in clause 4, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(aa) a statement either—

(i) of the names of any persons who are registered beneficial owners of the entity and are designated persons listed on the UK Sanctions List, or

(ii) that no registered beneficial owners of the entity are so listed;”

This amendment would require the identity of any sanctioned registered beneficial owners of the entity, or a statement that there are no such persons, to be included in an application for registration.

Clauses 4 to 6 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 7, page 4, line 11, after “update period” insert “or trigger event”.

This amendment would extend the duty to update the registrar to certain trigger events.

Amendment 25, page 4, line 11, at end insert—

“(aa) an updated statement in accordance with section 4(1)(aa)”.

This amendment requires statements made under amendment 24 to be updated annually.

Amendment 6,  page 5, line 18, at end insert—

“(8A) For the purposes of this section, trigger event means the date on which an overseas entity has reasonable cause to believe that anyone has become or ceased to become a registrable beneficial owner.”

This amendment defines a trigger event.

Clause 7 stand part.

Amendment 42, in clause 8, page 5, leave out lines 30 to 35 and insert—

“(a) on the first day of contravention, a fine,

(b) on the second continued day of contravention, an additional fine of £500, and

(c) on each subsequent day of continued contravention, an additional daily default fine of the value of the previous day’s fine plus £50.

(2A) If the contravention continues for a period of six months beginning with the first day of contravention, the Court must order the seizure of assets from the person guilty of the offence of the value of the cumulative fines to which that person is liable.”

The purpose of this amendment is to provide progressively higher fines for a registered overseas entity, and every officer of the entity, for an initial default in complying with its duty to update the register, leading to a seizure of assets if non-compliance continues for 6 months.

Government amendment 45.

Amendment 7, page 5, line 31, leave out “£500 and one-tenth of level 4 on the standard scale” and insert

“£2,500 and half of level 4 on the standard scale.”

This amendment would increase the daily default fine for an offence committed under section 8 in England or Wales.

Government amendment 46.

Amendment 8,  page 5, line 35, leave out “one-tenth” and insert “half”.

This amendment would increase the daily default fine for an offence committed under section 8 in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Amendment 43,  page 6, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert—

“(a) on the first day of continued contravention, a fine of £500, and

(b) on each subsequent day of continued contravention, an additional daily default fine of the value of the previous day’s fine plus £50.

(6) If the contravention continues for a period of six months beginning with the first day of contravention, the Court must order the seizure of assets from the person guilty of the offence of the value of the cumulative fines to which that person is liable.”

The purpose of this amendment is to provide progressively higher fines for every officer of the entity for a continuing contravention of its duty to update the register, leading to a seizure of assets if non-compliance continues for 6 months.

Government amendments 47 and 48.

Clause 8 stand part.

Amendment 9, in clause 9, page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (8).

This amendment would extend the definition of an overseas entity registered as the proprietor of a relevant interest in land for the purposes of sections 9 and 10 to include such entities irrespective of date of registration of the entity.

Clauses 9 to 11 stand part.

Amendment 41, in clause 12, page 8, line 32, at end insert—

“(3A) If an entity declares that there is no person whom it knows, or has reason to believe, is a registrable beneficial owner in relation to that entity, the registrar of companies in England and Wales must give an information notice under this section to that entity requiring full details of how the entity is controlled.”

This amendment requires an explanation to be given where an entity claims there is no registrable beneficial owner. Making a false statement in purported compliance, or failing to comply, with a notice under this section is an offence under section 15.

Clause 12 stand part.

Clauses 13 to 15 stand part.

Amendment 10, in clause 16, page 10, line 29, at end insert—

“and (d) prior to the registrar taking action under section 5(1).”

This amendment establishes that such verification processes made under regulations should take place prior to the registrar recording the date of registration in the register, allocating an overseas entity ID to the entity and record the overseas entity ID in the register.

Amendment 11, page 10, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to include the specified information in regulations.

Government amendment 49.

Amendment 12, page 10, line 35, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section no later than 28 days following the commencement of Part 1 of this Act”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations under this section within 28 days of the commencement date.

Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.

Amendment 4, in clause 18, page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (1)(b).

This amendment removes the ability of the Secretary of State to exempt an individual from the requirements to register their overseas entities on the grounds of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom.

Clauses 18 to 20 stand part.

Amendment 37, in clause 21, page 13, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 and insert—

“(3) No cause of action in civil proceedings shall lie against a person in respect of the making of a protected disclosure as defined in section 1 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 in relation to information from the register.

(3A) In a prosecution of a person for any offence prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of information it is a defence for that person to show that, at the time of the alleged offence, the disclosure was, or was reasonably believed by the person to be, a protected disclosure.”

Clause 21 stand part.

Clauses 22 to 25 stand part.

Amendment 44, in clause 26, page 16, leave out lines 10 to 15 and insert—

“(a) on the first day of contravention, a fine,

(b) on the second continued day of contravention, an additional fine of £500, and

(c) on each subsequent day of continued contravention, an additional daily default fine of the value of the previous day’s fine plus £50.

(2A) If the contravention continues for a period of six months beginning with the first day of contravention, the Court must order the seizure of assets from the person guilty of the offence of the value of the cumulative fines to which that person is liable.”

The purpose of this amendment is to provide progressively higher fines for a registered overseas entity, and every officer of the entity, for providing inconsistent information for the register, leading to a seizure of assets if non-compliance continues for 6 months.

Government amendments 50 and 51.

Clause 26 stand part.

Clauses 27 to 30 stand part.

Amendment 26, in clause 31, page 18, line 13, leave out “knowingly or recklessly”.

This amendment removes the requirement that a false statement to the registrar needs to be proven to have been given knowingly or recklessly for that statement to constitute an offence.

Amendment 27, page 18, line 18, at end insert—

“(1A) If the registrar has reason to believe that a person may have committed an offence under section 31 the registrar may require—

(a) any person connected with the entity, including in any professional or advisory capacity,

(b) any public body, or

(c) any other person

to provide information in connection with that potential offence.

(1B) A requirement under subsection (1A) applies notwithstanding the data protection legislation (within the meaning in section 25).

(1C) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1A) commits an offence.”

This amendment gives the registrar powers to demand information in connection with suspected false statement offences.

Clause 31 stand part.

Clauses 32 and 33 stand part.

Amendment 34, in clause 34, page 20, line 20, at end insert—

“, provided that the person can show that he or she was not acting knowingly, recklessly or carefully.”

This amendment would require those giving advice in a professional capacity to show that they were not acting knowingly, recklessly or carelessly if they are not to be caught by the provisions of subsection (2).

Clause 34 stand part.

Clauses 35 to 37 stand part.

Amendment 29, in clause 38, page 21, line 4, leave out from “if” to “the” in line 5 and insert

“it is reasonable to assume that, on the balance of probabilities,”.

This amendment reflects the civil law standard of proof.

Amendment 30, page 21, line 6, at end insert—

“, or conduct which would have been an offence if the word ‘recklessly’ in clause 15(2)(b) were replaced with ‘carelessly’”.

This amendment expands the test to behaviour which may reflect a lack of due diligence as well as deliberate intent.

Amendment 31, page 21, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) Where the failure relates to the ownership of a qualifying estate (as defined in Schedule 4A to the Land Registration Act 2002), any penalty imposed by the registrar shall be calculated by reference to the market value of that qualifying estate.”

This amendment makes provision for the calculation of penalties by reference to the market value of the qualifying estate.

Amendment 32, page 21, line 9, at end insert—

“(ba) for penalties to be reduced in cases where a person was acting carelessly, and not recklessly or knowingly;”.

Manuscript amendment 63, page 21, line 12, insert—

“(f) disqualifying the person from the electoral roll.”

Amendment 33, page 21, line 20, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) The regulations must provide that—

(a) if a person is convicted of an offence and is liable to a fine, and is subsequently the subject of a financial penalty under this clause relating to that same conduct, the penalty shall be reduced by the amount of the fine (but not below zero), and

(b) if a person is subject to a financial penalty under this clause, and is subsequently convicted of an offence relating to that same conduct, any fine for which they are found liable shall be reduced by the amount of the financial penalty (but not below zero).”

Clause 38 stand part.

Clauses 39 to 49 stand part.

Amendment 38, in clause 50, page 32, line 9, at end add—

‘(2) The Secretary of State shall establish an inquiry into the use of legal intimidation and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) to prevent such actions from being used to prevent economic crime from being uncovered.”

Clause 50 stand part.

Government amendment 59.

Clauses 51 to 52 stand part.

Government amendments 52 to 54.

Clause 53 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 54, page 33, line 7, after “force”, leave out “on such day as” and insert

“at the end of six months from the day on which this Act is passed or on any earlier day that”.

The intention of this amendment is for the Parts 1 and 2 of the Act to come into force no later than 6 months from being passed.

Government amendments 60 to 62.

Amendment 36, page 33, line 20, at end insert—

“(8) The provisions of this Act shall have retrospective effect from the date that the Bill received first reading in the House of Commons.”

This amendment seeks to move forward the provisions of this Bill, backdating them to the day upon which it received first reading.

Clause 54 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 55, page 33, line 22, leave out “Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement)” and insert “Registration of Overseas Entities, etc”.

The intention of this amendment is for the short title to reflect more accurately the contents of the bill.

Clause 55 stand part.

Government new clauses 31 to 40.

Government manuscript new clause 41.

New clause 2—Report on funding of enforcement agencies—

‘Within 28 days of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the funding of enforcement agencies in connection with the provisions of Part 2 of this Act.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report on the funding of enforcement agencies in connection with the reforms to unexplained wealth orders, as provided for in Part 2 of the Bill.

New clause 3—Requirement on entity to register if it owns certain assets—

‘(1) An overseas entity must apply for registration in the register of overseas entities if the entity is registered as the owner of—

(a) a professional football club,

(b) a jet, or

(c) a yacht.

(2) In this section—

“professional football club” means any association football club playing in the English Premier League, the English Football League or the Scottish Professional Football League.

“jet” means any jet aircraft with a value over £500,000.

“yacht” means any medium sized sailing boat with a value over £500,000.’

This new clause would require an overseas entity that owns a football club, jet or yacht to apply for registration in the register of overseas entities.

New clause 4—Registrar of companies for England and Wales: additional duties—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations (2017/692) to specify that the registrar of companies for England and Wales is a supervisory body in relation to overseas entities as defined in section 2 of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State must direct the registrar of companies for England and Wales to participate in a government identity assurance scheme.’

The purpose of this new clause is for Companies House to be made an anti-money laundering supervisor and to register as part of the UK Government’s Verify scheme.

New clause 5—Duty to report on representations received by the Government relating to economic crimes—

‘(1) Within 1 month of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a disclosure report detailing all representations received by the Government in the last twelve months regarding the register of overseas entities, as provided for by Part 1 of this Act.

(2) The disclosure report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the minutes from or any notes of meetings in which such representations were made; and

(b) all correspondence, including submissions and electronic communications, addressed or copied to any Minister or former Minister of the Crown.

(3) Information provided under subsection (2)(b) must include—

(a) the names of entities making representations;

(b) the dates on which representations were made; and

(c) a summary of what the representation was.’

This new clause requires the Government to lay before Parliament a report containing details of all representations made by entities including businesses, regarding the register of overseas entities, provided for by Part 1 of the Bill. The report must be laid within 1 month of the Bill attaining Royal Assent.

New clause 6—Transitional Period for Certain Qualifying Estates—

‘(1) A transitional period of 18 months shall apply to—

(a) an entity that—

(i) is registered in the register of title kept under the Land Registration Act 2002 as the proprietor of a qualifying estate within the meaning of Schedule 4A to that Act, and

(ii) became so registered in pursuance of an application made on or after 1 January 1999,

(b) an entity that—

(i) in relation to a plot of land that is registered in the Land Register of Scotland, is (or is to be) entered as proprietor in the proprietorship section of the title sheet for the plot of land by virtue of an application for registration made on or after 8 December 2014,

(ii) in relation to a lease that was recorded in the General Register of Sasines or registered in the Land Register of Scotland before that date is, by virtue of an assignation of the lease registered in the Land Register of Scotland on or after that date, the tenant under the lease, or

(iii) in relation to a lease that was registered in the Land Register of Scotland on or after that date, is the tenant under the lease, or

(c) an entity that—

(i) is registered in the register kept under the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18 (N.I.)) as the owner of a qualifying estate within the meaning of Schedule 8A to that Act, and

(ii) became so registered on or after the day on which that Schedule came into force.

(2) Overseas entities registered as the proprietor of relevant interests in land falling within the scope of subsection (1) must comply fully with all obligations under the Act at the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the commencement date.’

This new clause creates a transition period for certain overseas entities registered as the proprietor of relevant interests in land in order to provide the Government with a time frame to resolve issues with the Land Registry that currently make registration impracticable.

New clause 7—38A Further reforms to Companies House—

‘(1) Not later than 28 days from when Part 1 of this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation for the purpose of making further reforms to Companies House, including to support the effective functioning of the register of overseas entities.

(2) The draft legislation must include—

(a) new powers for the registrar to aid the verification of foreign entities applying for registration as set out in section 4 of this Act;

(b) new powers for the registrar to better share data with enforcement agencies; and

(c) reforms that will improve the quality and veracity of the information on the register.’

This new clause would compel the Secretary of State to publish draft legislation on reforms to Companies House, including reforms that would support the operation of the Act.

New clause 8—47A Annual reports on unexplained wealth orders—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare annual reports on unexplained wealth orders made by the High Court on application by an enforcement authority under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

(2) An annual report must —

(a) specify the number of unexplained wealth orders made during the relevant period; and

(b) specify the number of applications by each enforcement authorities during the relevant period.

(3) An annual report must be published and laid before Parliament before the end of the 4 month period beginning immediately after the last day of the period to which the report relates.’

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make an annual report on the use of unexplained wealth orders.

New clause 9—Review of Act 2022 and adequacy of resources

‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a review of the operation of this Act by 31 December 2022.

(2) The registrar of companies in England and Wales must publish a report on the operation of this Act by 31 December 2022.

(3) The report by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the adequacy of resources allocated for the operations of the registrar of companies in England and Wales, as augmented under this Act.

(4) The report by the Secretary of State under registrar of companies in England and Wales must include an assessment of what the effect on performance of the over the following 12-month period if the real-terms resources after inflation allocated by the Secretary State were increased by—

(a) 10%,

(b) 25% and

(c) 50%.

(5) The Secretary of State must publish a further review of the operation of this Act by 31 December 2023, and at least once in each subsequent calendar year.

(6) The registrar of companies in England and Wales must publish a further report of the operation of this Act by 31 December 2023, and at least once in each subsequent calendar year.’

This new clause would require annual reports from the Government and Companies House on the effectiveness of this Act, and the adequacy of resources allocated to Companies House.

New clause 10—Review of sanctions regulations: requirement for a debate in House of Commons—

‘In section 30 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (Review by appropriate minister of regulations under section 1), after subsection (5), insert—

“(5A) An appropriate Minister of the Crown must, not later than ten sitting days after a report under this section has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons providing for a debate in relation to the report.”’

This new clause would require the Government to schedule a debate on reports laid before the House in relation to the continued appropriateness of regulations made under section 1 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

New clause 13—Power to require overseas entity to register if it owns property within a freeport—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by notice require an overseas entity to apply for registration in the register of overseas entities within the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the notice if at the time the notice is given—

(a) the entity is registered as the proprietor of a relevant interest in property within a UK freeport, and

(b) the entity is not registered as an overseas entity, has not made an application for registration that is pending and is not an exempt overseas entity.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) lapses if, before the end of the period mentioned there, the overseas entity—

(a) ceases to be registered as the proprietor of a relevant interest in property within a freeport, or

(b) becomes an exempt overseas entity.

(3) If an overseas entity fails to comply with a notice under subsection (1), an offence is committed by—

(a) the entity, and

(b) every officer of the entity who is in default.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for the maximum summary term for either-way offences or a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).

(5) In subsection (4)(a) “the maximum summary term for either-way offences” means—

(a) in relation to an offence committed before the time when paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 comes into force, 6 months;

(b) in relation to an offence committed after that time, 12 months.

(6) In this section “exempt overseas entity” means an overseas entity of such description as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.

(7) Regulations under subsection (6) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’

This new clause requires an overseas entity to apply for registration in the register of overseas entities if they have a property within a freeport.

New clause 14—Commission for the Protection of Whistleblowers—

‘The Secretary of State shall establish a Commission for the Protection of Whistleblowers for the purpose of enhancing the transparency and enforcement of economic crime covered by this Act.’

New clause 18—Publication of information during transitional period—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must record the activities of overseas entities that fall within the scope of this Bill which take place during the transitional period, provided for by part 2 of schedule 3 and part 2 of schedule 4.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish on a weekly basis the information gathered under paragraph (1).

(3) “Information” under subsection (2) means details on overseas entities as provided for by Part 1 of this Act.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to record and publish the details of companies benefitting from the 18-month transitional period, to facilitate scrutiny as to whether they may be linked with the Russian regime.

New clause 19—Power to require registration of donations to registered political party, etc.—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by notice require a company or Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) to apply for registration in the register of overseas entities within the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the notice if at the time the notice is given—

(a) the company or LLP has made a donation to—the entity is not registered as an overseas entity, has not made an application for registration that is pending and is not an exempt overseas entity.

(i) a registered political party,

(ii) a candidate at an election,

(iii) a third party (non-party campaigner under Schedule 11 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA)),

(iv) a permitted participant at a referendum under Schedule 15 of PPERA, or

(v) any other regulated entity under Schedule 7 of PPERA, including holders of elective office, members of political parties, and members’ associations,

and the entity has not made in written form to the recipient the declaration specified in subsection (2) of this section; and

(b) the entity is not registered as an overseas entity, has not made an application for registration that is pending and is not an exempt overseas entity.

(2) The declaration required by (1)(a) is that the company or LLP’s profits generated and taxable within the UK over the previous 12 months are greater than the value of the donation given.

(3) A declaration under this section must also state the company or LLP’s full name, address and registration number.

(4) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence attracting the following penalties—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales or Scotland: to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland: to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on conviction on indictment: to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both).

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a declaration under this section to be retained for a specified period.

(6) The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply where, by reason of section 71B(1)(b) of PPERA, the entity by whom the donation would be made is a permissible donor in relation to the donation at the time of its receipt by the party.’

This new clause is intended to require that any donations made by UK companies or limited liability partnerships come from sources generating profits made by genuine commercial activity carried out within the UK, and prevent donations of foreign or unknown provenance from being channelled through UK companies or LLPs into regulated political entities (political parties, third parties, campaigners at referendums, candidates etc.)

New clause 21—Report on co-ordination and co-operation—

‘The Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament no later than 31 December 2022, and at least once in each subsequent calendar year, setting out progress in co-ordination and co-operation in relation to this Act and (in particular) an assessment of the effectiveness of information-sharing in relation to entities registered or operating in—

(a) the Crown Dependencies (the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, and the Isle of Man), and

(b) the British Overseas Territories (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat and Pitcairn Islands.’

This new clause requires annual reports on transparency and enforcement in the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories.

New clause 22—Report on resources for implementing this Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament no later than 31 December 2022, and at least once in each subsequent calendar year, setting out the funding and achievements in relation to this Act of—

(a) National Crime Agency and

(b) the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation,

in the most recent year ending 31 March, with an assessment by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of value for money of each of those organisations.

(2) Each report under subsection (1) must be accompanied by—

(a) an assessment from the organisation concerned of the adequacy of the long-term financing provided by the Secretary of State, and

(b) an assessment by that organisation of the expected outcomes in terms of performance and value for money, if funding for the next financial year was increased by 20%

(3) Before laying a report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers.’

The intention of this new clause is to ensure parliamentary oversight of the funding of the National Crime Agency and Office of Financial Sanctions in relation to the implementation of this Act.

New clause 23—Scottish Limited Partnerships—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers on the application of this Act to Scottish limited partnerships.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations, including supplementary, incidental and consequential provision, to apply any provision in this Act to Scottish limited partnerships.

(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) with the consent of the Scottish Ministers are subject to the negative procedure.

(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) which do not have the consent of the Scottish Ministers are subject to the affirmative procedure.’

The intention of this new clause is to ensure that Scottish limited partnerships are covered by the provisions in the Bill.

New clause 24—Review of funding arrangements for enforcement agencies—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the suitability of the funding arrangements for enforcement agencies in light of the provisions of this Act and in connection with the wider context of economic crime.

(2) The report of the findings of the review under subsection (1) must be published and laid before Parliament within 3 months of this Act being passed.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the funding arrangements for enforcement agencies in light of the provisions of the Bill and in relation to economic crime more broadly.

New clause 25—Reports on operation of Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament no later than 31 December 2022, and at least once in each subsequent calendar year, a report on the operation of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State must also lay before both Houses of Parliament no later than 31 December 2022, and at least once in each subsequent calendar year, a report from the register of companies in England and Wales on the operation of this Act.’

The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that Parliament is regularly informed about the operation of this Act.

New clause 26—Designation of persons under sanctions regulations: reform—

‘(1) The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 11 (designation of a person by name under a designation power), leave out subsection (2)(b)(ii).

(3) In section 12 (designation of persons by description under a designation power), leave out subsection (5)(b)(ii).’

This new clause would amend the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. It would remove the requirement that a Minister, when designating a person by name or persons of a specified description in regulations made under that Act, to have regard to the likely significant effects of the designation on those persons.

New clause 27—Commission for the Protection of Whistleblowers (No.2)—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a Commission for the Protection of Whistleblowers for the purpose of promoting transparency in relation to breaches of the provisions of this Act.

(2) The Commission for the Protection of Whistleblowers must work with relevant authorities to ensure that any concerns raised by whistleblowers in relation to breaches of the provisions of this Act are dealt with responsibly and effectively by the relevant authorities.’

New clause 28—Emergency asset-freezing orders—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may make an unexplained wealth order in respect of any property or cash in whatever form, including sums held in blockchain accounts, that is held (or that the Secretary of State has reason to believe that is held) by or on behalf of a designated person.

(2) The Secretary of State may make an interim freezing order in respect of the property or cash in whatever form, including blockchain, if the Prime Minister considers it necessary to do so for the purposes of avoiding the risk of any recovery order that might subsequently be obtained being frustrated, and that it is in the interests of national security that the order be made.

(3) An interim freezing order has the same meaning as in section 362J of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

(4) The Secretary of State may designate under subsection (1) any person whom Secretary of State considers meets, or is likely to meet, the criteria for sanctions to be imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

(5) The power in this section lapses 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed, unless the Secretary of State makes an order to continue this section in force for a further period of up to six months.

(6) An order under subsection (4) may be made more than once, but every such order may be made only after a draft of the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’

The intention of this new clause is to provide a temporary emergency power to freeze the assets of individuals, companies or other entities in order to prevent asset flight before sanctions are in place.

New clause 29—Asset freezing in respect of individuals considered for sanctions—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by notice publish the name of a person being considered as a subject for sanctions.

(2) A person in respect of whom a notice has been published under subsection (1) is immediately subject to the provisions of this section.

(3) A person in respect of whom a notice has been published under subsection (1) is prohibited from—

(a) selling any assets they own or have an interest in,

(b) moving any assets they own or have an interest in out of the United Kingdom, or

(c) moving any of their funds out of the United Kingdom.

(4) ‘Assets’ in subsection (3)(a) or (b) includes (but is not limited to)—

(a) land;

(b) houses, flats or other private accommodation;

(c) commercial, industrial, agricultural and other buildings, premises or property;

(d) businesses;

(e) personal possessions, works of art, jewellery or collectibles with an individual value of more than £500;

(f) motor vehicles;

(g) yachts or boats; and

(h) aircraft.

(5) ‘Funds’ in subsection (3)(c) means financial assets and economic benefits of any kind, including (but not limited to)—

(a) gold, cash, cheques, claims on money, drafts, money orders and other payment instruments;

(b) deposits with relevant institutions or other persons, balances on accounts, debts and debt obligations;

(c) publicly and privately traded securities and debt instruments, including stocks and shares, certificates representing securities, bonds, notes, warrants, debentures and derivative products;

(d) interest, dividends or other income on or value accruing from or generated by assets;

(e) credit, rights of set-off, guarantees, performance bonds or other financial commitments;

(f) (letters of credit, bills of lading, bills of sale; and

(g) documents providing evidence of an interest in funds or financial resources.

(6) A person who breaches any prohibition under this section commits an offence.

(7) A person who engages in an activity knowing or intending that it will enable or facilitate the commission by another person of an offence under paragraph (6) commits an offence.

(8) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both;

(b) on summary conviction—

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or

(ii) to a fine which in Scotland or Northern Ireland may not exceed the statutory maximum,

(None) or to both.

(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (7) is liable on summary conviction—

(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or

(b) to a fine which in Scotland or Northern Ireland may not exceed level 5 on the standard scale,

or to both.’

This new clause would prevent individuals whom the Secretary of State has named as being considered as a subject for sanctions from selling their assets or moving funds or assets out of the UK.

New clause 30—Proposals for enforcement agencies to retained recovered wealth—

‘Within 28 days of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out proposals to allow for the wealth recovered in connection with the use of unexplained wealth orders and other anti-corruption powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Criminal Finances Act 2017 to be retained by the agencies involved in countering economic crime.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within 28 days of the Bill being passed, to publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out proposals to allow for the wealth recovered in connection with the use of unexplained wealth orders and other anti-corruption powers to be retained by the relevant enforcement agencies.

Amendment 28, page 35, line 3, schedule 1, at end insert—

“(1A) The required information about an individual owner who is not a British citizen must include information about whether that individual has ever held a Tier 1 (investor) visa issued in accordance with paragraphs 245E to 245EF of the Immigration Rules.”

This amendment would ensure transparency over the use of overseas entities by individuals who have held so-called golden visas.

Amendment 40, in schedule 1, page 35, line 38, at end insert—

“6 In a case where Condition 5 in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 is met in relation to the registrable beneficial owner, the required information includes details of the role of the beneficial owner in relation to the trust.”

This amendment would ensure that the required information includes details of the role of the beneficial owner in relation to a trust, where a person controls a trust which owns shares, has voting rights, can appoint or remove directors or exercise significant influence or control over an entity.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 3, in schedule 2,  page 37, line 30, at end insert—

“4A Any individual trust, company, government or public authority wherever resident shall be treated as a registrable beneficial owner in relation to an overseas entity for the purposes of this Act if a beneficial owner of a qualifying estate as defined in Schedule 4A that is held by the overseas entity whether or not the individual trust, company, government or public authority holds itself any interest in that overseas entity.

4B In relation to a trust which is to be treated as a registrable beneficial owner, full details shall be given in the registration of the senior trustees and principal beneficiaries.”

The intention of this amendment is to facilitate the identification of the beneficial owners of registered trusts.

Amendment 18, page 38, line 5, leave out “25%” and insert “10%”.

The intention of this amendment is to define as a beneficial owner a person who holds more than 10% of the shares in an entity.

Amendment 19, page 38, line 8, leave out “25%” and insert “10%”.

The intention of this amendment is to define as a beneficial owner a person who holds more than 10% of the voting rights in an entity.

Amendment 39, page 38, line 23, at end insert—

‘6A (1) A person (“A”) is a beneficial owner of an overseas entity or other legal entity (“B”) if—

(a) A is closely connected to a person (“C”) to whom one or more of the conditions in paragraph 6 applies; and

(b) A—

(i) benefits directly from C’s role in respect of B, or

(ii) previously exercised the role in relation to B that is now exercised by C.

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule two persons are “closely connected” if—

(a) they are married to one another;

(b) they are in a civil partnership with one another;

(c) one person is the parent of the other.

(d) one person is the brother or sister of the other.

(3) Where this paragraph applies, the required information under Schedule 1 must be provided in a single statement in relation to both A and C.’

Amendment 20, page 40, line 34, leave out “25%” and insert “10%”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.

Amendment 21, page 40, line 36, leave out “25%” and insert “10%”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.

Amendment 22, page 41, line 1, leave out “25%” and insert “10%”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 19.

Amendment 23, page 41, line 2, leave out “25%” and insert “10%”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 19.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 13, in schedule 3, page 45, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would require the registrar to enter a restriction in the register in relation to a qualifying estate in which an overseas entity is registered as the proprietor regardless of the date of the registration.

Government amendment 55.

Amendment 15, page 48, line 20, leave out “18 months” and insert

“save as provided for by section (Transitional period for qualifying estates) 28 days save as provided for by section (Transitional period for qualifying estates)”.

This amendment would reduce the period for registration as an overseas entity within from 18 months to 28 days save as provided for by NC6.

Amendment 14, page 48, line 26, leave out paragraph (b)

This amendment would extend the offence to all overseas entities, and every officer of the entity in default regardless of the date of the registration.

Manuscript amendment 64, page 49, line 9, leave out from “estate” to the end of line 12 and insert “from the commencement date”.

Government amendment 56.

Amendment 16, page 49, line 11, leave out “18 months” and insert

“28 days save as provided for by section (Transitional period for qualifying estates)”.

This amendment would reduce the period from 18 months to 28 days for entering the restriction relating to a qualifying estate save as provided for by NC6.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Government amendment 57.

Amendment 17, in schedule 4,  page 57, line 24, leave out “18 months” and insert “6 months”.

This amendment would reduce the transitional period from 18 months to 28 days save as provided for by NC6.

Government amendment 58.

That schedules 4 and 5 be the Third and Fourth schedules to the Bill.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We do have another urgent question and a statement before we even come to the main business, so I urge colleagues to keep their questions brief.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

We have a Prime Minister whose approach is “Do as I say, not as I do”. In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September last year, he stated:

“We are approaching that critical turning point—in less than two months—when we must show that we are…learning, and maturing, and finally taking responsibility for the destruction we are inflicting...It is time for humanity to grow up.”

I do not care much for the Prime Minister, but I care about this country’s reputation. Has he misled the United Nations?

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn).

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. As colleagues can see, this is a well subscribed debate. I encourage colleagues to keep their contributions to about five minutes, and we should be able to get everybody in.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1, 12 and 14. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 2

ARIA’s functions

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 15.

[George Freeman]

I am delighted that the Bill to create this exciting new agency has returned to this House and that I am able to speak to it for the first time in my role as Minister for Science, Research and Innovation. I pay tribute to my ministerial colleague Lord Callanan for his work on the Bill in the other place. Not for the first time in matters scientific, their lordships have kept our Minister very busy on the Front Bench. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), who so capably led the Bill when it was first before the House.

There are 15 amendments for our consideration tonight. Fourteen of those were tabled or supported by the Government. I will summarise them quickly. Amendments 2 to 8 relate to changes the Government made in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. In doing so, we demonstrated the seriousness with which we take the DPRRC’s recommendations and the Government’s commitment to acting upon them. The effect of those amendments is to omit clause 10, which contained a broader power to make consequential provision, and to replace it with a narrower, more specific power in clause 8. The new power can be used only in consequence of regulations dissolving ARIA. Other amendments are needed to tidy up the rest of the Bill and reflect that change. I hope that the changes are, in general, welcome.

Amendments 9 and 10 remove a power for ARIA to pay pensions and gratuities determined by the Secretary of State to non-executive members. We have tested that thoroughly and are content that in ARIA’s specific case, that power is not needed. Again, the two amendments reflect the usual process of improving the Bill in response to scrutiny and the expertise that colleagues here—and in particular in the other place—have brought to bear.

Amendments 11 and 13 remove the amendments previously included in the Bill that had the effect of reserving ARIA. I have had productive discussions on this with my ministerial colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to reiterate the importance of ARIA and our broader science policy to help strengthen the Union. I am delighted that they share my vision and ambition for ARIA and that we have reached an agreement on the independence of ARIA—a memorandum of understanding that is a shared commitment to safeguard the organisation’s most important characteristics, and which means the reservations are not needed. I am delighted to be able to report that legislative consent motions have been passed in all three devolved legislatures on the basis of that agreement, and I similarly commend it to the House.

Government amendments 12, 14 and 15 apply some relevant obligations to ARIA that would normally apply automatically to public authorities listed in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The amendments provide for ARIA to be treated as a public authority for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018, the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, the Enterprise Act 2016 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. They also amend various regulations and the UK GDPR to reflect that. That ensures that ARIA is treated in the same way as a public organisation normally would be treated in those important areas.

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert—

“(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the provisions of this Act shall extend to a business tenancy irrespective of whether the property comprised in the tenancy is occupied by the tenant.”

This amendment broadens the definition of business tenancy to cover arrangements in which the property is not occupied by the tenant.

Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 5, line 19, at end insert—

“(2B) The Secretary of State must ensure that bodies approved under subsection (1) have sufficient numbers of arbitrators (whether alone or as a member of a panel of arbitrators) required to conduct arbitrations under this Part.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the approved arbitration bodies collectively have sufficient capacity to hear all arbitrations under this Part.

Amendment 10, in clause 9, page 7, line 7, leave out from “beginning” to the end of line 8 and insert “25 March 2022”.

This amendment revises the period for a reference to arbitration to be made in order that it is consistent with the Code of Conduct.

Government amendment 3.

Amendment 14, in clause 11, page 8, line 21, leave out “supporting evidence” and insert

“any evidence relevant to the proposal.”

This amendment would require a formal proposal put forward under this section to be made on an open-book basis.

Amendment 15, in clause 17, page 11, line 13, after “practicable” insert

“and no later than 14 days”.

This amendment would require awards in arbitrations which do not have an oral hearing to be made within 14 days.

Amendment 16, in clause 19, page 12, line 6, replace “may” with “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying limits on arbitration fees.

Amendment 11, page 12, line 13, before “When” insert “Subject to 6A,”.

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 12.

Government amendments 4 to 6

Amendment 12, page 12, line 19, at end insert—

“(6A) When the arbitrator makes an award under section 13 or 14, the arbitrator may also make an award requiring that a party at fault pays costs which it has caused the other party to incur.

(6B) For the purposes of 6A, a party is at fault where the arbitrator considers that the conduct of the party before or during the proceedings is unreasonable or improper.”

This amendment would empower the arbitrator to make an adverse costs award where the arbitrator considers that a party has acted unreasonably or improperly.

Government amendments 7, 8 and 18 to 21.

Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 19, line 6, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).

This amendment would extend the debt claims over which a party could apply to the court for the proceedings to be stayed to claims made before 10 November 2021.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 1 and amendments 9 to 17, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).

A process for resolving commercial rent arrears is very much needed, as dealing with the financial pressures brought on by covid is vital for landlords and tenants alike. Against that backdrop, Labour broadly welcomes the Bill, but we believe that the Government can and should do more on business support. That context is important because covid is not over. Business costs continue to rise, and they are also driven by rising fuel costs and inflation. Economic forecasts for the next three to five years project low growth, high inflation and high taxes. Managing financial pressures and supporting viable businesses to do so—that is the helping hand that we need in place as businesses navigate the uncertain road ahead and as some sectors recover faster than others.

To access the opportunities that we seek to ensure that the Bill provides, we need to be sure of the consistency, affordability and accessibility of arbitration and to ensure that the system operates effectively and fairly. On that basis, we have tabled new clause 1 and our other amendments in a positive spirit, to continue the dialogue that we had at the earlier stages of the Bill, because we support it and want it to work as effectively as possible.

On consistency, the Minister will appreciate that there will be retail and hospitality businesses with numerous landlords, and landlords with numerous tenants; businesses may therefore be party to more than one case under the new system. Predictability and consistency will be vital if those businesses are to have faith in the system, so our new clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of awards to assess whether clauses 15 and 16 have been interpreted consistently. The review would need to be conducted

“no later than three months following the day on which this Act is passed”,

and where the Secretary of State identifies material inconsistencies, he would need to publish or amend guidance to arbitrators as necessary. We believe that such a review would be welcomed by landlords, tenants and arbitrators and would ensure that the system is well understood.

On the accessibility and affordability of the new scheme, the definition of “business tenancy” in clause 2 has important consequences. Only tenancies in which the tenant is in occupation of the property fall within the Bill’s scope and can therefore access the arbitration scheme that it establishes. Let me give the House two examples of circumstances that could fall outside the Bill because of that definition.

First, Sir Paul Morgan, a specialist in property arbitration, has set out the case of a tenant who leaves a property unoccupied because of covid restrictions and does not now intend to reoccupy it when the restrictions end. As Sir Paul explains, the tenant may have a viable business but may not wish to reoccupy the particular premises for which the rent was due. Under the Bill as it stands, there would not be a business tenancy in such a case and the tenant would not be able to claim the benefit of the Bill in relation to that property, where the company was a tenant of that property during the period that is protected.

Secondly, there might be a situation where there is a head lease and a sub-lease on the property, for example where there is a franchising arrangement and the franchisee is the sub-tenant. In such a situation, the head lessee does not occupy the property and therefore could not benefit from the reliefs under the Bill, whereas the sub-tenant could.

Labour’s amendment 9 would fill those gaps, broadening the definition of “business tenancy” to cover arrangements in which the property is not occupied by the tenant. Unless the Minister can confirm that in the examples I have given it is intended that the leases would fall outside the new regime, I very much hope that the Government will recognise the gap and support our proposed changes.

We have tabled amendment 10, in relation to the period for reference to arbitration, in the same spirit of constructiveness. Clause 9 establishes a six-month period for a tenant or landlord to make a reference to arbitration, for which the clock starts on the day on which the Act is passed. We recognise and support the need to act quickly, but want to ensure that the full six months is available to tenants and landlords. The code of conduct suggests that the arbitration scheme will be operational on 25 March 2022, but what happens if the legislation passes before that date? Will that mean that parties have less than six months to make a reference? What if the legislation is not passed until a later date? Presumably, the current code of conduct would then need to be amended and existing protections extended. Amendment 10 reflects the suggestion by Bill Chandler of Hill Dickinson LLP that the date for referrals to open be fixed as 25 March 2022 irrespective of whether the legislation is passed. I would be grateful for the Minister’s feedback on that and on the importance of these questions in relation to improving accessibility to and the clarity of the new regime.

Let me turn to the question of cost. The scheme will be a success only if it is affordable. In Committee, the Minister acknowledged the importance of affordability and suggested that he was working with relevant bodies that may be appointed to agree cost schedules. Could the Minister update the House on those discussions? Clause 19 gives the Secretary of State the discretion to specify ceilings for arbitration fees in secondary legislation. Given the concerns of stakeholders and the financial pressures they are facing, the Secretary of State should be required to set a limit on arbitration fees, and that is the intention of amendment 16.

On county court judgments, the Minister will know that many commercial tenants were deeply frustrated that the temporary protections introduced to assist businesses struggling to pay their rent did not include protections against county court judgments and High Court judgments. UKHospitality and others have been calling for this protection for months. While it is welcome that the Government have finally listened to industry and to Labour, and improved the provisions that would stay any debt proceedings made after 10 November, choosing this cut-off date has had some perverse consequences.

As we heard in Committee, the result of this arbitrary date means that any landlord who started proceedings before 10 November is now arguably in a better position than those who held off and pursued negotiations with their tenant. Surely this cannot be the Minister’s intention. As the British Retail Consortium explained, the more aggressive the landlord, the better the position they are now in on county court and High Court judgments. That is why we have tabled amendment 17, which would remove this arbitrary cut-off date. As a result, a party could apply to court to stay any debt claim that is made by a landlord and relates to protected rent debt, pending a resolution whether by negotiation or arbitration. We see this as an issue of basic fairness. Labour does not believe that landlords or tenants should be punished for in effect doing the right thing and seeking to negotiate a settlement.

I turn now to Labour’s amendments designed to ensure that the new scheme operates effectively. First, on arbitrators and arbitration bodies, arbitral bodies and their members will be absolutely critical to the success of this arbitration scheme. The Government have taken a market-based approach to the running of the arbitration scheme, which will have a list of approved arbitral bodies, rather than a single provider. In Committee, we heard the concerns of stakeholders who wanted to understand what skills and expertise would be required of arbitrators. While some thought that financial and accounting qualifications were critical, others suggested that legal qualifications would be paramount given the complexity of the cases. I would welcome any update on the Department’s discussions with stakeholders and about the approval of suitable arbitral bodies.

As well as ensuring that arbitrators are suitably qualified, it is vital that there is sufficient capacity. The Government’s impact assessment assumes 8,200 cases going to arbitration in its central scenario. While the appointed arbitral bodies will maintain their own lists of arbitrators, in a system where the Secretary of State may appoint several bodies, it is the Secretary of State who ultimately must ensure that there is sufficient capacity. The intention of amendment 13 is to make that an explicit and ongoing duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the arbitral bodies appointed have sufficient numbers of arbitrators to hear and report on all cases as quickly as possible. If the impact assessment’s estimate is too conservative, our amendment would require the Secretary of State to appoint additional arbitral bodies to work with those bodies already appointed to increase their list of approved arbitrators.

Stakeholders have also made it clear to me how vital it is that there is consistency across the new system in how different arbitrators interpret the legislation and any guidance under it. For example, an arbitrator must dismiss a reference to arbitration where it determines that the tenant’s business is not viable. As such, how arbitrators interpret viability is of central importance.

On the conduct of parties, it is welcome news from stakeholders that the vast majority of landlords and tenants have already reached agreement on their covid rent arrears. The British Retail Consortium estimated in December that 80% to 90% of its members had reached agreement. For the minority of businesses that are yet to reach agreement, the arbitration scheme provides a lifeline for an independent and binding arbitration. However, we believe that the Bill could be improved to further ensure a fairer arbitration process.

Clause 11 requires a reference to arbitration to include a formal proposal for resolving the dispute. The other party may then put forward their own counter-proposal. Both must be supported by supporting evidence. However, a requirement to submit supporting evidence is not the same as full disclosure on an open book basis. As the Property Litigation Association makes clear, parties are not required to provide any evidence which might be adverse to their proposal. This lack of an obligation to make full disclosure prevents the other party from making an informed counter-proposal and, arguably, ultimately the swift resolution of the dispute. That is why our amendment 14 revises clause 11 and requires a formal proposal to be accompanied by all evidence relevant to the proposal, whether helpful to that party or not.

We are pleased to see the Government table Government amendment 4. Although a 50-50 split is fair in most cases, it is right that the arbitrator has the power to change how the arbitration fees are split, particularly if one party has acted unreasonably. However, we believe that the Bill should go further than that as it is vital that tenants and landlords are incentivised to approach the arbitration process fairly and in the spirit of resolution. That is why we have tabled amendment 12, which would provide the arbitrator with the power to make an adverse cost award, where one party has caused the other to incur costs by acting unreasonably. As Sir Paul Morgan said in his written evidence, that would be nothing new. In the case of many tribunals where the general rule is that each party will bear its own costs, the tribunal is typically given such a power.

On swift resolution, the regime is intended to deliver swift resolutions for disputes, yet the Bill does not do everything possible to secure them. While clause 17 requires the arbitrator to make their award within 14 days in a case in which an oral hearing is held, where no oral hearing is held the arbitrator is required to make their award as soon as reasonably practicable. My understanding from debate in Committee is that the likelihood is that most arbitration hearings will not be oral hearings, but on the basis of paperwork. Can the Minister explain the logic here? Why is there no backstop requiring the arbitrator to make their award within a specific timeframe where there is no oral hearing, which, as I say, we understand is expected to be the majority of cases. Labour’s amendment 15 intends to ensure that awards are made within a specific timeframe irrespective of whether there is an oral hearing.

In conclusion, in the current climate viable firms risk going to the wall. We believe that the Government can and should do more. From business rates to energy costs, the Government have let down British businesses and the impacts are now a part of a cumulative rise of cost pressures on businesses. In the context of commercial rent debt, we welcome the relief this Bill offers to commercial tenants facing the risk of eviction, bankruptcy or debt enforcement, and we welcome the prospect of resolution on covid rent arrears offered to landlords and tenants that have not been able to reach agreement. That is why the Opposition have taken a constructive approach to scrutinising this legislation, and I hope that, in recognising the spirit in which our amendments have been tabled, the Minister will respond favourably on the points we have raised today.