Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Ninth sitting)

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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

Amendment 9 is a technical amendment. Clause 65 enables the Secretary of State to exempt a person from identity verification requirements by written notice, if necessary in the interests of national security or to prevent or detect serious crime. The consequence of someone being subject to such a written notice is that they will not be obliged to observe certain rules. For example, an unverified individual benefiting from an exemption will not need to refrain from acting as a director and will not be liable for an offence for acting as such.

The amendment clarifies that companies whose directors are exempt from the prohibition to act when unverified are relieved of their duty to ensure that such a director has their identity verified. Therefore, they will not be criminally liable for failing to comply with that duty in relation to the exempted person. Relieving companies of the duty meets the original policy intention and is a logical consequence of the exemption granted to individuals on these grounds. I hope that my explanation has provided further clarity on why that is needed.

On amendment 101, any proposed use of the national security exemption in clause 65 will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State. A duty to report to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee on the use of that exemption is unnecessary. The ISC’s oversight functions are clearly set out in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the accompanying memorandum of understanding. It is inappropriate to include a specific oversight role for the ISC in relation to the deployment of this exemption. The amendment is therefore not necessary, and I ask hon. Members not to press it.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. I recognise that clause 65 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide written notice to exempt someone from identity requirements if necessary in the interests of national security or for preventing or detecting crime. The Opposition recognises the importance of protecting national security, but the Minister will know from previous debates that we seek greater clarity about where exemptions may be granted, and the transparency and accountability around the use of those powers. The Government have tabled amendment 9, which is consequential to clause 65. If the clause is agreed to, the amendment makes sense.

Amendment 101, which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and I tabled, comes back to scrutiny of the use of the exemption powers. I will probably say a few times today that the title of the Bill includes is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. Where there are questions about a potential lack of or reduced transparency and possible serious impacts, there should be accountability, even from the Secretary of State. We live in a democracy where the Government should be and are accountable for actions of the Secretary of State.

The amendment simply states that there should be a process by which any use of the identity verification exemption on national security grounds provided by the clause should be subject to some scrutiny. The Minister may have better ideas on how to deal with that question if the Intelligence and Security Committee is not the right place. We have used the ISC because it is a parliamentary Committee that deals with national security matters, is on Privy Council terms, and will have the confidence of Parliament and the Government in reviewing these matters and raising any questions. All the amendment does is provide scrutiny for the exemption process by referring a report to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which ensures that the information remains privileged and not publicly accessible. If the Minister is, as he intimated, unable to support the amendment, I urge him to give us confidence about how he would provide assurances.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Perhaps I could give the hon. Lady some examples of the kinds of individuals the exemption might apply to. We expect the exemption to be used on very rare occasions, for individuals including, but not limited to, those working for the UK intelligence community or law enforcement agencies. She should bear in mind that the Secretary of State is introducing the provisions. I hope that she will be reassured that the powers will be used sparingly but wisely.

[Seema Malhotra]

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

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

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

[Seema Malhotra]

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

[Kevin Hollinrake]

May I speak to that case very quickly? The Usmanov case was entirely different. A Secretary of State did not introduce legislation providing for a Russian oligarch to move, in that case, billions of pounds-worth of assets to his sister, I think. What we are talking about here is the Secretary of State using a power to remove somebody whose identity is sensitive from a public register—not allowing an oligarch to subvert the regulations.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his intervention.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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

[The Chair]

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

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Ms Bardell. I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. To wrap up my remarks on this point, the Minister makes a valid point in relation to the types of cases and the circumstances under which people might be given exemptions, identified on national security grounds. My right hon. Friend makes a good point as well about where things might come through the system inadvertently. That is partly why we have checks and balances.

I take the Minister’s point about individuals who may be working for the intelligence and security community, but he could give us some reassurance by saying that every single Secretary of State in whose hands this power lies in future will consider every case carefully so we need have no cause for concern about that, given the transparency and accountability. We set up systems such that there are ways in which the decisions of Secretaries of State and Ministers have controls, checks and balances around them.

In circumstances in which a Secretary of State might say that a name is too secret to divulge, even knowing whether there has been use of the power—the number of times used and the categories for which it has been used—could still be important information. For example, what if suddenly in future the Secretary of State was determining 10 a month—I am not saying that they would? The Minister and I have no idea who the Secretary of State might be in five or 10 years’ time, so we have no idea whether there might be an abuse of the power. However, sometimes even having the number can be a red flag, because ordinarily we might expect one every three months, so why do we have five a month coming through?

There are therefore ways in which we can have such controls without putting someone’s identity or security—or the nation’s security—at risk. Having some controls over those powers is a big and important theme of the report. I ask the Minister to consider that and to say: “Look, we will consider whether we can have, without it being too onerous a job, some mechanism for controls and reporting on use of the powers, such as through Privy Council routes.” I would then be happy not to press my amendment.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to reflect on that and have further discussion. As the hon. Lady and other Members know, I am keen for Parliament to have scrutiny of any measures that we introduce. We will take it away to consider.

[Seema Malhotra]

I appreciate the opportunity. I therefore will not press amendment 10.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Clause 65, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Allocation of unique identifiers

[Seema Malhotra]

I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 66, page 55, line 36, leave out “power” and insert “a duty”.

This amendment would ensure that all directors would be issued with a unique director identifier to be used for all their directorships regardless of whether they or an ACSP form the company.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 103, in clause 66, page 55, line 37, at end insert—

“which the registrar must make publicly available on the registrar’s website”.

This amendment would make all unique director identifiers available on the registrar’s website.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

The clause expands the existing powers of the Secretary of State to allocate individuals who have had their identity verified with unique identifiers, which are reference numbers used by the registrar to help to identify people. That is of course a welcome step but, following an earlier debate in Committee, there are three key issues that we touched on which I want to explore further: can we have confirmation, first, that each director will have a unique identifier; secondly, that that will be public, whether published as it is or in proxy form, so something is searchable as a unique identifier published for a director; and, thirdly, that all directorships for one person will be searchable under their unique ID?

Amendments 102 and 103 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and me. We first made reference to them in the debate on the SNP’s amendments 68 to 70 to schedule 2. Our amendments would amend clause 66. Amendment 102 would ensure that all directors would be issued with a unique director identifier to be used for all their directorships, regardless of whether they or a member of the Association of Corporate Service Providers forms the company, and regardless of other factors. It explicitly seeks to amend the legislation to make it a duty to give a unique ID, not a power. It is possible that the drafting of my amendment does not fully do that, based on this being underlying legislation as well, but that is certainly our intention. The Minister has previously said that he expects that a unique identifier will be given to all directors for all their directorships, but I do not fully understand whether the Minister is guaranteeing that.

Amendment 103 would make those unique IDs publicly available on the registrar’s website, allowing for greater transparency for the general public. Thom Townsend of Open Ownership said that we need to

“think long and hard about how we are using an identity, once verified, persistently in a lifelong way. Australia, New Zealand and India issue unique identifiers to directors—and, in Australia’s case, to beneficial owners—for life, which makes the investigation process much more straightforward.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 62, Q133.]

These amendments, I believe, do just what Mr Townsend recommends: provide unique identifiers, so that any investigation process can be much more straightforward.

I want to go into this issue a little further in light of the Minister’s previous comments. Section 1082 of the Companies Act 2006 states:

“The Secretary of State may make provision for the use…of reference numbers (‘unique identifiers’)”

It is a power, rather than a duty, and the amendments to section 1082 of the Companies Act contained in clause 66 would not change that. The Minister has said that the SNP amendments that we previously debated

“will be redundant once the expanded power under section 1082 is exercised”.––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 3 November 2022; c. 250.]

However, I cannot see where the Bill states that those amendments will effectively be redundant when it comes into force, so I would be grateful if he could come back on that point.

The explanatory notes say that the reason for unique identifiers not being publicly available is “to protect personal information” and to guard against

“the fraudulent use of unique identifiers.”

None of us wants to see the fraudulent use of unique identifiers, and I do take that point, if the argument is about whether those specific unique identifiers are the only solution to this issue. Sometimes, it depends on how unique identifiers are used: if they are used as part of log-on information or something like that, you could argue that there is potential for fraudulent use, but they could also be identifiers that do not really pose any kind of security or other risk to personal information. What we need, if we cut all the way through this, is a reference that would allow someone to link already public information to a single individual.

If having a public unique identifier were a problem for any reason, depending on how the new Companies House systems are put together and what that unique identifier gives access to, there could be other, very easy ways to achieve the same result. I might suggest different options, such as a function allowing people to check what other offices someone held. That already exists on the Charity Commission website, for example, where we can look up trustees of a charity and see what other trusteeships they hold—the entries are linked, and that link is done for the reader. Companies House already seems to try to do that, but cannot do it properly because it does not have the data to link people who are directors of different companies. For example, that is why, as I think the hon. Member for Glasgow Central noted, she had one appointment that came up three times—or was it the other way around?

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I exist three times.

[Seema Malhotra]

Right, her name is registered three times, rather than having one entry noting that she has three directorships. With identity verification and the issuance of unique identifiers, Companies House will know exactly how many directorships an individual has. Companies House may plan to update pages showing people’s total directorships once it issues unique identifiers, but that certainly is not clear.

An alternative is to have some form of proxy ID, which is becoming increasingly common. That is a unique ID linked to the director’s unique ID, which can keep the director’s ID itself private, but has a unique public identifier that is searchable and uniquely linked to the underlying identifier. That happens increasingly for email addresses, for example, when someone may not want their email address to be public, so a pseudo or proxy address is created so that the one that someone might publicly enter and others might publicly see is not the underlying email address, but is uniquely linked to it. There are ways in which technology can be used simply and easily. That is not a high-cost option and it can be built in to have what we need for public purposes—a unique identifier for a director that links all their directorships, if published, and is searchable.

I hope that those constructive suggestions and the way we laid out our reply when the Minister asked in a previous debate what we were not fully happy with in clause 66 mean that things are perhaps clearer. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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

[Seema Malhotra]

The example was given of the number of John Smiths there might be. There might even be a number of Seema Malhotras, but I do not know that there are as many.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is only one.

[Seema Malhotra]

I think I found three. For the most part, the Minister’s arguments are very strong, but he is on very weak ground here. Is he seriously saying that if someone genuinely wants to see Mr John Smith’s directorships, they will have to spend three hours going through all the John Smiths? Would that be enough time to de-duplicate and link the right ones together? That is crazy. There is a much simpler solution. It would do the job, and bring us in line with other countries.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not aware of the countries to which the hon. Lady refers. How would someone know the unique identifier so as to be able to search by that record? What someone will recognise is the name of the person, whether it is Usmanov or another name. That is likely to be the search term that people use, so we think that, for the public view, the most important link is the name. That would also have some implications in terms of potential fraud.

The unique identifier is there to do exactly what the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central want it to do: it creates a connection behind the scenes, in Companies House, so that a simple search can reveal the connection between a person and all the different companies. That is how it works: we search by the names. We think that is the best way around. She wants to search by the unique identifier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

May I kindly suggest that the Minister ask his officials more about how the unique IDs that are used in Australia, New Zealand and India are working, and whether there is something we might learn from them? If he has not been briefed on that already, it might be a useful step for him to take.

On the Minister’s second point, he is absolutely right that we usually start with a name. We might start with “Mr Kevin Hollinrake, Thirsk and Malton”, but we would then find his unique identifier and be able to use it to link him with the hundreds of other entries for Kevin Hollinrakes—perhaps some of them even live in Feltham and Heston—and see whether they are the same person.

If the Minister is unclear about what I referred to as a proxy identifier, I am happy to take that offline. It is a simple measure used for security reasons, and it is basically like having a “known as” name. Everyone might know the Minister by a nickname, but people will always be able to identify him, because the unique identifier is linked solely to the underlying email address or ID. It is not publicly the same, but it is uniquely linked, so that someone who uses one will access the data of the other.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to look at the international examples that the hon. Lady mentions, and at the generic name issue. I think that is a fair point, and I have already asked officials to look at how that might work in the case of John Smith and the like. I have just done a quick search on one of my previous co-directors, Harry Hill, who has quite a generic name. If we put in “Harry Hill, Hunters, Companies House” it brings up the Harry Hill that is associated with me, not another Harry Hill. There are simple ways to make connections involving names such as John Smith. I will come back to the hon. Lady with an answer on that if I can.

We do not think that changing the power to a duty would have the desired effect of obliging people to have unique identifiers in the first place. That will be achieved by mandatory provisions including the regulations under the power contained in section 1082 of the Companies Act.

[Seema Malhotra]

I would appreciate it if the Minister came back to me on that point, because I am not clear that section 1082 of the Companies Act, as amended by the Bill, will achieve what he thinks it will. I want a clear answer about whether all directors will have a unique identifier under the new regime. That is question No. 1, and everything else follows from that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, they will. That is exactly what the Bill provides. It is a mandatory provision, including the regulations under the power contained in section 1082 of the Companies Act. Those two things combined will ensure that Companies House provides a unique identifier for every company director and for every person of significant control. I think that is what the hon. Lady hopes to achieve.

Let me turn to amendment 103. Unique identifiers will be a tool to help Companies House to link an individual’s verified identity across multiple roles and company associations. For example, if an individual is a director for company A and also a person with significant control for company B, Companies House will be able better to link those appointments using the unique identifier. The identifiers should not be made public, in our view. Their purpose is to allow the person who is assigned the identifier to communicate securely and privately with Companies House. Making the unique identifiers public would, in our view, compromise their use, because they could be appropriated and misused by anyone looking at the register, including potentially to commit identify fraud and other crimes. However, Companies House will be making changes to how members of the public view the register, enabled by unique identifiers, so it will be possible accurately to see connections between individuals and entities, including how many companies an individual is a director of, or how many companies a person has significant control over. On that basis, I hope hon. Members will withdraw their amendment.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his remarks. The matter is so important that we will want to push the amendment to a vote. It may be that what the Minister has just said on Companies House’s intentions resolves some of the issues in the end. What has been stated will happen, but we need to go further to be clear about when and how that will happen.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Clause 67 amends section 1087 of the Companies Act 2006 to extend the list of registered material unavailable for public inspection to include

“any statement delivered to the registrar”

to confirm compliance with identity verification requirements, which means that statements delivered to the registrar concerning identity verification will stay private, protecting personal and sensitive information. Government amendment 10 clarifies that section 1087 is only about withholding from public inspection the portion of the registrar’s records concerning companies. Other provisions elsewhere in legislation provide for the withholding from public inspection of the portion of the registrar’s record pertaining to other entities, such as limited liability partnerships and limited partnerships.

[Seema Malhotra]

We have very few remarks to make. As the Minister has outlined, clause 67 amends the Companies Act to extend the list of material unavailable for public inspection to include

“any statement delivered to the registrar”

under the provisions listed. I make the general comment that we want to have greater clarity on this matter so that we do not inadvertently find ourselves, through the legislation, in a situation whereby director, shareholder or officer information becomes hidden for all the reasons outlined in the Bill. The clue is in the name—it is about corporate transparency. I am making a broad point about concerns of reducing transparency when we are here to increase it.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

Requirements for administrative restoration

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 45—Striking off a company: identity verification—

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

(2) After section 1003 (striking off on application by company) insert—

‘1003A Striking off on application by company: identity verification

Before striking off a company under section 1003, the registrar must first, in the case of each individual named as a director of the company—

(a) confirm that the individual’s identity is verified (see section 1110A), or

(b) confirm that the individual falls within any exemption specified in regulations made under section 12(2A)(b).’”

This new clause would extend directors’ Identity Verification requirements to dissolving a company in addition to registering a company.

New clause 46—Application for administrative restoration to the register—

“In section 1024 of the Companies Act 2006 (application for administrative restoration to the register), for subsection (3) substitute—

‘(3) An application under this section may only be made by a former director, former member, former creditor or former liquidator of the company.’”

This new clause would make it possible for a creditor or liquidator to apply to restore a company administratively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am getting a bit excited. Sorry, Ms Bardell. I will leave it at that.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clauses 45 and 46, following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon. He and the Minister highlighted how clause 68 amends the Companies Act and provides that outstanding penalties will need to be paid by applicants or directors for a full strike-off. If I am correct, section 1025, which the clause amends, is about applications for administrative restoration by a former director or member—a shareholder—whereas a creditor would use a separate process under section 1029 to restore a company to the register. That is not being amended by the Bill and does not require payment of outstanding fines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said in my remarks, anyone delivering an application to strike off a company to the registrar would have to verify their identity. I do not see how that is not clear.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for that intervention. If he means that the aims of the new clause are already included in the proposed operation of the system, that is helpful clarification.

Currently, when companies are struck off the Companies House register, very little is done to check whether fraud has occurred and, in turn, that means that there are few repercussions for the directors of those companies. On average, 400,000 companies are struck off the register each year, so perhaps the Minister could go one step further and clarify whether such ID verification will apply to all directors of companies that are struck off. How will that happen if there are no unique identifiers? If wrongful actions are committed, will the proposed regime go one step further to ensure that red flags and investigations into possible misconduct or fraudulent activity will ensue? At the moment, unscrupulous directors are likely to misappropriate the strike-off process to avoid scrutiny and to rack up debts or to sell company assets ahead of the company dissolution, effectively absconding with the proceeds. Our new clause does not just call for a check on IDs but for red flags in the system to alert authorities to possible fraudulent activity that should be subject to further investigation. The Minister may want to respond to that suggestion later.

As I have outlined, creditors may seek to apply through the courts for a company to be restored, albeit under different legislation. New clause 46 would enable a creditor or a liquidator to apply to restore a company administratively. I believe it would be helpful to the Minister’s considerations to outline our intentions. The introduction of director identity verification may go some way to deterring directors from registering multiple companies fraudulently, but in the case of companies already struck off the register, there is limited opportunity to hold directors accountable for their wrongful actions and for returns to their companies’ creditors.

Members of the insolvency and restructuring trade body, R3, report that director disqualifications have little or no effect on fraudulent directors. It is absolutely shocking that the system has been allowed to continue in that way. There is little or no effect on fraudulent directors, and seriously rogue directors will often go on to commit repeat frauds despite being disqualified.

Those directors who have been disqualified may continue to operate behind the scenes as de facto directors, shadow directors or advisers to a company. We are trying to close some of those options, but there are all sorts of ways in which those who want to get around the system can do so if determined. Hence the need for the legislation to be more belt and braces.

A much more significant deterrent occurs when the company is put through an insolvency process and directors are held to account for the assets that have been misappropriated. If a company has been dissolved and automatically struck off the Companies House register—the company therefore no longer exists, in effect—that process can only take place if the company is first restored. However, if a company’s former creditors or liquidators at the time of the company’s striking off or dissolution wish to apply to restore the company, they must do so through the court.

The court process can clearly deter creditors as it is sometimes a complex procedure, in part due to the costs, which are typically £1,500 to £3,000, and in part due to the huge amount of time involved, which can be 12 to 18 months. Businesses are busy, creditors are busy, and the extra strain has to be weighed up against the cost of doing it. We have to have a solution. I am glad that the Minister has intimated that there ought to be a basis for what I think he described as a “less cumbersome” process. I agree. I hope that we will see some proposals, perhaps in Committee. It would be helpful to strike while the iron is hot.

Directors are all too easily able to create a significant barrier to the investigation of their conduct. Indeed, data from Companies House shows that only 2% of dissolved companies are put through a process to restore them to the register each year. I do not have the data on the number of creditors who might do so were it a less cumbersome process, but I think we can all agree that it would be far more than 2%. Certainly the research suggests that.

Under section 1024 of the Companies Act, former directors or members of a company can apply to restore a company administratively, avoiding a court process. However, that is not an option for a former liquidator or creditor of a company. New clause 46 would amend section 1024 so that a former creditor or liquidator could apply to restore a company administratively, without the need for a potentially lengthy and costly application to court. That would make it simpler for a company to be put through an insolvency process so that the company’s directors can be held to account for the assets that have been misappropriated and incur liability for their actions. Returns to creditors could then be made.

I hope that the Minister will, in his reflections, consider the wording of new clause 46. It might help him on the way to finding a simple solution. There is a real issue here. In the interests of fairness to businesses and creditors that do the right thing but are treated unfairly, it should not be so hard to bring to account those who had clearly planned to be struck off, more quickly, cheaply and easily.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

On the hon. Lady’s legitimacy argument, as I said, we can understand that there might be a case about liquidators. We have committed to look at that. It is much more difficult in the case of creditors’ interests. She talked about the misappropriation of funds, but it is not the registrar’s position—the registrar is not deemed capable—to determine whether that is the case. I do not see how a creditor’s interests can be decided on by the registrar. However, I commit to us looking at the liquidator element.

On the issues the hon. Lady has mentioned with respect to Companies House and new clause 45, the requirements under the objective at the start of the Bill make it clear that the registrar’s responsibility is to minimise unlawful activities. On whether a striking-off in certain circumstances is a red flag, there will be a number of ways in which that can be determined, either through automated processes or by human intervention. It is not realistic for the registrar to determine fraud, but it is definitely within her capability to determine whether there is a red flag around fraud. We expect the registrar to put those measures in place; in fact, there is a requirement for her to do that under objective 4— minimise unlawful activities.

We have had debates at length in previous sittings on whether we should dictate to the registrar how she should do that, with myriad conditions and circumstances involved and discussion as to what constitutes a red flag. On this side of the Committee, we believe that we should leave it to Companies House to determine how the registrar minimises unlawful activities and what constitutes a red flag. That, of course, will be shared with relevant enforcement agencies.

[Seema Malhotra]

I know the Minister is not intending to, and I would not want him to, misrepresent our position, but the difference between our views is generally whether there should be greater tools and provision in legislation to give the registrar teeth that might be helpful in her work. The Minister is right that it would not be for the registrar to determine fraud, but that there should be a red flag system whereby the registrar is uniquely in a position to be able to determine that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are in total agreement—violent agreement—which is great.

The hon. Lady made a point about shadow directors. There are all kinds of ways in which a nefarious individual can influence the behaviour of a company, for which we cannot possibly legislate. There is no such thing as, and no legal status of, a shadow director. Therefore, how would we ban somebody from being one? We have to operate within the boundaries of the law. That is what we feel, and we have reached a fair balance here. I hope the hon. Lady will not press her new clauses to a vote later in the proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Delivery of documents: identity verification etc

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The clause also provides that the registrar need not make these records available for public inspection 20 years after those dates.

[Seema Malhotra]

I will speak to clauses 76 to 79. I thank the Minister for his comments. He has outlined that clause 76 would amend the Companies Act 2006 to give the registrar the power to reject documents that are not consistent with information held by the registrar and that give the registrar reasonable grounds to doubt whether the document complies with Companies House requirements.

A document that is refused under this power is treated as not having been delivered. These clauses will apply to all documents filed with the Companies House registrar. Such documents could include the annual confirmation statement—formerly the annual return—the annual accounts, forms appointing or terminating directorships, applications to register a charge or the filing of changes to the articles of association. The broad list can be found on the Government website under the postal forms that a limited company can file with Companies House.

Clause 76 is a welcome measure that should help Companies House transition from passive administrator to active agent as regards the information submitted to it. Will the Minister expand on how the registrar will be alerted when inconsistent documents are submitted? Have there been discussions with the registrar about the process by which inconsistencies will be checked? The Government may be considering a risk-based approach such as automatic flagging, but it would be helpful to clarify how the system is likely to work and be implemented.

I was searching the legislation to see if there was any deadline for rejection by which Companies House will confirm the rejection of a document. I cannot see a timeline specified, but I would be grateful if the Minister could correct me if that is wrong. In the Bill as drafted, a rejected document is treated as never having been delivered. Could the Minister clarify that? It suggests to me—though it is not fully clear—that companies could be submitting information in good faith, maybe just before a deadline, but could be fined for missing a deadline if the document was subsequently rejected. It would be helpful to know whether Companies House will be working to a deadline to confirm or reject a document that has inconsistencies. If there will be, what might that mean for companies that submitted documentation in good faith, and what will happen with the resubmission of any documentation?

I have no particular comments on clause 77, but I have a question about clause 78 and the preservation of original documents. The Minister is right that our confidence in digital technology and digital records has improved significantly. Can the Minister clarify what needs to be kept in hard copy for two years? Does that refer to all the records that we have discussed? I am not clear about how that sits alongside options for electronic storage of original documents that had been certified by the registrar. There are some other mentions of certification in the Bill, so it would be useful to understand that. I do not have any other concerns or questions on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

How can we consistently tackle inconsistency in the documentation? We are back to the red flags issue. It is up to Companies House to determine the circumstances in which something would have a red flag, in that it was incorrect. It is not impossible for the Committee to do Companies House’s job for it in terms of how it determines what might constitute a red flag, but I have every confidence that Companies House will determine that appropriately. Again, that is assisted by the requirement that when people file information that is clearly, patently and deliberately wrong, there are penalties for false filing.

As for deadlines, I do not think there is any deadline that the registrar has to adhere to for when determining something to be inconsistent or wrong. The document can be rejected and companies can expect that rejection to be speedy in the majority of cases. The registrar has discretion not to reject an inconsistent document if she feels it is not materially inconsistent. Those are points of detail that can probably be left to Companies House.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his response. What he said about points of detail is true to some extent, but not fully true as regards what the provisions could mean for companies that have submitted information in good faith before a deadline. If documents are rejected after the deadline, it could result in the company being considered to have not submitted documents. There seems to be a slightly grey area. Would companies be fined for missing deadlines, or would they be given, in the case of a significant document, a short period of, say, seven days to resubmit it with corrections, without facing a penalty? It could be seen as a late submission. We just want a fair process in instances when genuine mistakes are made.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

So do I, and I would expect the registrar to use her judgment when determining whether something has been inappropriately filed. We would not expect a fine to be issued if it is not the company’s fault that it has missed a deadline, as in the situation that the hon. Lady describes. There is a wider requirement for any registrar to act reasonably in that regard.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Power to require additional information

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 80, page 63, line 2, at end insert—

“(vi) section 28 or 29 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907;”.

This amendment spells out that statements made by a person in response to a requirement under section 1092A of the Companies Act 2006 can be used in criminal proceedings for the false statement offences under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907.

Amendment 11 reinforces the legal framework to maximise the prospects of truthful and accurate information being delivered to the registrar. The general rule is that fairness requires that a person who is compelled on pain of criminal sanctions to provide information to the authorities should not be prosecuted if the information they are forced to supply is incriminating. Proposed new section 1092C(1) of the Companies Act 2006, inserted by clause 80, ensures that that fairness requirement is met in relation to uses by the registrar under the new power in proposed new section 1092A to compel a person to provide her with information for the purposes of her being able to determine whether filing obligations have been met.

However, the privilege against self-incrimination is not absolute. As is the case elsewhere in the statute book, the Bill includes exceptions. A person compelled to provide information is not immune from prosecution for offences that prohibit the giving of false, misleading or deceptive statements. Proposed new section 1092C(2) provides for that exception. The amendment adds the two proposed new “false statements” sections that clause 129 of the Bill inserts into the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 to the list in proposed new section 1092C(2). That ensures that when the registrar compels a person to provide information under her new power to determine whether filing obligations concerning limited partnerships have been met, the person cannot claim privilege against self-incrimination if the information they are compelled to deliver reveals that they have submitted a false filing. I trust the Committee will agree that this is a well-considered amendment.

[Seema Malhotra]

We do not have extensive remarks. As the Minister has outlined, the clause introduces a new power for the registrar to require information to determine whether someone has met the requirements on document delivery. Failure to comply without a reasonable excuse would be a criminal offence.

[The Chair]

To clarify, we are debating Government amendment 11 to clause 80. Is that the amendment the hon. Lady is focusing on?

[Seema Malhotra]

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I was just speaking briefly to clause 80. The amendment spells out that statements made by a person in response to that requirement can be used in criminal proceedings on those false statements, and we support that.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 80, page 63, line 14, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment is consequential on NC17.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

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

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

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

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

[Seema Malhotra]

In the time that we have had, it has been difficult to go through exactly what all the new clauses and amendments mean for what is and is not hidden information. We may come back to this issue, so I will not oppose the measures today. New clause 16 confers a power to make regulations about identity verification.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Protected information includes protected date of birth information, which means information as to the day of the month—but not the month of the year—on which the registered beneficial owner or managing officer of an overseas entity was born. It also includes protected residential information, which means information as to the usual residential address of an individual who is a registered beneficial owner or managing officer, and protected trust information, which means the required information about a trust.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his clarification. He did set out a little of that when he spoke to the new clauses. Given the speed with which we are going through the Bill, it is sometimes a little hard to keep track of what has been added, and whether there are any other consequences from that. I am not saying that there are consequences, but it feels as though a lot of Government amendments have come forward. I am not necessarily objecting to those before us today, but as a matter of principle, we need to go through provisions to check whether the devil is in the detail; after all, as I have said, the Bill has “Corporate Transparency” in its title.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We will debate the overseas entities register in more detail in part 3, so there might be a good opportunity for further debate then.

[Seema Malhotra]

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

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

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

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