Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That may not be part of this Bill, but it is part of my portfolio, I am pleased to say. My hon. Friend and I have worked together to further the cause of whistleblowers on many occasions. I am keen to bring that forward quickly. We have work under way now that will lead to a review. I am keen to complete that work quickly and come up with some firm recommendations. I am also keen to look at international examples of best practice. She is keen to have an office for the whistleblower, for example. It is right to look at other jurisdictions to see how that is working elsewhere, which can inform our work. I am keen to make significant changes as quickly as possible.

I shall draw my comments to a close and listen to the rest of the debate. I am interested to hear about the amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House. I am sure today’s debate will be as well considered and beneficial as those on the Bill thus far. I hope Members on both sides of the House will continue to support the measures in parts 1, 2 and 3, so that we can deliver these much-anticipated and much-needed reforms. They will help to protect our constituents and the country, and ensure that the UK remains a great place for legitimate businesses to thrive.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister and to speak to our amendments.

The Labour party has supported this important Bill’s passage in a cross-party spirit through Second Reading and Committee. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for their contributions during our proceedings. May I add my words of support? The Minister has a long track record on these issues and a reputation through the all-party group on anti-corruption and responsible tax and other campaigns, which I hope bodes well for further progress and amendments to the Bill. However, it was frustrating that in Committee the Government did not accept a number of amendments tabled by the Opposition and other Members that would have significantly strengthened the Bill even further. The Minister did agree to keep some issues under review, which we will pick up on today.

This long overdue second economic crime Bill is an opportunity to finally end Britain’s role as a global hub for dirty money, and to support honest businesses to trade and flourish, with better standards and more transparency, helping to level the playing field for businesses and co-operatives. I echo the Minister’s words on the importance of that in tackling terrorism, economic crime and illicit finance, and in cleaning up our economy in the way we all want to see.

The amendments we have tabled seek to ensure that the Bill goes further in areas including reporting and parliamentary scrutiny, strengthening the objectives of the registrar to see a more proactive role in preventing and detecting economic crime, and tightening up the authorisation and supervision of corporate service providers. Amendments scheduled for tomorrow include provisions on the failure to prevent economic crime and director liability.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that many stakeholders strongly feel that the Bill’s powers require further development to be effective? Does she agree that a statutory review process set out in the Bill would be good practice and should be implemented?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She is alluding to a theme that goes through the Bill: we cannot expect this to suddenly be the answer to everything, so we have to keep it under review and to have the mechanisms for that review, including effective information coming to Parliament.

The Minister has just spoken to the Government’s amendments. We are pleased to see that there have been some concessions following Committee. The Government have tabled about 25 amendments that remove powers to exempt directors from identity verification requirements. That is a huge concession by the Government to a central question asked by us in Committee about the completeness of the legislation, the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers and the challenge required for parliamentary oversight. The extent of these powers risked riding a coach and horses through the defences against economic crime that we are seeking to build through the legislation. But even after those amendments, a number of Henry VIII powers are left unchecked. I am sure that will be debated in the other place.

The next welcome concession is Government new clause 15, which imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament reports about the implementation and operation of parts 1 to 3. That significant step, however, is surprisingly weak as regards setting any expectations of what Parliament would expect to see in the report. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and I tabled new clause 16, which has cross-party support and is similar to amendments tabled by colleagues in Committee. Under our amendment, the purpose of the report would be clearer and stronger. We would have an annual report with an assessment as to whether the powers available to the Secretary of State and the registrar were sufficient to enable the registrar to achieve her objectives under proposed new section 1081A of the Companies Act 2006, which is inserted by clause 1.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and pushing for even better legislation. Does she agree that that particular proposal would lead to a change in culture, which is what we really need? That annual reporting system would lift the game and improve the culture of the way business is done in this regard.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amendment would do two things. It would change the culture of how Parliament operates and plays a role in tackling economic crime. It would also shift the culture based on our expectations of business, how business should behave and how directors should be held to account, as well as shift the culture in Companies House and the work of the registrar. For all those reasons, it is an important area for development.

[Liam Byrne]

rose—

[Seema Malhotra]

Before returning to our new clause 16, I will briefly take an intervention from my right hon. Friend.

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Does she agree that it is vital that we have a much more wide-ranging report on the nature of economic crime? We know that 10 different agencies are responsible for policing economic crime, and we learned in Committee that the Bill’s provisions would not have stopped an individual such as Alisher Usmanov from buying a multimillion-pound London mansion only to be sanctioned a little later on. These are exactly the crimes that need to be brought to the House’s attention so that we can keep economic crime legislation up to date and not have to wait for 170-year cycles before we make substantial reform.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend is right about keeping our legislation up to date. He says that with great authority. We must recognise that those who seek to perpetuate economic crime are always innovating, and unless we are aware and informed, we will not move our legislation and processes on with that. There is also a vital point about the information that comes to the House. Today, we are debating reporting and information. There will be further debate tomorrow about the appropriateness of the structures through which that information is assessed.

New clause 16 seeks to specify further some of the information that should be brought forward and, crucially, calls for a detailing of instances—or maybe even numbers, depending on the reasons—in which exemption powers under the Bill are used by the Secretary of State. The Minister will be aware of the concerns that we raised in Committee about the need for Parliament to have transparency even on the number of uses of exemption powers under the Bill.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution to the debate. The point is that the Government’s new clause 15 simply reflects reporting on the process of implementation—[Interruption.] That is how I read it, and that is how the Minister spoke to it. If I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected. Through new clause 16, we are trying to hold the whole of Companies House’s works to account and ensure that it delivers what we have in mind in being at the front end of fighting economic crime through the data that it collects.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should be ambitious for the registrar and for Companies House in tackling economic crime and being a beacon around the world for how a nation should do that. She makes an important point about where the new clause goes further than the Government’s proposal. Along with the report and the data in it, importantly, there would be recommendations about whether further legislation should be brought forward in response to that report and the information in it. That is extremely important, because that is where Parliament will have to make choices about whether it chooses to take further action.

Issues of concern that the report may draw attention to, and which we could encourage the registrar to look at, could include investigations of unusual patterns of directorships and companies registered at one address. All of that would also enable Parliament to hold Companies House to account for its performance. We are willing to work with the Minister to strengthen the Government’s new clause so that it becomes more purposeful and effective—and, in doing so, collectively achieve the outcomes that we intend for the Bill.

I turn to further amendments tabled by Labour Front-Bench Members. New clause 22 seeks to disqualify any individual convicted of a serious breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, such as a deliberate refusal to pay the national minimum wage, from serving as a company director in future. In Committee, the Minister stated that it was

“right to identify the scale and nature of the problem before we legislate”.––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 3 November 2022; c. 240.]

He said that he was “keen to do so.” He also said:

“There have been 16 people convicted under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I want to do some further research on that to see what has happened to those people and their director qualification or disqualification. That might inform debate more clearly.”–[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 3 November 2022; c. 233.]

Since then, we have not heard a satisfactory answer to the central question: should an individual convicted of an offence for a serious breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, such as a deliberate refusal to pay the national minimum wage, be prevented from serving as a company director?

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Is not the point that if someone is convicted of a criminal offence, the court automatically has the power to disqualify them, and that by not being prescriptive in legislation, we ensure that the judge in a particular case has more leeway than perhaps the hon. Lady would give him?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Perhaps he is missing some of our argument around the central question, because it does not happen in all cases. We have not received any further information on the work and research that the Minister started during Committee on what happens with those directors, which he committed to follow up.

In our view, new clause 22 would strengthen the Bill. We are talking about people whom we hope to have trust in to undertake their responsibilities as a director. The Bill introduces a substantial amount of regulation about who can and cannot serve as a company director as a result of criminal or potentially criminal practices, so this feels like the right place for consideration of such a measure. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response. I am happy to give him forewarning that, subject to his response, we may well press the new clause to a vote.

New clause 24 calls for a creditor or liquidator to be able to apply to restore a company to the register administratively. Currently, if creditors, former creditors or liquidators wish to apply to restore a company, that is done through the court in what is often a complex and costly procedure that may well take 12 to 18 months or longer. In Committee, the Minister said that there ought to be a basis for a “less cumbersome” process for creditors and particularly for liquidators. We agree. Currently, when companies are struck off the register—that happens on average to about 400,000 companies a year—little is done to check whether fraud has occurred. As a side issue, the Minister may helpfully confirm whether directors of companies that have been struck off will also be subject to verification checks so that we do not have a period through which they may escape ID verification as Companies House looks to undergo those checks with existing directors.

The key issue is that unscrupulous directors can misappropriate the strike-off process to avoid scrutiny and rack up debts or sell company assets ahead of the company dissolution, absconding with the proceeds. The Minister said he appreciated the case for widening access to the less cumbersome process of administrative restoration, and he undertook to consider the matter further. If he does not agree to our new clause 24, I would be grateful if he would commit to bringing forward proposals during the passage of the Bill. This is a window of opportunity that we should not miss.

On new clause 34, the processes set out in the Bill rely on effective ID verification of company directors. There has been a debate as to whether that should be done in-house. The Government have chosen to use a model whereby authorised corporate service providers are trusted to undertake ID verification on behalf of Companies House and effectively certify that through a confirmation statement. The debate is ongoing on how that introduces risk into the process. Indeed, if the registrar can do only part of the verification and we need to use authorised corporate service providers, that only works if the ACSPs are known, trusted and effectively regulated.

New clause 34 seeks transparency reporting on the involvement of foreign corporate service providers in the two main routes by which they may be authorised to conduct ID checks and to incorporate a company in the UK that is registered with Companies House. Such a company being registered could have an office address in the UK; a postal address in the UK, with all the risks we debated in Committee; or an address abroad as an overseas company. The directors of the company registered in Companies House by the foreign corporate service provider may be living abroad and may never come to the UK. New clause 34 seeks to create an obligation for the Secretary of State to publish a report, first, into the number of authorised corporate service providers with a head office based outside the UK, by which we mean where the authorised UK subsidiary supervised by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is beneficially owned by a company that is outside the UK; and secondly, on the number of foreign corporate service providers authorised by regulations set out in proposed new section 1098I(1) of the Companies Act 2006, which is amended by clause 63.

Clause 63 enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to authorise a person abroad to become a foreign authorised corporate service provider

“even if the person is not a relevant person as defined by regulation 8(1) of the Money Laundering Regulations”.

For example, they could be a lawyer or an art dealer. They would therefore not be supervised. Proposed new section 1098I(2) specifies that a

“‘relevant regulatory regime’ means a regime that, in the opinion”—

I stress, in the opinion—

“of the Secretary of State, has similar objectives to the regulatory regime under the Money Laundering Regulations”.

However, it does not specify any transparency on how that conclusion is reached. Clause 63 is a risk for a backdoor route to the authorisation of foreign corporate service providers—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

indicated dissent.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a risk—the Minister is shaking his head, so I am going to repeat it—for a backdoor route to the authorisation of foreign corporate service providers in a high-risk territory that falls outside money laundering regulations.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

rose—

[Seema Malhotra]

I will just complete my point and then bring the Minister in if he wishes to intervene. I would be grateful if he could confirm why that is in the Bill in that way, and the extent of the safeguards that are in place. He will, I am sure, be mindful of the need for trust and confidence, and for transparency on who our corporate service providers are and for whom they are undertaking ID verifications, which we are then expected to trust. Subject to the Minister’s response, we intend to press this transparency reporting new clause 34 to a Division.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It is not a backdoor to try to get around the legislation. I cannot think why she would think we would write 309 pages of legislation and then create a purposeful backdoor. On the reason for the measure, imagine an international free trade agreement, not with a high-risk jurisdiction—why would we do that?—but where the international partner had an anti-money laundering regime that we felt was equivalent to our own. We might consider it in that context. In no way, shape or form is this about creating a backdoor, and we would very much expect this sort of thing to be in the annual report to Parliament on the implementation and operation of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, and for setting out the context and the Government’s intention behind clause 63. However, there is a difference between the intention behind the clause and how it could be used. I think it would be worth while for the Government to seek further legal advice on how the clause could be used, because legislation is not just about how Ministers intend to use powers today, but about how they could be used tomorrow. With the succession of Secretaries of State that we have had, some of whom may perhaps be—how shall I put this? Well, I shall not go any further, because I think the House understands. There are those who have been in such a position and whose judgment may be questioned a little more than that of others in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Does my hon. Friend agree there can be absolutely no objection to that approach? In the Minister’s opening remarks, he said that the reforms will give Companies House much more proactive capability. If the Minister sees that, and if we want that, what on earth is the objection to putting it in legislation so that Companies House knows darn well that that is what we expect of it?

[Seema Malhotra]

The Minister has heard what my right hon. Friend says. If that is what Parliament wishes and intends, we should have the courage to put it in the Bill. The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and others—including new clauses 17 and 19 and amendments 102 and 103—are important, and we support what they are calling for. Separately, we strongly encourage the Minister to look at amendment 101.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend believe that this afternoon’s debate has covered the important area of phoenix companies and consumer protection? There is clearly a role for the registrar in detecting fraud and ongoing recidivism.

[Seema Malhotra]

That is part of what we seek, but there is further to go. I know that amendments tabled by other colleagues also draw on the issue of phoenixing and the importance of preventing it. Checks on directors of companies that have been struck off and measures addressing the ease of administrative restoration are tools that we could employ to tackle phoenixing and protect customers along with other businesses and creditors.

Amendments 105 and 106 draw on a wider theme, which is that what we want in the Bill is duties, not powers. We want to see a clear outcomes focus. We want to legislate for things to be done, not for the potential for the registrar to do things—a very important distinction. First, amendment 105 specifies that it should be a duty, not a power, for the registrar to allocate a unique identifier to a director. Secondly, amendment 106 states that the registrar should ensure that the same unique identifier is used for that person in

“any other entries they have on the register under the same name or a different name.”

Thirdly, through amendment 108, we want to reduce the risk to the integrity of the register by tightening up the arrangements for the confirmation statement. A proposed director must confirm in writing either that they already have a unique director ID with the register under the same or a different name and state what it is, or that they do not yet have a unique ID. If an individual chooses to go by a different name, or may have dual citizenship and use a different passport for ID, or may even have a fake birth certificate suggesting a different date of birth, how will the registrar know? This is a protection for the system in the event that an individual is subsequently found to have lied about their identity.

I suspect that, broadly, we are in the same place when it comes to what is intended to happen through this legislation, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that by answering a couple of questions. First, does he expect the registrar, under the arrangements that he has proposed, to issue a unique ID to each new director and to existing directors on the database, and should we understand that, for all intents and purposes, the power will operate in practical terms as if it were a duty? Secondly, in a search on the Companies House website, will clicking on a director’s name bring up all their directorships, linked internally by the unique ID, even if they go by different names in different companies? Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene in response to those two points.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is exactly how it will work.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his confirmation. The legislation is not as tight as we would like it to be, but if he puts his intentions on record, that does take us a step further.

Amendment 107 would require a limited partnership dissolution notice to be published on the registrar’s website and to remain published for a minimum of 20 years. The Minister has previously said that he would like to explore with Companies House the feasibility and costs associated with introducing that requirement. I should be grateful if he confirmed that he has concluded those discussions, and tell us what decision he has reached.

New clause 20, which we support, concerns resourcing. It would raise Companies House fees to £100 to help to properly fund the fight against crime. The current fee of just £12 makes this country the sixth cheapest place in the world in which to set up a company. The Treasury Select Committee recommended a fee of £100. Will the Minister tell us what his plans are? Having a plan to resource Companies House is fundamental to achieving the goals of the Bill.

I thank Scottish National party Members for their amendments, whose arguments are similar to ours. In particular, we support new clause 36 and amendment 109, which deal with reporting and unique IDs—although we think that some minor changes might be made to new clause 36—and would also support any attempt to push them to a vote.

New clause 26, which is being debated today but will be subject to a decision tomorrow, would amend provisions in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to require the introduction of open registers of beneficial ownership in each of the UK’s overseas territories. There should be no double standards in the legal requirements for transparency of beneficial ownership across different parts of the UK, including the overseas territories. We have witnessed too many scandals involving money being laundered through territories for whose administration the UK is ultimately responsible to accept the idea that we must simply leave them to their own devices. According to the spin that the Government chose to put on the wording of the 2018 Act, its obligation had been met simply by the publication of a draft Order in Council, regardless of when, or even whether, such an order might actually come into force. The result is that we are here yet again, nearly five years later, still discussing how to ensure the implementation of registers to the same standards across all the UK’s territories. Surely it should not have been beyond the wit of Ministers, even in this Government, to have sorted this out by now. [Interruption.] With the exception of the Minister who is present today.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend is raising a really important point, which has been put into some question by a judgment of the European Court of Justice by an action relating to a shell company in Luxembourg. I know that this is not entirely in the Minister’s control but it is particularly important because, although the Crown dependencies agreed in 2018 or 2019 to publish registers of beneficial ownership, we never passed the legislation because we got their agreement verbally. I am really concerned that they will now go back on that in the light of that judgment. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s views on that.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention and for the discussions that we had on this matter prior to the Report stage.

In summary, this legislation is essential, but as we have heard from across the House today, there are still areas in which it must go further if we are to catch up after years of being on the back foot on economic crime due to years of inaction. These are thoughtful and purposeful amendments that will improve the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 20 and the amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). I very much welcome the progress that has been made in today’s legislation and the fact that this Minister is the person responsible for taking it through, given that he used to be one of my colleagues on the Treasury Committee and is a signatory to the report on economic crime that we put out last year.

It is clear from the work that we have all done on economic crime how important the reform of Companies House is to achieving this. We have all heard horror stories of people who have stolen other people’s identities and successfully set up businesses at Companies House, and of people who have shut down one business then immediately started up another one with a different name. Clearly the reform of Companies House, as taken forward by this important piece of legislation, will make economic crime much more difficult in the United Kingdom, which is something that everyone should welcome. In the report on economic crime that the Treasury Committee put out last year, we called for resources to be put into this important work. Clearly it cannot be done without those resources, and it will be interesting to hear from the Minister today about his discussions with Companies House and his estimate of the resources required.

New clause 20 proposes a fee for new businesses of £100 rising with inflation, which would give Companies House more resources to undertake this important work and, importantly, keep its budget increasing along with inflation. I acknowledge that we do not want to set a fee at a level that could act as a deterrent to anyone starting up a small business, but the work that we did last year in the Committee suggested that the current levels of fees, benchmarked against international comparators, were very low. It was clear that we needed more resources to enable us to understand the identity of those who are establishing businesses in this country, so we pulled a number out of thin air.

I acknowledge that the figure of £100 was pulled out of thin air, although I think we probably also got evidence recommending it, but I think it is a reasonable and plausible amount at which to start these discussions. I know that the Minister is as keen as those of us who have signed this amendment to see a fee established that will ensure that the regime at Companies House has sufficient resources to manage the budget. We know that software upgrades cost money and, as we all experience rising economic crime in this country, it is important that we do everything we can to ensure that Companies House has the resources to undertake this important work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who referenced many of our debates in Committee. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their kind words about my role in the Department and in taking forward this legislation. Let me first say that any reports of the death of my ambition in this area have been greatly exaggerated.

I will aim to respond to as many points as possible in the time allocated by my hon. Friends the Whips. Today we have seen broad agreement across the House on the importance of accountability to Parliament on the implementation of the reforms. I thank the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for new clause 16 on this topic, and for her work in Committee. As she might understand, I feel that the new clause would duplicate the Government’s new clause 15, which would require the Government to produce for Parliament an annual report on the implementation operations of parts 1 to 3 until 2030.

I believe that the Government’s amendment is broader and capable of providing more information to assist parliamentary scrutiny. I welcome the suggestion in some areas of reporting that may be of interest. However, I do not believe that setting a prescriptive list of those in advance is the best way of achieving our intent. I fully subscribe to the view that no one goes to work to do a bad job, and I have every confidence that the registrar, given the requirements on her to oversee the integrity and accuracy of the register, will do that well and will ensure that those measures are reported to Parliament. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Lady for Feltham and Heston not to press her amendment.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Would he commit to a meeting with the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and me on this issue? It is not the case that my new clause duplicates the Government’s new clause. The new clauses are very complimentary and there is more to be done to make sure that we get this right.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am always happy to have a meeting with the hon. Lady—we met only last week to discuss her amendments and the Government amendments. Some of the things in her new clause are already reported to Parliament, such as the number of businesses struck off the register. It is important that we do not duplicate in this legislation things that are already being done, but I am always happy to have a meeting with her.

[Seema Malhotra]

The Minister has made the point today and in Committee about this data being collected and reported elsewhere, but that should make it easier to have a more comprehensive report, so that all the information on economic crime is in one place. Perhaps that is something we can pick up in the meeting that he has kindly agreed to.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to have a meeting with the hon. Lady to discuss the different things that she thinks should be reported. Clearly, the annual report should be comprehensive and cover many of the matters that she raises.

Much has been made about creating duties and obligations for Companies House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) said, we should not assume that these things will happen by right. Oversight by Ministers, Parliament, public and press is needed to ensure that these measures are properly implemented. Companies House is an Executive agency of my Department, and I can commit that it will be obliged by the Government to deliver on the policy intent and resourced to do so, which I will talk about in a second. Government new clause 15 is not just about process; it will ensure that Parliament is provided with reassurance on the further work that will be required after Royal Assent, such as the laying of secondary legislation or the development of IT.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As the hon. Lady knows, the unique identifier will not be public, because we think that could increase the chances of fraud. It is already possible to search the Companies House database to a certain extent; for example, if she searches my name, my previous directorships all link together. We intend to improve the database by linking the hon. Lady’s name, year and month of birth, address and any other companies she may be associated with. That will link those records, to give a holistic overview of her company associations.

[Seema Malhotra]

Of course, the Minister will not want accounts to be inadvertently linked where there may be two people with the same name and, possibly, date of birth. Has he had any discussions with Companies House about writing to current directors to ask them to confirm whether they are on the register with any past addresses, to speed up the linking with the unique ID at the back end?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is an operational matter for Companies House; it is not for me as the Minister. The registrar clearly has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of the database, and how she seeks to do that will be up to her.

Amendment 101 is clearly key. The Government are committed to ensuring that the checks carried out by ACSPs are robust. ACSPs will be required to carry out checks to at least the same standard as the registrar, who will be able to query any suspicious information. The registrar will establish a robust scrutiny process with AML supervisors for onboarding ACSPs. If necessary, she can suspend or de-authorise an ACSP to exclude it from forming companies. The vast majority of accountants, lawyers and other agents who make filings on behalf of companies operate to high standards. It would be disproportionate to block them all from making such filings while the Treasury works through the reform of the supervisory regime—something that we all clearly want it to get right.

New clause 34 requires the Government to report on the number of foreign corporate service providers that have been registered at Companies House. Clause 63 gives the Secretary of State the power to permit the authorisation of foreign corporate service providers subject to equivalent AML regimes abroad. That is obviously in the context of a potential trade deal that is not currently on the table.

On amendment 104, tabled by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, I cannot agree with this fifth objective for the registrar. The Bill already places a legal duty on the registrar to seek to promote the objectives, which inherently demands proactivity. Tentative use of her powers would result in the registrar being in danger of failing to satisfy the duty.

On the accuracy of existing data, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), whose new clause 36 would have the registrar ensure the accuracy and veracity of all register information prior to the commencement of the Bill’s reforms. Clearly, that constitutes many millions of pieces of information, with many thousands being added every day—the analogy of painting the Forth bridge springs to mind. If we were to do what she asks and the registrar were to fulfil the requirements of the new clause, it is unlikely that the beneficial reforms of the Bill would ever be realised, because of the duty it would place on the registrar.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Maintaining the universal service obligation as affordable and accessible for all, ensuring a fair deal for workers and improving the service by Royal Mail are what it will take to ensure the quality of postal services that our constituents need and deserve. Astonishingly, last year the International Distributions Services board led the company to losses of £1 million a day, just six months after reporting huge profits and paying out £567 million in dividends and the share buy-back, putting at risk the stability needed to modernise and keep Britain’s Royal Mail competitive. Is this not so clearly the result of mismanagement at the highest level, and is it not now time for an inquiry into the actions of the board and the CEO and the risks facing the postal service?

Royal Mail and the Universal Service Obligation

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Ali. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important and timely debate. I cannot think of many Members who have had the experience of Royal Mail that she has had. I thank her for her 25 years of service and her relentless advocacy for those who rely on the USO and wider services.

Posties are indeed a lifeline. It is clear from the contributions across the House today that there is a great strength of feeling in all parts of the Chamber. There is a strength of feeling on the importance of the management and delivery from Royal Mail of our USO for communities across our country, and on the need to safeguard the USO, which so many across the country rely on. Notwithstanding the commercial challenges that Royal Mail faces, there is a problem with the management that has come through very clearly in this debate. Complaints are not being effectively dealt with and customers are paying more for less.

I thank the postal workers in my constituency of Feltham and Heston and the CWU, not just in my constituency but around the country—they are represented in the Public Gallery today. Royal Mail is a prized and loved institution. Royal Mail staff are essential workers. Whether it was delivering test and trace kits or being a point of contact for those isolating, they helped to get us through the pandemic. It is Royal Mail’s dedicated workers who deliver the universal service obligation, delivering to every address in the UK, six days a week, at a uniform affordable price.

Almost all of us still rely on letters, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) has said so clearly, the service is much more important for those who are vulnerable. The quality of service also matters. Citizens Advice has been calling out the quality of service in recent years—an issue over which the management of Royal Mail need to be held to account. Royal Mail has failed to hit a single quarterly target for over two years. Letter delays can result in consumer harm, such as missing hospital appointments, fines for missing court dates and weakened credit scores following missed bills.

The pandemic highlighted the importance of having a robust, well-functioning and affordable delivery service that can reach all parts of the country. It also demonstrated the value of postal workers connecting communities and delivering vital services to those in need. That is why Labour is committed to the universal service obligation as the company’s central mission. The next Labour Government will want to ensure that the USO is secure for the future and continues to be provided by Royal Mail in a way that is affordable and accessible to all users, and financially sustainable for the long term. We will also strongly oppose any attempts, whether by the Conservatives in the future or by the leadership of Royal Mail Group, to weaken or abandon the USO.

I am glad to have seen the Minister’s response to a recent written parliamentary question, as well as the debate earlier this week. I will be listening closely to what he says today. As we have heard, Royal Mail has asked the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to cut Saturday letter deliveries from the USO. We are extremely concerned about that and about the potential consequences, including for example for businesses with magazine subscriptions where Saturday deliveries form part of the delivery model.

Any industrial challenge needs to be resolved in a way that is pro-business and pro-worker, which is why we will support Royal Mail workers in their efforts to secure the long-term health and future of the service, by supporting mutually agreed changes to modernise the service. We all recognise the challenges that Royal Mail faces—whether it is the rising cost of doing business, much of which is due to the Tories’ mismanagement of the economy and 13 years of failure, or growing competition in the parcel business—but it is wrong to see it as a service that is not changing or modernising, as some people have sought to characterise it. It has changed, and it is changing.

The Labour party will work with Royal Mail and the unions to expand the role of postal workers, adding social value to our communities and introducing innovative products and services to support the levelling up and growth of our local and regional economies. The Labour party stands against the break-up of Royal Mail and will oppose any attempt to turn this vital service into a gig economy employer through a takeover. Labour will review all aspects of the postal sector to ensure that the USO is continued and strengthened, including the delivery of parcels. This includes assessing the options for improving Royal Mail, taking into account the proposals from the CWU.

Let us be in no doubt that we all want to see a successful, long-term future for Royal Mail, in which the Government have to play their part, too. However, decisions by management are rightly under scrutiny, with questions remaining over the decision of International Distributions Services to give out over £400 million in dividends and £167 million in share buybacks last year, despite knowing about the post-pandemic mail traffic forecasts. The company is now seeing a financial loss in the first half of this financial year.

The Secretary of State has yet to respond to the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) in November, which outlined his concerns about recent developments and the increased shareholding in International Distribution Services by Vesa Equity, a company with links to Russia, which the Government have allowed to acquire a controlling stake. The management’s handling of the current industrial dispute is also under question—not just from colleagues today, but from former CEO Rico Back.

It has also been concerning to hear reports of Royal Mail intimidating striking workers. If that is correct, even in a small number of cases, it is absolutely unacceptable. I ask the Minister to put on the record his and the Government’s condemnation of any intimidation. Frankly, Royal Mail’s essential workers, who I know take such pride in their jobs, should not have felt driven to take industrial action to get a fairer deal. It is positive that the CWU and Royal Mail are now in a period of intensive negotiations, and the country will expect a fair negotiated deal and an end to the dispute.

We have had a very important debate today, and at a very significant time. But it is clear that, at a time like this, the Government’s vision and policy for the future of Royal Mail really matter. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not change the statutory minimum requirements of the universal postal service, which are set out in the Postal Services Act 2011? What recent discussions has he had with Ofcom regarding Royal Mail’s performance against the USO and its performance targets? What concerns has he raised, including about its sudden and rapid reversal of fortunes? What discussions has the Minister had with the CWU about its proposals, and what discussions has he had with Royal Mail about how it has handled the management of the organisation and the assessment of its strategy for the future of the business, for workers and for our constituents? As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, this is a service that people rely on and we should not be dumbing it down.

Family Businesses: Contribution to Local Communities

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on securing this debate, which is a really excellent one to have on the last day before we break for Christmas. It is clear from the contributions that everybody has a story to tell about family businesses—either their own family business, or those in their constituency. Very strong feelings have come through about the contribution that family businesses make to our local economies and our national economy.

So many points were raised, which I will draw on, but I also support and thank, as other hon. Members have, the Institute for Family Business, which has made such an important contribution to raising awareness of family businesses over the last couple of years, particularly through Family Business Week.

The hon. Member for Carlisle was also right to highlight hospitality businesses, so many of which are family-run and family-owned, and so many of which play that very important role of being a home from home—a local place that people can pop out to in order to be with friends and neighbours, and indeed their own family. Family businesses give that “home from home” feeling that really touches our communities in special ways.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned showmen, and I was going to mention showmen from my constituency. Feltham has a long tradition of showmen living in the area, and I have continued to support their place in the community and their role in a unique industry that gives a tremendous amount of pleasure, and even joy, to families across the country. I will also mention a couple of businesses in my constituency. Flowers by Eva’s is one. It has been in Hanworth since 1955, and has given the joy of great flowers and bouquets for weddings, as well as providing flowers for funerals and other special occasions. It gives that extra personal touch, because when we go to such businesses, we get to know the people in them.

I will also highlight businesses run by members from immigrant communities, for whom it has sometimes been hard to find a conventional way into employment. They have started businesses that have allowed them to make a big contribution to the community, and that have grown. One example is the Sanger family, which owns Heston Hyde hotel, Bentley hotel, Washington hotel and now the Courthouse hotel. The business is still run by the family—indeed, multiple generations of the family. That family started with nothing in this country, but they now contribute so much to our prosperity.

I again pay tribute to the Institute for Family Business for the way that it conducted, ran and brought to Westminster, Family Business Week, which was supported by NatWest Group. I was delighted to speak at the reception in November, having made a virtual contribution to Family Business Week last year. Family Business Week celebrates local family businesses, encouraging them through social media. The family business in my area that I popped into at the weekend was Priyas Tandoori in Cranford, a very homely place to get a takeaway or to eat in with family members.

I, too, grew up in a family business, above our small shop in Osterley, so I know about the contribution that family businesses make, and about the attitude that my parents had. They saw what they did as almost a public service. We sold school uniforms, jewellery imported from India, clothes—all sorts of useful items that people never knew they needed until they popped into Ramson of Osterley. I find it fascinating that people who went to the shop in the late ’70s and ’80s still remember it. They remember what my parents did and even remember me aged five, six and seven learning how to serve customers and the fun that we had with that.

Research from the Institute for Family Business has revealed that family businesses are key drivers of regional growth and prosperity, spreading economic prosperity to all corners of the UK. We have heard in the debate what defines a family business, and about some of the more technical points around voting rights, control and ownership, and levels of involvement in administration. We have also heard how family business issues reflect the issues that other businesses face, such as the rising cost of doing business, energy costs and so on.

I want to emphasise the point that was made about the part that women play in family businesses. It is a subtle point, but although we have heard about one-man bands, there are quite a few one-woman bands. It is important to make sure that we use language that reflects the work of women such as Anita Roddick, who set up the Body Shop, and so many other women entrepreneurs who run a family business.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and others mentioned the 13.9 million people in such businesses, and the proportion of private sector employment that comes from family business employers. We know from the research and the debate that there are many ways that family businesses contribute to their local community. They often have a long-term relationship with a place. It can be where the owners’ kids go to school, as was the case in my family. There can be loyalty, local staff, and the creation of local services. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was absolutely right to talk about local services—the lawyers, banks and insurance companies. All of those make a difference to a community’s fabric. When we think about support for family businesses, those are important things to emphasise and encourage; we should think about how we actively nurture the family business leaders of tomorrow.

We have heard many examples of household names, but I might add Cadbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) is a member of the Cadbury family. We can see the social contribution made by family businesses that recognise the needs of their workforce and the community around them.

Although family businesses had a higher decrease in turnover than other businesses during the pandemic, they were less likely to see a decrease in staff. That speaks to the story and the contribution of family businesses, the loyalty of staff to the organisation and its culture, and the loyalty of the owners to their staff. However, family businesses are absolutely up against it. They have raised concerns about business rates, supply chain costs, access to schools, and the need for a stable tax environment.

A good Government should create an environment for business success. It is a concern to me that this Government and previous Conservative Governments have failed to do that. We have a supply chain crisis, petrol crisis, heavy goods vehicles crisis, CO₂ crisis, energy crisis, cost of living crisis, cost of doing business crisis, and an industrial disputes crisis.

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Member mentions the covid pandemic. It is interesting: during the pandemic, some businesses were really inventive and innovative. For instance, many food outlets offered a delivery service. I am sure my experience was exactly the same as that of many other hon. Members. It might be profitable for civil servants one day to take a look at some of those examples, and have a case study portfolio. We would be foolish to think that British inventiveness is dead.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point. Indeed, what he says comes through in the data about how family businesses got through the pandemic. However, a recent survey has suggested that 80% of members of the Institute for Family Business were less confident going into this winter than they were last year, during the pandemic. Rising inflation is a threat, and there are concerns about the cost of living and consumer confidence. Clearly much, more support for businesses is needed. I am concerned that last week the Government slipped out in a written ministerial statement that they will be closing the “Help to Grow: Digital” programme, which was to give businesses support in adopting new technologies. They had all the warnings about the design and the roll-out, but they failed to listen to those important voices. That has cost businesses a year, and the possibility of moving forward in digital.

What needs to happen if we are to support family businesses at this time? First, we need to deliver macroeconomic stability, and respect our institutions, such as the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England. A key reason for the failure and devastating impact of the mini-Budget was the sidelining of our economic institutions. We need to make sure that we work with businesses to tackle the crises facing our country. Small Business Saturday has been mentioned; we all celebrated its 10th year this year, and I celebrate it every year.

We need to make importing and exporting easier; Brexit is not working as the Government promised. We need to address the inheritance challenges for family businesses, which have been mentioned—for instance, there should be clarity around rules, and support when there might be difficulties with succession planning. We should also have a proper industrial strategy, backed by ambitious investment, that makes decisions for the long term. It should be secured by an industrial strategy council that has a statutory footing.

Family businesses are not just our local small businesses; they are also key in manufacturing and other big sectors across the country. We need a proper plan for skills, which is an area where our growth and skills levy will bring the flexibility that is needed. We also need a plan for reform of business rates, because so many businesses are concerned about the unfairness of business rates. They should be reformed and changed, to level the playing field between bricks and mortar and online businesses.

This has been a fantastic debate. Labour has a long-term plan for growth, which would bring stability for businesses across the country and give our incredible family businesses the support that they need to grow and prosper. I look forward to the Minster’s response to this important debate, and to his saying how we can work together, across this House, to support our family businesses and the employment and prosperity that they bring.

Draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. The regulations were laid before the House on 21 November 2022 and implement a trade agreement with Switzerland, a country with which the UK has strong economic and historical ties. Switzerland is the UK’s 10th largest trading partner and our bilateral trade in goods was worth £38 billion in 2021. Members will appreciate the importance of supporting such international trade relationships while protecting our product safety and legal metrology system, which is among the strongest in the world.

The UK signed the mutual recognition agreement with Switzerland on 17 November 2022 to reduce technical barriers to trade related to conformity assessment. The MRA promotes trade in goods between the UK and Switzerland by helping businesses to simplify their conformity assessment arrangements. Product safety legislation in the UK and Switzerland—indeed, in most countries—often requires products to be assessed against minimum essential requirements, sometimes by a conformity assessment body, or CAB, external to the business. MRAs can reduce barriers by allowing the conformity assessment to be undertaken by a body based in the UK prior to export to the relevant country, which in this case is Switzerland. Likewise, they enable procedures carried out by recognised overseas CABs and appointed bodies to be recognised in respect of our domestic regulations.

The products in scope of the MRA cover many areas, from rules on noise-emitting equipment for use outdoors to measuring instruments and much in between. For example, if a small UK business that manufactures potentially noisy outdoor equipment such as lawnmowers is considering exporting that equipment to Switzerland, it might find it can get all its advice and approvals from a single UK-based CAB. If that means the business reduces its costs, it can of course pass that saving on to its customers.

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

Will the Minister clarify whether the MRA will make any difference for the five sectors to which it applies or in effect continues the temporary arrangements we currently have for those sectors with the Swiss?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It makes a difference in that it makes the arrangements permanent. We have a three-year deal; the MRA makes the temporary arrangements permanent and formalises the UK-Switzerland relationship in terms of conformity assessment bodies.

[Seema Malhotra]

I understand that the MRA may make temporary arrangements permanent but I am trying to understand whether anything is different under it for the five sectors to which it applies. Will anything affect businesses that are currently trading under the temporary arrangements for products that they export to Switzerland? Or does the MRA in effect continue the current temporary arrangements, even it makes them permanent?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I understand it, nothing is different, but I will check with my officials and come back to the hon. Lady before the end of the debate.

The outdoor equipment manufacturer I referred to will be able to continue to access international markets more easily when assessment is facilitated in the way I described, thereby increasing its exporting potential and customer choice. The MRA benefits that the UK experienced for years as an EU member are maintained through the provisions of the new MRA with Switzerland.

The statutory instrument we are considering implements the MRA by amending an earlier set of regulations made last year: the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The rest of the EU uses the CE mark. If we want to export products to the EU, we use the CE mark. That is a European certification process. These are relationships simply between the UK and Switzerland, not with the rest of the European Union. We have a separate arrangement for that.

The 2021 regulations are amended by the instrument we are considering so that they are also included in the Swiss MRA. I will return briefly to that point when discussing the territorial scope and the specifics of the regulations.

I will now consider each of the areas in greater detail. For goods coming into the UK that are in the scope of the MRA, we have committed to recognising the results of conformity assessment procedures carried out by recognised Swiss CABs and appointed bodies against our domestic regulations. The statutory instrument makes clear that assessments carried out by a recognised body based in Switzerland should be treated as equivalent to those carried out by a UK-approved or appointed body when products are placed on the market in Great Britain.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is important to be clear about where there is simply continuity rather than giving the impression of something new happening. To clarify, the SI means continuity of importing into the UK, without further checks, for goods made in Switzerland and tested for conformity against UK standards by a conformity assessment body in Switzerland. It is simply a continuity of arrangements under the Swiss temporary measures for the five sectors to which it applies.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I understand it—she may want to clarify—that is a continuation of the hon. Lady’s earlier question. Everything will be the same and the only difference is that UK manufacturers should affix a new Swiss mark to their products.

The Secretary of State will add Swiss bodies recognised under the agreement to the UK’s register of CABs, known as the UK market CAB database, which is a publicly available resource used by the UK’s market surveillance bodies and regulators to verify the status of CABs that approve products sold in the UK. Having all the CABs competent to assess for the domestic market in one place creates a one-stop shop for our UK enforcement authorities and businesses, helping them quickly to find and verify the credentials of CABs. The draft regulations do not change the substance of the requirements for third-party assessment, nor do they amend any requirement related to a product’s specifications or product safety credentials.

Turning to goods in scope of the UK-Swiss MRA that are assessed by UK CABs, the SI provides for the Secretary of State to designate CABs as competent to assess that goods comply with certain regulatory requirements of Switzerland under the MRA, as set out in a schedule to the SI. To give an example, that means that where a UK-based CAB wishes to be recognised by the Swiss authorities as competent to test and assess, for example, for Switzerland’s radio equipment requirements, the body can apply to the UK Accreditation Service to be accredited as competent to test against those Swiss requirements. The Secretary of State may then designate the body under the UK’s MRA with Switzerland to assess radio equipment for export to Switzerland. Once the CAB is designated, a UK manufacturer that uses the CAB’s services to assess its products for the domestic market has the option to use that same body, rather than a Swiss one, to do its assessment. The manufacturer can continue to place products on the Swiss market efficiently and without extra costs, potentially passing savings on to consumers.

The Secretary of State, or a person authorised to act on their behalf, may also disclose information to other parties to an MRA, where required by an MRA. We may, for example, pass on information related to goods originating in Switzerland that have been suspended by UK enforcement authorities under commitments to co-operate in the MRA with Switzerland. Disclosure will be made in accordance with data protection legislation.

Let me turn to the territorial scope of the draft regulations. They extend to the whole of the UK, apart from regulation 5, on recognition of conformity assessment by Swiss CABs, which extends to Great Britain only. Northern Ireland will continue to recognise the results of conformity assessment procedures done under the MRA between the European Union and Switzerland. That is in accordance with the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement. Regulations 6 and 7 of the 2021 regulations, to which I referred earlier, deal respectively with the Secretary of State’s power to designate UK-based bodies under these agreements and to information sharing. The powers extend to the whole of the UK, which means that CABs across the UK can be designated under the MRA and the Secretary of State will be able to share relevant information as required under the MRA.

In conclusion, the SI will provide certainty about the UK’s approach to recognising and designating CABs for products in scope of the MRA. We introduced the draft regulations to give effect to provisions that keep barriers to trade low while preserving our robust safety rules. We do so as a Government who are committed to ensuring that consumers are protected from unsafe products as we look to deliver a product safety regime that is simple, flexible and fit for the opportunities ahead of us. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and his generosity in taking the questions put to him.

I have a number of questions for the Minister, which may or may not surprise him. Exporting businesses in the eight sectors that fall under the EU CE mark are currently also covered by the Swiss temporary measures, which are due to expire, and I am sure he will be aware that they will be concerned about what happens next.

On commercial products, the letters CE mean that the manufacturer or importer affirms the goods’ conformity with European health, safety and environmental protection standards. Eight sectors are not included in the UK MRA that we are considering today because they must use the rules of a third territory—the EU—over which neither the UK nor Switzerland has control. It is important to understand the basics of thieSI. Because it effectively continues, in part, some of the arrangements that we currently have, it has consequences for the clarity about what needs to happen for goods being exported or imported in those other sectors.

I do not oppose the draft regulations. Out of the 13 sectors covered by the Swiss temporary measures in place since Brexit, when we came out of the EU agreement that covered us and Switzerland, three sectors were covered by the EU-Swiss FTA. Thirteen sectors were covered by the Swiss temporary arrangements, which are expiring, and five are now being covered by the MRA. In a sense, for goods under those eight sectors, we will be in a more difficult trading position with Switzerland on 1 January than we will have been on 31 December.

Businesses have practical questions. I am sure the Minister has been through the detail of what he is speaking to today, but to go back to some of the basics, as the Minister said certain products require a conformity assessment to be carried out by a designated body to ensure they meet the requirements to be legally placed on a specified market. I thank the Minister for explaining how conformity assessment bodies will be designated and authorised to deliver services under the MRA. That point is absolutely critical. It means that there may be a number of companies, which, without further arrangements, will not be able to export their goods to Switzerland as of 1 January. There is talk of 300 companies for which there are issues relating to exporting and extra costs in the UK.

Mutual recognition agreements allow a country to recognise assessment results carried out in the other country against its own standards. That is why I wanted to clarify with the Minister that he was talking about goods being manufactured in Switzerland and being assessed as conforming with UK standards by equivalent assessment bodies in Switzerland. That would be the mutual way in which such work was undertaken.

The MRA allows for certain goods to be tested in the UK against Swiss regulations. The goods can then be sold in Switzerland without additional testing in Switzerland. Equally, that works the other way around. It is important to note that MRAs are about recognising conformity assessments carried out in another country. They are not about recognising the product requirements themselves, rather conformity against our safety standards.

The SI implements the UK-Switzerland mutual recognition agreement, which is designed to keep the benefits found under the current Swiss temporary arrangements, as the Minister clarified. In a sense, it is about preventing any additional barriers to trade in the relationship between the EU and Switzerland in the five areas that the Minister mentioned. Those include electrical equipment, radio equipment, noise-emitting equipment for outdoor use and so on.

The MRA sets out the conditions under which each country will accept conformity assessment results from the other. If it is not yet clear why the UK had to reach the MRA with Switzerland that we are debating today, the EU and Switzerland have an MRA, but following Brexit that no longer applies to the UK. The Government have attempted to retain as much as possible of its coverage.

The UK-Switzerland free trade agreement included mutual recognition of conformity assessment, effectively carrying forward arrangements for three sectors from the EU-Swiss agreement. Those accounted for some 70% of UK-Switzerland trade previously covered by the EU-Swiss agreement. Most of the remaining 30% of trade that the UK does with Switzerland was then covered by the Swiss temporary arrangements, covering 13 sectors. These were based on the Swiss being content that UK regulations did not diverge from Swiss regulations.

However, the Swiss Government have said that the temporary arrangements will expire at the end of 2022. Without a replacement agreement, UK exports to Switzerland that need third-party conformity assessment would need to use a Swiss conformity assessment body. To address that, I understand from the Minister’s remarks that the UK Government have had to secure an MRA with Switzerland covering five of the sectors included in the Swiss temporary measures. Those sectors also use the Swiss CH mark, which the Minister was referring to. I thank him for clarifying that the MRA is happening because the channel through which products have been confirmed is the Swiss CH mark, not the EU CE mark, which is a parallel channel. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether this means that the UK is committing to not have any divergence in standards for products under the five sectors covered by the MRA with Switzerland.

The other eight sectors covered by the Swiss temporary measures use only the EU CE mark domestically; there is no standalone Swiss marking. As I have mentioned, they are covered by the MRA we are discussing because they are not subject to Swiss standalone marking, so the assessment would be against EU standards, which neither Switzerland nor the UK has any control over. The explanatory memorandum for the MRA states that existing conformity assessment certificates

“issued in the UK before 31 December 2022 in the eight sectors currently covered by temporary measures, but which are not captured in the Agreement text, will no longer be valid for entry of products not already placed on the Swiss market.”

Paragraph 5.2 of the explanatory memorandum for the MRA gives the Government’s advice on what businesses will need to do in those circumstances. The explanatory memorandum for the draft SI states that the Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) and Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 are amended

“to ensure that specific products assessed by bodies in Switzerland recognised under the MRA can be placed on the market in Great Britain; and, to enable the Secretary of State to designate and monitor UK conformity assessment bodies to assess products against Swiss requirements.”

For businesses that may be exporting into the eight remaining sectors, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether it will now be slower and more costly to export goods to those sectors in Switzerland. The explanatory memorandum suggests that there is a cost of £2,300 for the 300 businesses that the Government believe will be affected. How has that cost been calculated, and will the Minister expand on where the additional costs come from? I am keen to understand that, because the explanatory memorandum also states that the Government are keen to spread awareness of the arrangements so that businesses are aware of what could happen to them from 1 January in relation to the eight sectors, which account for less than 30% of our trade. What comprises the estimated cost of £2,300 for the 300 businesses that the Government think will be affected? How are the Government informing the 300 affected businesses of the impending cost? What position will they be in if, for example, cash flow and income are tight?

Businesses are definitely having a difficult time at the moment, because the cost of doing business is rising, with increases in material costs, energy costs and labour costs. We are seeing an increase in business deaths every quarter and businesses are incurring costs, so I would be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee any further clarity on the size of the 300 affected businesses. Are they small businesses, medium-sized businesses or large businesses? Large businesses may be more able to assume the costs. Small businesses may be doing most of their exporting to Switzerland, as some countries have more arrangements for bilateral trade. Are there small businesses trading with Switzerland that are going to be hit by this—that could see their businesses affected quite dramatically from 1 January—and what advice does the Minister have for them?

The SI is unaffected by the UK Government’s announcement on 14 November that they will continue to recognise the EU CE mark in many sectors until the end of 2024. The Minister and I debated that announcement just last week. If the SI is unaffected, could the Minister explain whether the Government approached the Swiss authorities to seek any further extension of the Swiss temporary measures, bearing in mind that the Government are now extending the recognition of the EU CE mark for another two years? If so, when did they do so, and what was the outcome of those discussions?

In relation to the eight sectors that fall outside the UK MRA, what assessment have the Government made of the UK’s competitiveness in those markets for businesses that may be developing and exporting products? I am sure the Minister has asked these questions of his officials. Does he also estimate that we might otherwise be likely to see a drop in exports to Switzerland in those sectors, if there are extra costs associated with being able to export into the Swiss market? I am sure there has been some attempt to ask that question as well, because obviously we do not want to see any further drop in exports from UK businesses to Switzerland.

Paragraph 5.2(b) of the explanatory memorandum to the MRA says:

“If a business is: exporting to Switzerland, but not the EU; and in sectors where third party conformity assessment is required”—

which I believe refers to those eight sectors—

“it will need to use a Swiss or other EU-approved CAB to place products on the Swiss market for those sectors.”

Will the Minister clarify where he would expect the Swiss conformity assessment body that would cover those eight sectors to be located? It is a genuine question: would that be in the UK, or would that have to happen when those products reach Switzerland, and be done there by CABs authorised by Switzerland or the EU? It is not clear to me what is implied by needing to use a Swiss or other EU-approved CAB to place products on the Swiss market for those sectors. Otherwise, we would effectively have a process for authorising CABs for exports and imports under the MRA, and a separate arrangement in the UK for CABs to be looking at exports and imports in the other eight sectors not covered by the MRA. I would be grateful for that clarity, because if we in this House are clear, it will be easier for the businesses that are having to make decisions—possibly very quickly, if they are not aware of these arrangements; there are probably just two weeks to go—to be clear as well.

The explanatory memorandum to the MRA suggests that the five sectors covered collectively by the MRA represent £400 million of bilateral trade. That is good news, although we want it to be more. However, will the Minister clarify—I could not find the figures—how many millions of bilateral trade are covered collectively by the eight sectors remaining outside of both the MRA and the FTA? If the Minister does not have those figures to hand, I am sure that he will be able to come back to me in writing.

Reflecting on paragraph 5.2 in the explanatory memorandum, what about goods with certificates issued before 31 December 2022 that have not yet been exported to Switzerland? There may be goods sitting in warehouses now, ready to go, but they may not go before 1 January; then they may not be able to go unless they are certified in a different way. How long could the conformity assessment process take if it needs to go through a new Swiss body?

The Government stated in paragraph 6.3 of the explanatory memorandum that this new arrangement “provides for regulatory autonomy”. I think that we all understand “regulatory autonomy” and what the Minister has described as some of the benefits for UK businesses arising from the potential for “regulatory autonomy” and divergence. I just want to be clear on something.

First, coming back to a question that I have already asked the Minister, for the five sectors covered under the MRA, is the UK committing to not diverging from current standards, and if there is divergence, will that affect their inclusion under the MRA?

Secondly, could the Minister say how many representations he has had from businesses that trade with Switzerland that have requested and sought that we diverge in our standards? There may be some very good reasons for that, and it would be helpful for us to understand what approaches are being made to the Department in relation to either conformity or divergence from standards that are recognised under some of our mutual agreements. I would be grateful if he could say how many representations he has had from businesses requesting divergence, as referenced in paragraph 6.3 of the explanatory memorandum to the MRA.

I have a couple of final points. The explanatory notes and the memorandum suggest—I think the Minister clarified this—that this process effectively only applies to Great Britain, because under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol the EU-Swiss MRA, which covers all sectors, will continue to apply. For example, a business based in, say, Thirsk and Malton producing goods for export to Switzerland would have three arrangements under which it might deal with those exports: one under the FTA; one under the UK MRA; and one under these third-party conformity assessments for the eight sectors not included, for which there need to be a separate check. If that business decided to produce its goods in Northern Ireland, they could all be exported to Switzerland under the EU-Swiss MRA. I would just be grateful if the Minister could just clarify that that is effectively what this arrangement means.

Will the Minister also clarify where businesses exporting to Switzerland in the eight sectors that are not covered by the MRA or the FTA are geographically located in the UK? Are they concentrated in any particular area, or are they broadly spread across the country? If there is an impact on trade with Switzerland from some challenges of exporting and challenges to competitiveness in those eight sectors, which would see increased process to go through, that could have a disproportionate impact if there is a cluster or an area that is more affected than others. That would be important for communication purposes, so that businesses have the best possible information in order to make commercial decisions about what they need to change in terms of processes.

I raised this point with the Minister last week, and have not yet had a clear answer—perhaps the answer will be “shortly”. Has there been any further progress on the product safety review that has been promised by Ministers since spring this year?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I appreciate the shadow Minister’s points, which were extensive and exhaustive. I want to clarify: these regulations relate to only UK companies or Swiss companies who are trading with each other. They do not relate to wider exports to the European Union or European Union exports to the UK. That is the point.

Using the hon. Lady’s example, if a company in Thirsk and Malton decided to move to Northern Ireland, and only wanted to export to Switzerland, then it could use a Swiss-based conformity assessment body to have its products verified. It could use the Swiss mark. If a Swiss company wanted to export its products to Northern Ireland, it could use the CE mark. That is how it would work, because of the different arrangements in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Lady asks if the process will be slower or more costly. That is the absolute opposite of what the regulations are about. They are about UK companies, or Swiss companies, who want to trade with each other, who want to use a different mark, because they are only trading with Switzerland or the United Kingdom.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will not, because of the pressure of time. I have a lot to go through and she has asked a lot of questions, which I want to cover.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is just to clear up a misunderstanding.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Okay.

[Seema Malhotra]

That question was about whether there will be a slower or more costly process in relation to the eight sectors that are not covered by the MRA.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think the hon. Lady asked both questions. Those sectors are still covered by the CE mark. It is not possible to distinguish a separate Swiss mark from the CE mark, so those eight sectors would still be covered by the CE mark. Nothing would change for companies that are trading in those sectors, so there will be no greater cost; there will be less cost for companies who are just trading bilaterally between the UK and Switzerland. The conformity assessment will be done once, not twice. If companies in that particular sector need to trade with Switzerland, that would have had to be done twice. These provisions are only for companies that are trading only between the UK and Switzerland. That is the key part of this statutory instrument.

On divergence in standards—another point raised by the hon. Lady—the regulations are made with the principle of divergence in mind. We can diverge, but if a company is exporting to Switzerland, it must have regard to Swiss regulations. It has to make sure that the product conforms with the Swiss safety regulations and other conformity regulations. That is the point. We can diverge, certainly, but if a company is exporting to Switzerland, it has to make sure that its products conform with Swiss rules. That is the point. Divergence is possible under these provisions.

The trade level in the five sectors is very hard to quantify. I cannot give the hon. Lady a number on that. She asked about the extent of trade covered by those five sectors and it is not possible to separate that out—[Interruption.] No, the figures relate to the three sectors—the 70%. If the hon. Lady wants to write to me to explore the details further, perhaps that will be swifter than arguing about it here.

As for the number of businesses we engage with, we engage with businesses all the time. I do not have those figures to hand.

Our trade with Switzerland is significant, and technical agreements on trade and goods such as the MRA that this SI will implement will serve an important function in facilitating and encouraging that trade. I have set out how the SI will preserve such measures to keep barriers to trade with Switzerland low while maintaining our robust product safety framework. In supporting the SI, we are ensuring that our manufacturers and consumers benefit from maintaining the arrangements to minimise the duplication of conformity assessment requirements between ourselves and Switzerland. I commend the SI to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conformity Assessment (Mutual Recognition Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

Employment and the High Street

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on securing this popular debate, which comes soon after the 10th anniversary of Small Business Saturday. As someone who grew up above my parents’ small business, I was delighted to celebrate with my hon. Friend and so many colleagues from across the House.

Everyone has spoken powerfully. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the hon. Member for Keighley, my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have spoken on common themes: the need for regeneration; the need to tackle the high costs affecting local high street businesses; fluctuating prices hitting profitability and services; the urgently needed business rates review; the closure of bank branches; the loss of ATMs; the impact on families and local consumers; and the need for civic pride.

We are also here to celebrate our small businesses and high streets. Good high streets are anchors of community life, where neighbours come together. They employ so many in the local community: an estimated 14% of the UK workforce works on the high street, in civic centres, leisure centres, cafés, offices, banks, post offices and so on. Our high streets reflect and shape the character of the places they are in. They are the backbone of what Labour calls the everyday economy, they are central to our growth agenda for the local and national economy, and they are a space for local entrepreneurship and community businesses. Those arguments are made so powerfully by UKHospitality, the British Retail Consortium, the National Hair & Beauty Federation and others. We need to see our high streets thrive.

We all know that, as has been illustrated in the debate, times have been tough. But they have been made tougher because of the lack of action—speedy action—from the Conservative Government. They also do not do enough to pre-empt the impact on local communities of the decisions they make in respect of local authority spending cuts and so on.

We have also seen the issues relating to shifting spending patterns and the severe inflationary headwinds leaving consumers with less money to spend and retailers with slimmer profit margins. PwC expects Christmas spending to decline by £1.8 billion—and that is in the golden quarter, when retail traditionally recoups any losses. This matters because, as emphasised by Gordon Brown’s commission on the future of the UK, launched this week, the high street prospers only when the local community and local economy are strong, because people need money in their pockets in order to spend it.

The stress caused by the cost of living is now a major cause of abuse against shop workers. Retailers such as Tesco, representatives of which I met last week as part of its winter food-collection scheme, told me about the increase in the shoplifting of everyday items. People are struggling just to get by. The trade union USDAW, which has made powerful contributions to the wider debate, says that verbal and physical abuse is worsening. On a recent visit to Sainsbury’s I saw for myself the fortitude of staff in dealing with abuse that should not be coming their way.

The decline of the high street is a problem we have been aware of throughout the Government’s time in power. They even commissioned the Portas review, but in August Mary Portas hit out at the Government for their dither and delay while high streets faced what she called the “biggest proper crisis” she has seen. Last year, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee criticised the Tories’ current solutions, such as town deals, the towns fund and the high street taskforce, as

“too complex, short-term, and fragmented”.

They do not come anywhere near to making up for 12 years of local authority underfunding, let alone a strategy for regenerating our high streets and supporting businesses to achieve net zero.

Unlike the Conservatives, we want to see high streets that are thriving—and we have a plan for that. We will implement a robust industrial strategy, so that business owners can plan and invest with confidence in our communities. We will implement a plan for clean energy, so that by the end of the decade we are saving almost £100 billion for businesses and consumers. We are committed to the reform of business rates. The current unfair system sees high street businesses forking out a third of business rates even though they make up just 15% of the overall economy. We would level the playing field between online retailers and bricks-and-mortar shops by increasing the digital services tax. The retail sector is absolutely crying out for that—indeed, the Retail Jobs Alliance, a coalition of major retailers, is calling for that very policy.

Communities must be put in the driving seat. To put them there, we should support the growth of co-operatives and ensure that communities are given a real stake and say in the development of their town centres. That is why the Labour party is committed to doubling the size of the co-operative sector. Labour city Mayors are also making a difference. For example, the Mayor of London is funding night time enterprise zones, because opening up at night can increase footfall during the day as well. The pilots have been successful.

Labour’s plan would strengthen the high street, because we listen to those who use and make the high street on the need for an industrial strategy, the dignity of retail work and the reform of business rates. We want to see this sustained through co-operatives, assets of community value and the biggest transfer of power the UK has ever seen. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the important issues raised in the debate.

Draft Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Latham. This statutory instrument raises yet more concerns regarding the Government’s post-Brexit preparedness and its cumulative effect on British businesses, given the continually delayed attempts to get product safety and the product safety regime right for the good of consumers across the country. Uncertainty, lack of clarity and no clear plan seem to define the Government’s approach to product safety post Brexit. I do not hold the Minister totally responsible—he is the fourth person in his position since September—but there is a serious point here: uncertainty inevitably incurs costs for businesses and reduces their ability to trade in the UK and across borders.

This is all on the back of a high-tax, low-growth economy after 12 years of Conservative Government failure. Recent research from UK in a Changing Europe has found that implementation of the UK’s new trade agreement with the EU has led to a sudden and persistent 25% fall in UK imports from the EU relative to the rest of the world. Ministers have already delayed the transitional provisions twice before. In August 2021, the implementation date was changed from the start of 2022 to January 2023. In June, the Government announced that they would delay some requirements of the scheme beyond the revised date. For a third time, we have a delay. Throughout all these delays, there is clearly no plan for what is next.

The Government have no choice but to extend these transitional provisions, and the Minister is right: it is in the interests of businesses, who otherwise face increasing costs and burdens throughout the transition. He hit the nail on the head when he said that this may raise questions about timescales, because it does. When there are questions about timescales, businesses have to deal with further uncertainty and there is a cost associated with that. My biggest concern now about the effects of the further delay is what is behind it. There does not seem to be a clear plan for how we move forward, when we will reach an end stage, and what the impact will be for business planning and for the product safety regime in the UK.

The UK’s departure from the EU has meant changes have been made to product regulations. As the Minister outlined, this includes the introduction of the UK conformity assessment marking to replace the EU’s CE marking. The UKCA has been operational in tandem with continued recognition of products meeting EU requirements and markings. As the Minister outlined, on 31 December 2022 these would cease to be recognised in Great Britain under the existing arrangements.

The statutory instrument will extend the transition period. It extends the option for manufacturers to use the EU’s CE marking to show that their products are regulation compliant until December 2024, thereby extending the provisions by two years. It also extends the time for labelling easements for products that comply with EU regulations but not UK regulations. Such products would be able to use UKCA marking until December 2027.

To be in such a position with the UK’s new regime, six years on from Brexit, is quite significant. The Government need urgently to provide clarity for the future. Clarity would minimise the uncertainty that can deter business investment—perhaps in new products, how those new products will be made or the standard those products need to meet. This is all part of how we need to lower the barriers that can impede British exports and slow down manufacturing. We want to see a regime that has the certainty to help develop and see the greater international collaboration that is necessary. It should also uphold clear standards on safety, fair trading and environmental protection, all of which command wide and deep support from the British electorate. Can the Minister shed more light on the Government’s plan and whether there will be further delay?

I would also welcome clarity about how the Minister is talking to businesses, as he referred to conversations with businesses and stakeholders. That point is important not just for these regulations, but for making Brexit work overall to support the necessary growth in the UK economy.

On news that the Government would propose the extension, the British Chambers of Commerce stated:

“BCC research carried out last year found that only 8% of business were in favour of getting rid of the current EU marking system, called CE, by the start of 2023, and 59% of businesses, affected by the decision, wanted to keep it. They see strong benefits in having a single system for testing and marking of industrial and electrical goods for business…Today’s push back is a welcome first step, but much deeper engagement with industry is still needed to devise a plan that works to avoid extra costs for both importing and exporting businesses, and consumers.”

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The reason we are here, is it not, is that the Government negotiated a defective EU exit deal. We could easily have been included in the CE marking system, as Turkey and others are, and British firms could have been allowed to accredit using the CE mark, which they now cannot. If it is a British-registered marker, they have to use an EU-registered marker if they wish to export. It is the Government’s mess that has caused this and it could have so easily been different. We could have exited and still had all the benefits.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He highlights that the situation that we, businesses and industry find ourselves in is caused not by Brexit but by the choices the Government have subsequently made and how they have made them. I am sure the Minister will think very seriously about how we deal with these self-made barriers.

There are other examples of where the Government have failed—successive Governments, I should say. I have lost track of how many we have had since 2019—

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Or this year.

[Seema Malhotra]

Let alone this year. This is a really significant point. There has been a failure to be clear and decisive, to make decisions and act pragmatically, to not be led by ideology and to look at what will make Brexit work for British businesses and consumers. The SI is symptomatic of a system that is failing.

The Minister will want to respond now that he can direct some of his work as a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Government must look to alleviate those issues and work with businesses much more closely, especially in their talks. It is an issue if the Minister says that he is talking to business and industry, but businesses are going out to the media and saying that deeper engagement with industry is still needed just to devise a plan, let alone to implement it.

Make UK stated in response to the extension:

“Given this is the third time this has been delayed, we need to ask why the Government is still ploughing ahead with the plans which are only adding costs and extra bureaucracy”.

In addition, a membership survey carried out by Make UK in May this year found that three quarters of respondents wanted the UK to continue to recognise CE marked goods. I would be grateful for clarity from the Minister on how we are moving forward and on what timescales. We want to see all our businesses able to manufacture their goods, to export and import them, to serve the British market and to do all that with certainty.

The Minister will know as well as I do that businesses plan ahead. They plan ahead as to what they are producing, and they must design those products. They also have to order materials. There is an even more serious situation in the supply chain, with problems affecting materials for production and so on. A year or two ahead is very much in line with what businesses need to plan. Businesses in my constituency have talked to me about the issue, including one that exports to 70 nations across the world with its fine manufacturing of steel products, and clarification from the Minister would be extremely helpful.

I want to raise a final point about product safety in general. Concerns have been raised by businesses and, in its latest report, the British Toy and Hobby Association conducted sample testing of 40 toys from third-party sellers via the marketplaces of four of the largest online platforms: Amazon, eBay, Wish and AliExpress. Of those 40 toys randomly selected for testing, 100% were illegal to sell in the UK and 90% were found unsafe for a child to play with, after failing independent safety testing against the UK toy safety regulations.

The British Toy and Hobby Association’s successive reports span four years and more than 550 toys, so that indicates an ongoing problem, showing that there is a level of non-compliance and that unsafe toys are being sold by third parties through the online marketplace supply chain. It is unacceptable. In its recent report, the BTHA has said that the current system is not working to prevent unsafe toys entering the UK market. The BTHA is calling on the Government to close that gap through legislative means before a child is seriously injured or killed by an unsafe toy.

The Government said they would publish their product safety review in spring 2022 outlining how they will regulate the safety of products sold via online marketplaces to protect consumers from harm by unsafe toys. The publication of the review has been delayed several times during the year. As well as highlighting the Government’s reckless unpreparedness for Brexit, the SI also highlights yet another moment when the Government should be taking broader action on product safety in this country, but are not. When do the Government plan to publish the product safety review, which was first promised for spring of this year?

The SI is symptomatic of a Government that are failing to make Brexit work for our businesses and the people of this country—a Government who have become complacent on the issue of product safety standards for consumers, including children. I would welcome assurances from the Minister on the issues I have raised, and answers to them. I look forward to a complete response that outlines the Government’s plans to ensure that there is clarity and a timeline for what happens as we go forward.

We have a common interest in these issues, which need to be tackled because, in the current low-growth environment, that situation does not help any of us. Anything that can be done to address the barriers to good, effective, increased and safe trade absolutely need to be addressed, and that leadership has to come from the Government.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown for his intervention.

The fact that we are taking a pragmatic approach to the issue should be welcomed, not challenged. Of course, the hon. Lady is there to provide challenge, but it is important, given the current economic circumstances, that we listen to businesses, which is what she encouraged us to do. That is one of the reasons for the delay. We have engaged with and listened to the industry’s concerns and have responded accordingly.

The hon. Lady asks by what mechanisms we do that. We have regular face-to-face meetings; I have meetings and webinars, and correspond all the time with businesses, and it is quite right that we do that. This is a sensible delay, and shows that we can use our autonomy to support businesses and provide flexibility to use either marking for now—UKCA or CE markings.

The hon. Lady is probably underestimating the amount of work that was done by manufacturers in this area. It is our best estimate that 89% of UK manufacturers either had or were planning to introduce the UKCA mark by the end of this year, so it is not as if no progress has been made. It is just that we did not want to disadvantage some businesses that had not managed to make that progress. Significant progress has been made. We do not expect to have to extend the provisions further, but it is right to extend them now and take a pragmatic approach.

The hon. Lady was quite critical of the general UK approach to product standards. I have met representatives of the Office for Product Safety and Standards on a number of occasions, and I have the highest regard for them. They are hard-working, professional civil servants, who take their job seriously and do a fantastic job. She made a good point about products sold online that might not conform to standards, which is a point I raised with the OPSS when we first met: about whether there is a fair and level playing field for other UK businesses when an online marketplace selling into UK customers might not meet relevant standards, and the different responsibilities of those marketplaces. That can be challenged on the basis that they do not believe they are a distributor. We need to look into that and are doing so as part of the product safety review, and I am very interested in the outcome.

[Seema Malhotra]

Perhaps the Minister was about to say when the Government will be publishing their product safety review due in spring 2022. That commitment was made by Ministers, not civil servants, unless he wants to tell me otherwise. I think we all respect the civil servants, who are playing their part. This is a question about the Government’s priorities and why the measures have been delayed.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It was not this Minister who made that promise, so I cannot speak to that particular commitment, but any review should be done properly and not rushed, and we need to get this right. Various things have happened over recent years that have delayed all kinds of things, as I think the hon. Lady would understand, with a pandemic followed by a cost of living crisis and, it is fair to say, some political instability, but we need to move on from that.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will, for the last time.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Given that it has been at least six months since spring 2022, will he undertake to provide a new timeline for when he expects the review to be published? Now that he is the Minister, I am sure he can get a briefing on how far away from publication we are, and he could then share with the House whether there are any further issues.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady will be used to the phrase “soon”, “very soon” or whichever she wants to use—

[Seema Malhotra]

Or “shortly”.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes. We are working to bring the review forward as quickly as possible, but as I say, we want to make sure that we do a good job and not just accelerate it to an arbitrary date, which might mean the review is not as sound as it could be. There are some other things that I have asked the OPSS to look at in my first weeks as Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business.

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will not give way any more. I want to challenge a few of the other points that the hon. Lady made that do not relate to this SI. She talked about low growth. We have had the third fastest growth in the G7 since 2010, so she needs to reflect on how she defines “low growth”. The only countries that have grown faster than the UK over the last 12 years are the US and Canada, so we have grown faster than Germany and France, for example, and she might want to reflect on that. She also mentioned high levels of tax. We have had to put taxes up to balance the books, because that is what we as a party believe in doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Seema Malhotra.

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

I grew up in a small family business. Labour is proud to be supporting Small Business Saturday and its 10th anniversary, and to have supported last week’s family business week.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are indeed the lifeblood of our economy, but they have been hit hard by 12 years of Tory failure and staggeringly low growth. Even after three Prime Ministers this year, the Government have no answers—and the House should not just take that from me; the Federation of Small Businesses judged the autumn statement as being

“low on wealth-creation, piling more pressure on the UK’s 5.5 million small businesses”.

If the Government are really serious about helping small businesses to grow, is it not time they adopted Labour’s plan to reform business rates, back our high streets, make Brexit work, and make Britain the best place in which to start and grow a business?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As one who was in business in 2010, I remember very well what the economy was like in that year, when we took over from Labour: it was not having a good time. [Interruption.] Yes, it is a lot stronger now.

We should bear in mind that while we can choose our own opinions, we cannot choose our own facts, and the facts are that the UK has experienced the third fastest growth in the G7 since 2010—behind only the United States and Canada—and has grown faster than Germany since 2016. It is right that we seek to provide new solutions for businesses; we have to stimulate the supply side of the economy, not least because that is good not only for businesses but for consumers. However, as I said earlier, simply claiming that you are going to scrap business rates without saying how you are going to replace that £25 billion of revenue is highly irresponsible.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Nineteenth sitting)

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and it is fantastic to rise to do something more worthy in Committee than pour water for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central.

I accept completely that, as has been said many times, the Bill is excellent and we just need to tighten it up, and that it contains provisions, including on unique identifiers, that will help to block some of the more obvious means of carrying out the practice of phoenixing, which has been discussed both when we took oral evidence and throughout line-by-line scrutiny. However, it is my view, and that of many others, that we are missing a golden opportunity to fully address phoenixing with the Bill and to tighten up all parts of the regulations relating to Companies House.

The genesis behind new clauses 69 and 70 is a specific directorate and company the businesses of which have unfortunately harmed my constituents and many others across Scotland and throughout the UK. New clause 69 would stop those who burn through multiple limited companies leaving a train of destruction in their wake, with little or no recourse for the authorities. It would not prevent those who have no nefarious or ill intent but find that their company is unsuccessful, even on more than one occasion. It would not apply automatically to any individual who hits the three winding-ups limit; it would only allow the registrar to act if there were grounds to do so.

Around 10 years, a company called HELMS—Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems—controlled and operated by a man named Robert Skillen, went door to door in my constituency offering solar panels and home insulation as part of the now-scrapped UK Government green deal scheme. You will be pleased to know, Mr Robertson, that I do not intend to go over the whole story; suffice it to say that hundreds of my constituents and thousands of people across Scotland are still paying the price to the tune of thousands of pounds each.

Skillen was able to wind up HELMS, move on to his latest venture with millions in his back pocket and face no consequences for his personal actions. He is an individual—there will be thousands like him—with a long track record of extracting maximum value from his scams via limited companies and then setting up shop for a new crack at it, having defrauded thousands of people. He even had the cheek to set up a company to assist those who had been defrauded by his previous company to receive compensation from which he would receive a cut. That type of individual is currently beyond the reach of the law; hopefully, provisions such as the new clause would assist with that.

Mr Skillen was fined £200,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office and £10,500 by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, as it was at the time, but the fact is that of that £200,000 he paid only £10,000 before winding the company up. That led the ICO to lobby the Government to enable it to fine individuals such as Robert Skillen up to £500,000.

In respect of cases such as those of Mr Skillen and many others who make sharp practice look easy and do so without any care or remorse, the new clause would act as a deterrent to the manipulation of company registration for personal gain and enrichment and prevent those who have used multiple company identities for malfeasance or sinister purposes from continuing that pattern of behaviour ad nauseum. I stress that the point of the new clause is not to prevent those who have had genuinely unsuccessful businesses from starting afresh. The registrar should be able to separate those cases from those of people with evil intent.

Companies House already has the power to disqualify directors and the new clause would simply allow it to consider slightly wider grounds on which such a disqualification could rest. It would help to put an end to the cases that every Committee member will have encountered in their constituencies of companies taking payment for goods and services, shutting up shop with the cash pocketed and then popping up again under a different name but carrying out exactly the same work. The purpose of the new clause is to tease out from the Minister the Government’s approach to phoenixing. With that, I rest.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson, and to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, who made a very important speech. New clause 69 would introduce new provisions to prevent the continued trading of companies repeatedly declared insolvent and the practice of phoenixing, which the hon. Member outlined. It states:

“A company may not be registered under the Companies Act 2006 if, in the opinion of the registrar of companies, it is substantially similar to a company which has been subject to winding up procedures under the Insolvency Act 1986 on more than three occasions in the preceding ten years.”

A company may be “substantially similar” to previous companies in terms of its name, registered office, proposed officers and so on. This would mean that there is more scrutiny, and questions are raised about whether a company should be able to continue trading.

It is very important, for the reasons we have outlined in Committee, to seek to protect the public and other businesses from unscrupulous operators effectively carrying on their business activity and going through the same cycle of building up debts, which leads to consumer issues, and simply disappearing and starting again. We must deal with that behaviour, which is a route through which economic crime takes place, and that is why we support the new clause. We will listen closely to the Minister’s response on how the Government propose to tackle the issue of phoenixing.

I note the similarity between the intentions of this new clause and new clauses 28 and 46, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and I, which we have discussed. In different ways, all those new clauses would tighten up glaring loopholes around strike-off, insolvency and phoenixing that enable those who are participating in economic crime to avoid scrutiny. We welcome the new clause, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, and I also appreciate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North describing this as an excellent Bill—a very constructive point—but one that needs tightening up; I understand his points and applaud the efforts made by him and other Opposition Members to do so.

I am fully aware of the devastating consequences that such issues have on businesses, suppliers, supply chains and our constituents. I have a case of a gentleman called Scott Robinson who repeatedly closed his investment business down. It was called TBO Investments at one point and then became Mount Sterling Wealth. He effectively took his clients with him, and people lost huge amounts of money. They had provided money for him to invest based on supposedly low-risk investments, but he was actually gambling that money in very high-risk investments, and he did that time and again. I really sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, and I am keen to look at not just phoenixing but other types of situation where people deliberately take risks like that that have devastating consequences for consumers and businesses in our constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

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

It is like London buses—I am back. I do not propose to take as long to speak to new clause 70, which proposes to turn off the tap of public funding to those who have failed to discharge their duties under the Companies Act or who have failed to discharge their duties to their company’s staff. I mentioned Mr Skillen previously, and his local constituency got in touch with me to tell me that he is back in business and that his company had been in receipt of public funds. The aforementioned Mr Skillen is currently a director of four limited companies, each one coming after the winding up of HELMS. Those companies are interlinked via control and ownership structures. Through that, Government loan funding was applied for and granted just before Mr Skillen became a director and owner of a large chunk of the new enterprise.

My new clause is very simple and would prevent those who fail to discharge their duties from receiving public money or support for any company for which they are listed as a director. Mr Skillen’s modus operandi was to misuse and mis-sell under the Government’s green deal scheme, but he popped up a few years later at a company benefiting from taxpayer funding and is involved in the energy business as well. It is simply not good enough that policy interventions intended to promote a wider economic strategy, be it local or national, are manipulated and used by spivs who are able to hide behind company registration and face no barriers to their actions from the registrar, short of the nuclear option of being barred from acting as a director.

We have seen a number of cases over recent years of multinational companies, such as P&O Ferries and, not quite to the same extent, British Airways, breaching their duties as employers and breaching employment law. Indeed, the chief executive of the former happily admitted breaking the law while appearing before the Transport Committee’s joint session with the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Such blatant and open law breaking cannot be rewarded with taxpayer support, and the new clause would ensure that those breaching laws that are meant to protect workers cannot then dip into the same workers’ pockets for financial support. It would not impact on workers, because any funding, such as for a furlough scheme, would not be affected by the new clause.

[Seema Malhotra]

This is a useful new clause, in the spirit of some of the new clauses that we have tabled on what should and should not be available to directors who are in breach of their duties, disqualified and so on. The new clause, tabled by our colleagues from the SNP, would introduce new provisions that bar directors who are in breach of their duties from receiving public funds. Under the new clause, a company with a director or directors who are in breach of the general duties outlined in the Companies Act 2006, or who have been found to have committed statutory breaches of employment law, should not receive Government-provided funds or financial support unless it is solely and specifically for the purpose of directly benefiting the company’s employees.

This is an important debate, and I would be interested in the Minister’s response. When taxpayers find out that their money goes towards effectively supporting or enriching directors who are in breach of the Companies Act, there will be a real question about what the Government can do to further disincentivise and not reward those who are in breach of employment law or other areas of legislation. We support the sentiments behind the new clause and the arguments being made, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for his new clause; again, I support the motivation behind it. Clearly, there are restrictions already. Where a director has failed to observe a specific duty under the Companies Act 2006, they will potentially find themselves liable to criminal sanction and disqualification. I accept the fact that we have not focused too much on that area in the past, but that is exactly why we are legislating in the Bill to make the registrar far more proactive in her work. Where an employer has committed a breach of employment law, the relevant statute will generally provide appropriate remedies either by way of a right of action for the worker—normally in an employment tribunal or the courts—or by way of state enforcement, or sometimes both.

The new clause seeks to isolate only two triggers for denying access to financial support. Although they may have merit as triggers, who is to say that there are no other matters of conduct on the part of either a company or its directors that might lead one to question the wisdom of awarding it taxpayers’ money? Obviously, that should be determined within the scheme rules. The hon. Gentleman pointed to a case in which a director was interlinked with four other companies. There are already restrictions on Government loans—covid loans, for example—which must be taken into account where there are interlinked schemes, and he is probably aware of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

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

I will be on my feet for a bit, so I will try to be succinct—I know that Members have other things to do this afternoon. [Laughter.] It may be impossible for me. I want to say quite a lot about this new clause.

New clause 71 is about reforming of the suspicious activity reports regime. Ministers will accept that the SARs regime is a central tool in our defence against money laundering, but I hope they also accept that the current system is broken—it is not working. The new clause would introduce a new risk rating system, which would transform the efficacy and efficiency of the current regime.

SARs are very valuable and a vital source of intelligence. They are made mainly by financial institutions, but also by solicitors, accountants or estate agents, and they report suspicious activity. They have been absolutely instrumental in a range of successful actions against criminal activities, locating sex offenders, tracing murder suspects and identifying those involved in online child abuse, and they have shown how young women are trafficked into the UK. They have also been instrumental in closing down fraud and money laundering.

To give one example of a successful case involving fraud, a vulnerable elderly man in his 80s was the victim of a fraudster who had gained his personal details through a cloned website, when the elderly man believed that he was making a genuine investment. The reporter who saw the transaction going through was suspicious when the fraudster tried to impersonate the victim and access his main funds. He reported the transaction, and the UK Financial Intelligence Unit, which operates the SARs regime, received that report. The unit immediately passed it on to the enforcement agency—I wish this happened every time—which visited the victim in his house. The agency was then able to quickly contact the institution where the transaction was supposed to take place. It reported that the suspicious activity was wrong and confirmed the real identity and bank details of the elderly man, which all prevented him from losing in excess of £80,000.

This scheme is therefore important, and it is successful when it works well. However, at present, the sheer volume of SARs and the limited resources available mean that the information is not analysed and often simply not used. In evidence to the Treasury Committee, Mark Steward, the director of enforcement at the Financial Conduct Authority, said:

“More needs to be done in order to get more out of the valuable data that is in there. Otherwise, it just sits there.”

Graeme Biggar, also giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, as director general of the National Economic Crime Centre, said:

“Twenty years ago, we got 20,000 suspicious activity reports in, largely from banks. This year, we would not be surprised if we got three quarters of a million, and the number of defence against money laundering SARs, where we are told in advance and given the option to refuse permission to proceed, is going to double, we think, this year. The sheer volume coming through is really significant and very hard to deal with.”

According to research from Spotlight on Corruption, only 118 people handle the SARs. That is one employee to 4,250 SARs. The Australians, who have a similar enforcement regime, and who have also experienced an explosion in SARs, have a staff complement of one to 1,400—three times better than our own. The Committee has often talked about the relative budgets for enforcement of the UK and the USA. The USA has increased funding of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by 30%, and its staffing by 50%. The Minister should recognise that the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s budget is now 15 times larger than the National Crime Agency, although our population is only five times smaller than America’s.

The Financial Action Task Force review in 2018 said SARs should be reformed, and SARs were criticised by the FATF. The Treasury Committee report in 2019 talked about SARs reform. In 2017, the Government had announced a reform programme for SARs, led by the Home Office together with the NCA. That reform programme constituted action 30 in the economic crime plan. The intent was to have an IT transformation, better analytical resources and capabilities, and an improvement in SARs processes. That SARs programme was reviewed by the Government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority, and was given an amber rating in 2021. So reform started in 2017, the programme was given an amber rating in 2021, and today, in 2022, it is not complete and there is no timetable from the Home Office—maybe the Minister can help with that—or a target date for completion, which was a criticism the Treasury Committee made of the programme. Delivery was originally promised by December 2020, but we are two years on from that and we are a long way from seeing SARs completed.

In that context, new clause 71 introduces a risk-rating regime. I do not think anybody thinks that is a crazy idea, and I hope the Minister will—just for once—adopt one of the suggestions that the Opposition have made in Committee. I hope he will not say that we do not need the legislation. We are nearly six years on from when the reform programme was announced, and reform has not happened. The Government cannot, despite the best efforts of right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), ignore legislation, although they seem to be ignoring the desire to reform the SARs programme.

If Ministers want action, which they have consistently said they seek with the Bill, they should accept new clause 71. If they simply see this measure as party political, they should not. We do not deal with the funding issue in the new clause, but we will ensure that the focus is on the most significant SARs. That will lead to more enforcement. I urge the Minister to adopt our new clause.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a pleasure to speak briefly in support of the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking. It would amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 such that any disclosure made as part of the suspicious activity reporting regime must include a risk rating. My right hon. Friend outlined very effectively the reasons why the new clause is important. Much of the evidence in our meetings at the outset of the Bill, which set out the context and stakeholder views, it was clear that the SARs regime was failing. The databases of referrals were going unreviewed and unlooked at, because the resources were not there. There was no effective means that we could see of prioritising SARs fed into the NCA.

SARs is an essential tool in our defence against money laundering, but if the system is not working, something needs to happen. Having an extra step in the process to help with prioritisation, look at risks and deal with those identified as higher risk would help, as my right hon. Friend outlined, to bring in quality, at a time when we know that quantity is the new battle. She said that the current estimate is three quarters of a million referrals, which is extraordinary. Given the scale and types of economic crime, the number of referrals is likely to get worse, not better. That is a good thing if we are starting to highlight and refer more cases as we start to clean up our systems. However, we then need to deliver on that; otherwise, the downside is that we will reduce confidence among those doing the referrals that anything will actually happen.

Nigel Kirby of Lloyds Bank said in his evidence to the Committee:

“I think the SARs regime and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 itself actually need—well, not necessarily to be turned upside down, but to be looked at as a whole.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 19, Q26.]

I think we have some agreement that the system itself is important, essential and necessary but that it needs wholesale reform to make it more efficient and effective and to ensure that it does what we ask of it.

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Barking for the new clause. I will slightly gloss over one element and focus on something she mentioned several times—I always listen carefully to what she says—about the comparison between the FBI and the NCA. I take the comparison, but the NCA is not a direct comparator for the FBI. After all, the FBI includes the equivalent to MI5. It also includes counter-terrorism police and a lot of what we call regional organised crime units. It includes a lot of other areas of policing that simply do not come under the NCA’s budget, so the comparison of budgets is not apples and oranges; it is more like apples and cider—the bulk of one and the punch of the other are not quite the same. I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me for saying that that is not entirely a fair comparison.

That said, the NCA does an enormous amount of good work and uses SARs in many different ways. I have the figure here: the UKFIU received and processed nearly 600,000 SARs in 2019-20. That has increased significantly every year. The action taken has resulted in about £192 million being denied to criminals in 2019-20, up 46% on the previous year. So this is something that we are already using heavily.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the Minister for his consideration of this proposal. I would be interested to know what has changed since the previous consideration was arrived at that such provisions were not necessary. He suggests he will weigh that up and perhaps bring forward some amendments on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26

Reporting requirement (objectives)

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report assessing whether the powers available to the Secretary of State and the registrar are sufficient to enable the registrar to achieve its objectives under section 1081A of the Companies Act 2006 (inserted by section 1 of this Act).

(2) Each report must make a recommendation as to whether further legislation should be brought forward in response to the report.

(3) Each report must provide a breakdown of the registrar’s annual expenditure.

(4) Each report must provide annual data on the number of companies that have been struck-off by the registrar, the number and amount of fines the registrar has issued, and the number of criminal convictions made as a result of the registrar’s powers as set out in this bill.

(5) Each report must provide annual data on the number of cases referred by the registrar to law enforcement bodies and anti-money laundering supervisors.

(6) Each report must provide annual data on the total number of company incorporations to the registrar, and the number of company incorporations by Authorised Company Service Providers to the registrar.

(7) The first report must be published within one year of this Act being passed.

(8) A further report must be published at least once a year.

(9) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of each report before Parliament.”—(Seema Malhotra.)

This new clause would add a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on the powers available to the Secretary of State, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and Companies House in relation to the registrar’s powers to achieve their objectives set out in clause 1.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 28—Reporting requirement (strike-off powers)—

“(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the powers available to the Secretary of State and the registrar in relation to the registrar’s powers under this Act to strike off a company.

(2) Each report in subsection (1) must include but is not limited to—

(a) whether the appropriate mechanisms are available to the Secretary of State to prosecute directors of companies struck off the Companies House register in relation to the Act, and to recoup money on behalf of creditors, and

(b) how much money has been returned to creditors as a result of the Act’s provision for the registrar to strike a company’s name off the register if the company does not change its address from the default address, including the proportion of this money returned to the Government.

(3) Each report must make a recommendation as to whether further legislation should be brought forward in response the report.”

This new clause would add a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on the powers available to the Secretary of State, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and Companies House in relation to the strike-off provisions in this Act.

New clause 63—Annual report on activity under this Act—

“(1) The registrar must publish an annual report on the implementation of, and activities under, the provisions of this Act which are relevant to the work of the registrar.

(2) The report mentioned in subsection (1) must include, but need not be limited to—

(a) information on the use of the registrar’s powers under this Act, including in relation to—

(i) financial penalties imposed, and

(ii) the number of cases of unlawful activity or suspected unlawful activity identified by the registrar;

(b) details of the steps the Registrar has taken to promote the registrar’s objectives under this Act; and

(c) the use of exemption powers for the Secretary of State introduced by this Act.

(3) The first report under subsection (1) must be published within six months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent.”

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir Christopher, and to speak to new clauses 26, 28 and 63, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon. They draw together conversations we have had in Committee about the importance of transparency and feedback on the powers and measures in the Bill and would provide Parliament with a means of interrogating their effectiveness.

New clause 26 would introduce a reporting requirement in relation to the objectives in the Bill. The Secretary of State would be required to report on the effectiveness of the powers available to the registrar to achieve her objectives as set out in clause 1. To coin a phrase for which the Minister may want to take credit, what is the point of legislation without good implementation? I think we are all agreed on that point. It is therefore important to ask: how is Parliament going to know? How are we going to spot any issues? How will we know that either further measures need to be developed or new powers need to be brought in? The new clause would provide a way for us to have that transparency and feedback.

We have done our best to draft the new clause in such a way that the Minister will be able to simply accept it or come back to us with what he thinks needs amending. Importantly, it would require the Secretary of State to

“publish an annual report assessing whether the powers available to the Secretary of State and the registrar are sufficient to enable”

Companies House to achieve its objectives. Each report would make a recommendation as to whether further legislation should be introduced in response to the report and provide a breakdown of the registrar’s annual expenditure, alongside data on the number of companies that have been struck off by the registrar, the number and amount of fines the registrar has issued and the number of criminal convictions resulting from the application of the registrar’s powers as set out in the Bill. It would also provide data on the number of cases referred by the registrar to law enforcement bodies and anti-money laundering supervisors, which is extremely important.

We need to know what has emerged from the system in order to be able to interrogate how well referrals have been taken forward and how quickly and effectively that was done. Without that information, it will be much harder to interrogate what is happening on the other side and the effectiveness of law enforcement, which has been raised during our deliberations as a real weak point in our system that needs toughening up, strengthening and supporting with the resources required. New clause 26 is important to enable adequate parliamentary scrutiny and have the ongoing debate in Parliament about the effectiveness of the measures we are passing.

New clause 63 would introduce a similar reporting requirement in relation to the registrar’s general activity in the Bill. We have laid out some of the measures, including financial penalties imposed, the number of cases of unlawful activity or suspected unlawful activity identified by the registrar, and

“the use of exemption powers for the Secretary of State introduced by this Act”.

The report does not necessarily need to specify details of what has been exempted, but it is important that Parliament has an understanding of the use of those powers, the number of times they are used, and so on. We suggest that this second report is published within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

Turning to new clause 28, the registrar’s new powers include the ability to change the address of a company’s registered office where the registrar is satisfied that the company is not authorised to use the address. The Government say the registrar will have the power to change a company’s address to Companies House’s own address and then to strike the company off the register. Currently when fraudulent companies are struck off the register, there is little due diligence done, and I know the Minister has expressed concern about this matter. It does not result in significant repercussions for the directors of a company, and a huge number of companies—nearly 400,000 a year—are struck off because they have failed even to file accounts. Directors are not investigated for misconduct or held accountable, and we know these issues have been raised by R3 and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston and for Aberavon for tabling their new clause. I also thank the right hon. Member for Barking and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central for their contributions. I agree with much of what they said. As they know, I fully agree that Parliament should be regularly updated on the implementation and impact of this legislation. What gets measured gets done, and it is vital that we know what is being done with this legislation.

I will speak to new clauses 26 and 28 first, because I think there may be a duplication of things that exist already. Much of the information suggested by new clause 26, such as Companies House expenditure and the numbers of companies incorporated and struck off, is already published in the Companies House annual report. Companies House already reports publicly on its activities and its regular statistical releases on gov.uk. On new clause 28, through dissolution a company is brought to a point at which it ceases to exist and ceases to appear on the register. A company can seek its own voluntary strike-off, or it can be struck of compulsorily by the registrar. In principle, that process takes place when there is reason to believe that the company is no longer in operation or carrying on business. In both cases, statutory processes ensue whereby the public generally are informed that the dissolution is in train by publications in the Gazette. There are opportunities for third parties to intervene and object to a company being dissolved.

Concerns have been expressed that unscrupulous companies choose to give the impression that they are defunct in order to precipitate their dissolution and evade creditors. That concern is ultimately misplaced, as any assets left in a company following its dissolution will not be held by the company any more, and will be passed to the Crown, bona vacantia—as ownerless property. It is also important to note the effects of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021, which amended the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 by introducing a mechanism for disqualifying directors of dissolved companies.

It is also worth noting that the 1986 Act includes provision not only for disqualifying directors but for ordering disqualified directors to pay compensation. That provision is in section 15A of the Act and, as amended by the 2021 Act, covers directors of both insolvent companies and dissolved companies. If a director is disqualified and the conduct for which they were disqualified caused loss to the creditors of an insolvent or dissolved company, the director can be ordered to pay compensation either for the benefit of specified creditors or by way of a contribution to the assets of the company.

The Bill introduces a new circumstance under which the registrar might seek to strike off a company that persistently fails to provide an appropriate registered office address. I assure Members that the registrar will initiate dissolution in those particular circumstances only after having assessed the risks of doing so. The normal notification procedures, by way of the Gazette and Companies House webpages, will apply.

As noted, Companies House already makes data on company dissolutions regularly available. I question what benefit the reporting proposed by the new clause would add, as it is not clear to me that the information it covers would necessarily be available to the Secretary of State. However, I acknowledge the concern about the manner in which compulsory strike-off operates. I have asked my officials to advise me on the extent to which the Bill’s new information-sharing provisions might improve safeguards and transparency in this area. I am of course happy to engage further with Members on this topic in due course.

Most of the comments related to new clause 63. I absolutely agree that there needs to be a mechanism by which progress made on the implementation of the provisions in the Bill is reported to Parliament. There should be regular reporting on the registrar’s use of the new powers. I also accept that it is important to give Parliament an early opportunity to scrutinise how quickly Companies House implements the reforms.

I believe, however, that the new clause requires further consideration. As drafted, it has the potential to place unintended obligations on the registrar. For example, it will require the registrar to report on the imposition of financial penalties before the commencement date of the regulations. It also requires the registrar to indefinitely report on the implementation of the legislation, even if it is completed in the near future.

With the agreement of the Committee, I would like to ask my officials to consider the new clause further. I hope Members are reassured that we will give it consideration. If the new clause is withdrawn, we will have further discussions about what we might put in its place.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his comments about the new clauses. I appreciate his response on new clause 63 and very much look forward to hearing from his officials about the proposed reports, but will he tell us when we will hear from them? None of us wants the measure to be lost in the course of proceedings, and we do not want it to be left to the Lords, so I would be grateful if he can tell us when he expects us to hear a response. Assuming that it will be positive, I am happy not to press new clause 63 to a vote.

On new clause 26, the Minister did not respond with the detail that I was expecting. I understand that some data is already published. We can have an argument about whether it is there, but it is easy for there to be a summary. If Parliament is looking at one document, it will want that data. It will want to review the later data in the context of the more procedural data that Companies House already publishes. I cannot see that it is onerous to publish a summary of data that already exists.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

In the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend, he said that there was duplication of subsections (1) and (3). All the other things that were listed in subsections (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) are issues on which we want an annual report to Parliament because that shows us whether the legislation is working. If there is duplication, it is not the end of the world. There is a lot of duplication in our legislation—I am sure, Sir Christopher, that you are an expert on that—but that is not a sufficient argument to put the whole new clause out of the Committee’s consideration.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; indeed, that is precisely where my concerns lay. The Minister simply talked about the relatively small part of the reporting requirement. If there were an argument as to whether to include it or not, my argument would continue to be that that is relevant to have in the context of the full reporting requirement that we are arguing for. There is not anywhere else in the legislation—unless the Minister can direct me to it—that will provide Parliament with such a report.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Just to abbreviate the debate, much of the information in new clause 26 is already reported by Companies House in its annual report. I think it is being said that the key measures are the additional ones in new clause 63, which relate to what the Bill’s provisions will give effect to. I am happy to return to the Committee before Report to say where we feel the new clause needs to be addressed. If we do not do it at that point, the hon. Lady is welcome to table an amendment on Report.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister. To clarify, he referred to coming back on new clause 63; my question is in relation to new clause 26 and whether and how the later subsections are all going to be covered by the Companies House annual report. It would be helpful if he responded to that, because currently I am not clear that they are all covered.

In new clause 26, we are asking for an assessment of whether

“the powers available to the Secretary of State and the registrar are sufficient to enable the registrar to achieve its objectives”

and about

“making recommendations as to whether further legislation should be brought forward in response to the report.”

Yes, there may be details elsewhere, but they could be summarised for the ease of use of the report. The new clause requires

“a breakdown of the registrar’s annual expenditure”

and

“data on the number of companies struck off”.

That information may well also be elsewhere. Will the Minister confirm whether

“the number of cases referred by the registrar to law enforcement bodies and anti-money laundering supervisors”

and so on is all going to published elsewhere?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

May I also draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 26(6), which is important? It asks for an annual report of the total number of companies incorporated to the registrar and

“the number of company incorporations by Authorised Company Service Providers”.

The purpose of that particular bit of information relates to our concern about the integrity and honesty of company service providers. I do not believe that is covered in the Companies House report. I accept that there may be some duplication—we got that wrong—but there are issues of huge importance in terms of accountability and the integrity of the data that we would lose if new clause 26 were simply ignored.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my right hon. Friend for explicitly emphasising the importance of subsection (6). She is absolutely right. The Minister will be mindful of the importance of transparency in respect of the issues relating to incorporations by authorised company service providers. Will he confirm that all the subsections in new clause 26 will be explicitly covered elsewhere? If not, we will want to pursue the matter of how that information is going to be published by Companies House and the Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Nobody is ignoring the comments that have been made. Nobody is keener than I am to make sure that there is proper scrutiny of what Companies House does with the powers. We should absolutely ensure that.

On the requirement for the Secretary of State to report on the use of the powers, any Secretary of State appointed by any Government, be they Labour or Conservative, will of course always review the powers needed and whether there is a need to legislate further. It is not right to dictate in legislation that the Secretary of State should do this, that or the other and I would not expect any Opposition to require that.

Companies House already reports on the number of companies incorporated and struck off—that is already in the annual report. It is an interesting point about corporate service providers; the right hon. Member for Barking has concerns in that regard, and I do too. I suggest that I should look at the matter further with officials and come back to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston well in advance of Report—outside the tabling time—and if we are not going to do anything, she can table a similar new clause. If we are going to do something, that might address her concerns or she might need to go further. Those options are open to her and I hope she will give us time to try to address these matters to the House’s satisfaction.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his comments. He has said he will review the issues addressed in new clauses 26 and 63 with his officials. There may well be areas in which, on further reflection, he agrees with us that more could be done.

On the Minister’s comment about the Secretary of State being able to introduce legislation at any time, the point that was missed was that we know the speed with which we have to respond to economic crime. If we think back to 2016, we can see that we did not act fast enough—we have not acted fast enough in the past six years—so there is strong merit in having a mechanism that speeds up any requirements for future legislation through a report that can be reviewed and followed up on.

If the Minister is committing to review the matter and come back to us, we accept that. We would like to be involved in the discussions, perhaps after he has had an initial discussion with his officials. If there is a way to move forward with consensus, perhaps prior to Report, that could be a positive way forward. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29

Report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime

“(1) The Secretary of State must produce a report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime.

(2) The report must consider the case for penalties paid to the registrar to be ringfenced and used solely for the purposes of tackling economic crime.

(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

This new clause requires a report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime to be laid before Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Division 12

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Seema Malhotra]

On a point of order, Sir Christopher, is it procedurally correct for my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and for Barking to speak before I make my comments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I do not know whether I have the quote here from the previous HMRC permanent secretary—I will dig it up and send it to the Minister—but he actually said, in evidence to the Treasury Committee I think, that he did not quite understand why it was part of his job to do the supervision. I am not quoting him accurately, but the purport of what he said was that they see it as marginal and a sort of add-on—I think he used the word “add-on”—to their main function, which is to get the money in.

The position and reputation that professionals enjoy through membership of professional bodies is really important. Therefore, the professional bodies themselves should be taking steps to minimise and attack suspicious activity where it takes place, and they should be calling it out. It is in everybody’s interest to get the bad apples.

Let me give some evidence of the current failings as we see them. The 2021 review of OPBAS—the body responsible for all the professional bodies—found that 81%, or eight out of 10, were not supervising their members effectively. This review was done only on the legal and accountancy professions. Half the supervisors did not ensure that their members were taking timely action to improve their money laundering procedures where they were found wanting. A third of the supervisors did not have effective separation between the advocacy role and the supervision role, which I think is an important aspect. For a proper review, one would separate bodies undertaking supervision and bodies undertaking advocacy to ensure there is no conflict of interest.

Some 60% of the firms visited by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2021 were failing to comply fully with their duties to have adequate AML controls in place. OPBAS found that nine supervisory bodies of MLR are engaging in what it calls “low levels of enforcement”. The way in which those bodies respond when they find something going on is to have a quiet chat rather than issue fines and publicly censure lawyers for breaching the MLR rules. The highest ever AML fine for a law firm by the SRA was £232,500, and it was for Mishcon. If that fine had been levied by the FCA under similar powers, it would have been £5.4 million.

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers, another group of professionals who are active in this area, imposed zero fines, despite finding that two out of three of the firms it is responsible for supervising were non-compliant with AML regulations in 2019-20. To use another example, the Law Society of Northern Ireland imposed just one fine—of £1,750—in the year 2019-2020, despite it finding 228 cases of non-compliance. That is a considerable body of evidence, if I may say so, that shows that the current system is broken and not fit for purpose.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation, a group I work with a lot, found that a third of the firms visited were non-compliant, but only four firms were disciplined for failure to provide renewal forms by the required deadline and fined for failure to submit appropriate criminality check certificates or to deal with the action points that had been raised with them in the review by CIOT of their AML procedures. In three of the four disciplinary cases by CIOT, a financial penalty was imposed, and only in the fourth was the member suspended.

I know that the Government are looking at the supervisory framework but, as is the way with Governments, that could take forever. We want to implement these reforms swiftly, so we must have some assurance and confidence, particularly because of the outsourcing of the checks on individual companies, that the professionals will seek out the miscreants in their profession. We cannot wait for the review, to put it bluntly. With these measures, we have taken the least of all the options the Government have put forward and proposed it for legislation. If the Government, on reflection, want to come back with a tougher regime, that is fine, but at least we would have the minimum in place as we enact the legislation and the reform of Companies House. Our new clause says, “Action now. Toughen up the powers and duties of OPBAS—introduce greater transparency into the system, and comeback if that is needed.” We are suggesting new powers and duties for OPBAS. The power is

“to impose…financial penalties on Professional Body Supervisors that fail to…adopt an effective risk-based approach to anti-money laundering supervision…impose proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance…and…separate their advocacy and regulatory functions.”

This is minimal, sensible and desperately needed now if we are to go ahead, with the speed that we all want, with the implementation of the legislation.

[Seema Malhotra]

I do not propose to spend much time speaking in support of the new clauses. The arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking have broadly said it all. She highlighted the high levels of non-compliance, the very low levels of fines and disciplinary measures, and the frustration of the sectors in terms of tools to really root out the rogue players who need action taken against them. The new clauses would be very effective and are much needed, for the reasons outlined—in trying to get action now, toughening up powers and providing greater transparency. For the reasons that I have outlined, I totally agree that the Bill is the right place for these measures. We should not have to wait and wait and wait for what is likely to come and will almost certainly draw the same conclusions.

New clause 44 would have the effect of amending the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 such that the commissioners would be responsible for anti-money laundering supervision, and it states:

“The Commissioners shall treat the function in subsection (1) as a priority”.

New clause 72 would introduce provisions requiring the Secretary of State, by regulations, to set out a further power and duty for the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision. This is defined as

“the power to impose unlimited financial penalties on Professional Body Supervisors that fail”—

that fail—

“to…adopt an effective risk-based approach to anti-money laundering supervision…impose proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance with anti-money laundering requirements …and …separate their advocacy and regulatory functions.”

We want stronger action taken against economic crime, not least because we know the scale at which it comes through the cracks, with the damage that it does to our economy. It seems to me that tightening up the roles and the performance of professional body supervisors and HMRC in some way is an opportunity that we should not miss.

The proposed clause would also insert a duty

“to publish the details of any sanctions imposed on Professional Body Supervisors, and…reviews of Professional Body Supervisors with data disaggregated by body rather than by sector.”

The sum of the two new clauses is to ensure the urgent improvement of the UK’s anti-money laundering sector. Throughout our witness sessions and Committee debates, we have heard about the lack of effectiveness of our AML system. I think that is a view also supported by the Minister. The changes are a much-needed strengthening and safeguarding against potentially rogue corporate service providers, the third parties who act on behalf of companies and can carry out the identity verification of directors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

As I say, this is really a matter for the Treasury, and it has committed to publishing a consultation before the decision is made. It would be wrong of me to preclude the ongoing policy analysis and public consultation by making—

[Seema Malhotra]

May I clarify whether the Minister has had any discussions with Treasury colleagues about the matter and raised his concerns? Have they acknowledged the need to act much faster?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I have had many conversations with Treasury colleagues in recent weeks and months on various aspects of the challenges that economic crime poses to the UK. Many of us are committed—in fact, the Treasury is very committed—to ensuring that economic crime is reduced in this country. The support that the Treasury has given in various different ways has resulted in many things, including a very successful operation conducted this morning by the Metropolitan police that resulted in the arrest of many people connected to economic crime. That may sound tangential on the grounds that it is about fraud, but the reality is that all of it is connected. We see a very strong overlap between money laundering, fraud and various other different forms of economic crime. The Treasury, unsurprisingly, is extremely committed to making sure that economic crime in this country reduces. The Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are absolutely committed to making sure that we considerably reduce the level of fraud in this country.

What is important now is to ensure that we make OPBAS as effective as possible, and that we look for some of the reforms that we have started to highlight, because that means that the changes required by the amendment will be unnecessary. I hope that we can focus on that aim.

I have just been given a statistic that records that in October 2022, HMRC named 68 estate agents that had breached anti-money laundering regulations, and fined them a collective total of £519,000. We can see that the supervision of estate agents is not just conducted by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary but by many others around the country and is taken extremely seriously.