Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Eighth sitting)

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

Work on the regulations will begin immediately after Royal Assent, and we will lay them before Parliament as soon as we are able to do so. That will give Members an opportunity to meaningfully debate the details of the ID verification process and the progress being made to put in place the necessary systems. As a result, introducing a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on the progress of establishing the ID verification regime is not necessary. I therefore thank the hon. Members for the new clause but ask them not to press it.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I think it is safe to say that we are coming to one of the most significant and consequential aspects of the Bill.

Clauses 61 to 67 take up a full 15 pages and provide a framework for the verification of the identities of individuals listed on the register of people with significant control, whom I will henceforth refer to as PSCs. Since its launch in 2016, the PSC register—more colloquially described as the register of beneficial owners of UK companies—has made important progress towards corporate transparency, but it remains very much a work in progress.

Much of this Bill is rightly concerned with closing loopholes in existing legislation and, as it stands, the PSC system has loopholes that are big enough to drive a coach and horses through. Even if we could rely on the good faith of all those who register, we would still be stuck with the fundamental problem of the 25% ownership threshold. The ease with which that can be used to circumvent the registration requirement—for instance, simply by splitting ownership shares between four people, who may all be family members—has been extensively discussed and is well documented.

During last week’s evidence sessions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking rightly drew attention to the case for a threshold set much lower than 25%. In response, Professor Elspeth Berry argued that although the threshold should certainly be lowered, even

“a zero percentage could be considered.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2022; c. 103, Q194.]

That is the case, given how many different and probably more relevant ways there are of measuring corporate control in the modern business environment.

The Government will likely argue that 25% is a widely used international standard, but we should be clear about what that means. Nowhere is it suggested in any of the international frameworks to which the UK is a party that 25% ownership is anything more than an example of how a country might seek to define beneficial ownership. In fact, many jurisdictions set ownership thresholds much lower than that. Some jurisdictions—including Belize and Jersey, which are not exactly known as paragons of corporate transparency—use a 10% threshold. The Government’s failure to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to revisit the definition of beneficial ownership is, to put it mildly, a disappointment.

I will now look more specifically at ID verification. Clause 61 is the first of a series of clauses in which the Government enable new powers to be introduced to ensure that information on PSCs can be verified. Subsequent clauses stipulate that full details of the verification regime will be set out in regulations at a later date.

The Opposition find the absence of substantial details on verification procedures in the Bill perplexing. It is now more than three years since the Government launched the first of what turned out to be no fewer than four separate consultations on proposed reforms to Companies House, which included proposed ID verification powers. It is not at all clear why, after all this apparent effort, Ministers are still unable to set out specific plans in legislation. Perhaps the reason is that they have been struggling to make a decision and stick to it.

In the first consultation document back in May 2019, the Government stated fairly unambiguously that they believed that Companies House should be given responsibilities for ID checks. That view was reiterated in subsequent consultation documents published in February 2021, which seemed to indicate that the Business Department is better at flogging a dead horse than at drafting legislation. More than a year passed before the Government finally published a White Paper. By that time, Ministers appeared to have gone lukewarm on handing responsibility for ID checks to Companies House, with a shift in emphasis towards outsourcing the checks to third parties that are collectively known as trust or company service providers. Somewhat confusingly, they are now referred to in the Bill as “authorised corporate service providers”, or ACSPs.

That is extremely problematic, for a whole range of reasons. First and foremost, TCSPs represent a highly fragmented sector, making supervision of their activities very difficult indeed. Some may be supervised by professional bodies—for example, if they provide accountancy or legal services—while others may be supervised by HMRC. In some cases, there is no supervision at all, leading RUSI’s Helena Wood to compare the sector to the wild west. Ministers now propose to place an enormous amount of trust, faith and responsibility on the shoulders of TCSPs, about which they know very little.

Speaking to the Treasury Committee earlier this year, Graeme Biggar, the then director-general of the National Economic Crime Centre, said:

“We are developing a plan with HMRC and the Treasury to have both more supervision of, and more enforcement against, company formation agents. We are on it, but it is not the most developed of our plans. We have really got to do more work on that.”

It would be excellent if the Minister could give us an update on the progress of the work that Mr Biggar referred to in that evidence.

As things stand, it is hard to imagine what the Government were thinking with the proposals in these clauses. This is not just a case of sharing responsibilities for supervision between the public and private sectors, as is already the case in the legal, accountancy and some other sectors; this is about outsourcing a set of tasks to the least regulated, least understood and potentially least reliable part of the entire financial services industry. The Government’s own assessment in their national risk assessment was that TCSPs pose a high risk of being used for money laundering purposes. A previous risk assessment said:

“Ineffective AML supervision leads to inadequate compliance with the rules, and low and poor quality reporting of suspicious activity”.

For at least the past seven or eight years, official reports and media coverage have documented the involvement of UK-based TCSPs in the efforts of oligarchs, many of whom are Russian, to conceal their wealth in opaque webs of corporate structures. It should be clear by now that the Opposition have serious concerns about the proposal to outsource ID checks to the sector. We have therefore tabled new clause 27, which would require annual reporting on the progress towards establishing verification procedures, in order to probe the Government’s rationale for the policy. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the concerns I have just outlined, and that due consideration will be given to whether the policy is really in the interests of tackling economic crime and improving corporate transparency.

May I just ask you for clarification, Mr Robertson? Do you wish me to stop there or—

[The Chair]

You can discuss new clause 27 now if you wish.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I would be very happy to pause and provide the Minister with an opportunity to respond, if he wishes to do so, on clause 61.

[The Chair]

As you wish. I will bring Alison Thewliss in next, but we can come back to you, Mr Kinnock.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Chair.

[Alison Thewliss]

I wholeheartedly support Labour’s new clause. There is an awful lot more that needs to be done to tighten up the measure on verification. Nick Van Benschoten, in his evidence, said:

“On the verification measures, one of the key points is that they fall short of minimum industry standards. Verification of identity is necessary but not sufficient. A key thing we have noted is that the Bill does not provide for order-making powers to allow Companies House to verify the status of directors or beneficial owners, and for that sort of requirement on company information agents and so on. That seems an odd gap.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 7, Q3.]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. It is the key part of the Bill. If we are not going to verify people on the register, there is almost no point in having the legislation. It is the verification that is crucial.

Hand in hand with that are the fines for not complying with the verification. I draw the Minister’s attention, again, to the people with significant control over Scottish limited partnerships. There has been one fine of £210 since the rules came into place. That is no kind of deterrent whatsoever. The rules need to be here, the verification needs to be right, and the sanctions for not complying must be enforced. I would say that even the sanctions are far too low.

Leaving trust and company service providers to verify identity leaves the door wide open to abuse. There is already abuse, and the Government’s position in the Bill is to continue to allow that to happen. As the hon. Member for Aberavon said, trust and company service providers have been identified in numerous Government documents as being the gap that allows money laundering and international crime. That cannot be allowed to continue in the Bill. If the Government leave the door open for the trust and company service providers, they will continue to abuse the system and the register will continue to be full of absolute guff.

I raised the issue of verification in the House, albeit, I appreciate, with a different Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). He suggested that a decision had not yet been made on how the verification system would work. My suggestion was that it go through the UK Government’s existing verification scheme, which is used for passports, driving licences and tax returns, because that system is already up and running. The response suggested that that had not yet been decided.

However, it was drawn to my attention today that Companies House has already put out a tender for a verification system. A tender went out on 10 October and closed on 24 October for an “authentication digital delivery partner”, looking for people to come and work on this system. I am curious to know why, when we have not yet got this legislation in place, the Government have tendered the contract and closed the application process for the company to build the system.

I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister on exactly what the status is of that £3.7 million contract, which Companies House has already put out to tender. Why has it gone out before the Bill has concluded if Companies House does not know what it is building yet, and when amendments are still being tabled? I appreciate that the Government want to move at speed, but putting the cart before the horse in this way seems quite wrong.

We would like the verification to be strengthened, but if the Government have already instructed a contractor on what it will build, why are we even here this afternoon?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For clarification, we will not vote on new clause 27 until later in the proceedings, and probably not today. We are discussing it now. In view of the fact that new clause 27 has already been raised, would you like to speak to it now, Mr Kinnock?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have made the points that I wish to make about new clause 27.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will return to Parliament, but new clause 27 is designed to ensure that there is an annual report to Parliament. That means that our successors—certainly mine—will be able to hold Companies House to account over time. He knows that accountability is absolutely vital to ensuring the integrity of the system.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Procedure etc for verifying identity

[Stephen Kinnock]

I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 62, page 47, leave out lines 14 and 15.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 109, in clause 62, page 47, leave out lines 18 to 20.

Amendment 78, in clause 62, page 47, line 20, at end insert—

‘(2A) No verification statement may be made by an authorised corporate service provider until the Treasury has laid before Parliament a report confirming that the Treasury’s review of the UK’s anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism regulatory and supervisory regime has been completed.’

This amendment prevents an authorised corporate service provider from making a verification statement prior to the completion of the Treasury’s review of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime.

Amendment 107, in clause 62, page 47, line 20, at end insert—

‘(2A) The regulations must make provision for the evidence required to verify an individual’s identity for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) to include—

(a) an identity document with a photograph of the individual’s face; and

(b) an identity document issued by a recognised official authority.

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(b) above, “a recognised official authority” includes—

(a) a department or agency of the UK government;

(b) a department or agency of any of the devolved nations;

(c) a department or agency of the government of another country;’.

Amendment 110, in clause 62, page 47, leave out lines 34 to 37.

Amendment 111, in clause 62, page 47, line 43, leave out from “registrar” to the end of line 44.

Amendment 112, in clause 62, page 48, leave out lines 4 to 26.

Clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have spoken at some length about the Opposition’s concerns about the provisions in clauses 62 and 63 to authorise third-party trust or corporate service providers—or authorised corporate service providers, as they are described in the Bill—to carry out ID checks on the Government’s behalf. Amendments 108, 109 and 110 to 112 would simply remove those provisions from the Bill in the hope of prompting a rethink by the Government.

I should like to explain the thinking behind the amendments tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. The purpose of amendment 107 goes back to what I have said about the surprising lack of specific details on the proposed verification process. As I have said, it is not as though the Government have not had enough time to think through what procedures might be necessary; four consultations have already taken place on the topic. Amendment 107 would incorporate into the Bill requirements for some form of official identification, including photo ID, to be submitted to the registrar. That should not be controversial. In fact, the amendment would merely reflect international best practice guidelines, including those published by the Financial Action Task Force, the IMF and the World Bank, among others, and the commitments made in the Government’s own White Paper.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I do so to speak to amendment 78. The amendment is part of a batch of amendments that we will get to later. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I speak longer on amendment 78, so that amendments 79, 82 and 83 will not require a long explanation.

This is one of the most important series of amendments that we have placed before the Committee. The purpose is to ensure that we close any loopholes, so that we do not find ourselves back in debate in a couple of years’ time, bemoaning the fact that we failed to create watertight legislation and that we do not have the information and data that we need to hold businesses to account.

I stress that our aim is not to be bureaucratic. The last thing anybody wants is bureaucratic regulation. However, if we do not have effective, smart regulation, we will not achieve the objective, which is shared across the House, of bearing down on illicit finance and on the abuse of our corporate structure system by ne’er-do-wells. Today, we are paying the price of those who came before us, from both political parties, who thought that by simply deregulating the whole of the financial services sector, they would encourage growth in the economy. They did encourage growth, but they also made us a destination of choice for too much illicit finance. That has come into focus with the war in Ukraine and the role of Russians in bringing their financing here. That money is used to fund Putin and his allies in the attack on Ukraine.

The Government have decided to outsource responsibility for checking the unique identification of beneficial owners. I can see why they have done so. It is quicker to do it that way than to build up the necessary resources in Companies House. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, I would have had more confidence if we had done it in house, but that was the Government’s decision. The purpose of my amendment is not to challenge that decision. However, we need to trust the corporate service providers. We need to trust both the professionals and the others involved, whether they are lawyers or accountants, to do the job properly and honestly. At present, confidence and trust are not there.

I thought that the Government were on the same page on this issue. From all the leaks, and from all the information and intelligence about how illicit wealth from all the kleptocracies has reached our shores, I thought that they understood the role played by the TCSPs. I thought they understood the role that the TCSPs play, and therefore shared our concern that we need to get that regulatory framework right before we unleash a new system that, if it is not right, could lead to us peopling the new Companies House register with dud information that we do not want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is mixing up two different things. I am not saying that some company formation agents are not shady—I have just said that. However, not all service providers are company formation agents. Many are bona fide solicitors or accountants that are household names. I think we need to keep this in perspective. The hon. Lady cites statistics on the capability of some of the sector in terms of proper supervision. According to OPBAS, 50% of professional body supervisors were “fully effective”. I think that figure should be much higher, but in its opinion 50% are fully effective, so it is not as if there are not some actors in this area that are doing the job absolutely right.

Many company directors and people with significant control that are currently registered at Companies House, all of whom will need to verify their identity under the transitional provisions post enactment, would prefer to do so by using their professional adviser. They will suddenly find that their long-established legal adviser is deemed fit by the Government to verify their identity for money laundering purposes, but unfit to report that to Companies House. The amendment would therefore create considerable inconvenience to individuals, as well as to corporate service providers.

I can assure the right hon. Member for Barking and the Committee that I will urge my counterparts at the Treasury to bring forward their consultation as quickly as officials can ready it. I also point to the powers in the Bill that will enable the registrar to keep an audit trail of the activity of agents to support the work of supervisors both immediately and following any changes from the Treasury’s review. I hope my explanation has provided reassurance.

Let me touch on one or two of the right hon. Lady’s other comments. On the light-touch financial services regulation that I think she was suggesting was responsible for the global financial crisis, this is not deregulation. This is the opposite of deregulation; we are making regulations about the verification of ID. I would also point to the penalties for wrongdoing. In certain circumstances, if someone is found guilty of the aggravated offence of false filing under these rules—I think some of the examples she gave would constitute that—the sanction would be two years in jail. That is not for fraud, but for the false filing. There are real teeth to this legislation, which will reduce the likelihood of this stuff happening in future.

The right hon. Lady’s amendment would effectively delay the whole regime we are talking about. She talks about Transparency International. As I said earlier, TI welcomes the reforms to the operation of Companies House that will effectively help to prevent money launderers from abusing the UK’s system. We need to ensure that this happens as effectively as possible. I agree with many of the concerns that she raises, but it is wrong to delay implementation as she suggests.

I turn to amendments 107 to 112. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The procedure for ID verification, including the evidence required, will be set out in secondary legislation under the powers in new section 1110B of the Companies Act 2006 inserted by clause 62 of the Bill. The regulations will set out the technical detail of ID verification procedures, which will reflect evolving industry standards and technological developments. The regulations can specify the process of ID verification and the evidence of identity that individuals will be required to provide when verifying their identity with the registrar. The amendments, particularly amendment 107, would limit the documents acceptable for the purposes of ID verification to photographic IDs issued by Government agencies and identity documents issued by a recognised official authority. That would exclude individuals who do not have a photo ID, such as a passport, from verifying their identity.

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is absolutely clear that our amendment 107 uses the words “to include”. We are not limiting anything. The amendment sets out what the minimum should be. Surely the Minister agrees that an identity document with a photograph of the individual’s face and an identity document issued by a recognised official authority should be the bare minimum we would want in the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Under the cross-Government identity proving framework in “Good Practice Guide 45”—GPG 45—a combination of non-photographic documents, including Government, financial and social history documents, can be accepted to achieve a medium-level assurance of identity. That includes birth certificates, marriage certificates and recent utility bills. The framework, which also recognises ID documentation from authoritative sources, such as the financial sector or local authorities, is routinely used to build a picture of identity. Restricting that process by defining a recognised authority as a Department or agency could therefore inadvertently disenfranchise individuals from meeting ID verification requirements. I take the hon. Member’s point that the amendment seeks to include certain forms of ID, but it might not serve the purpose that he thinks it would.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have nothing further to add on this point.

[The Chair]

Do you wish to press the amendment?

[Stephen Kinnock]

No. I have made clear to the Minister that we are deeply unhappy, particularly with the failure to take on board the recommendations under amendment 107 and the very important points my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking made.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Similarly, I will take the matter up elsewhere during the course of the Bill.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Authorisation of corporate service providers

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 63, page 49, line 38, at end insert—

“(3A) When an application is made under this section, the registrar may request evidence from HMRC that a fit and proper person test has been carried out on the applicant.”

This amendment allows the registrar to request evidence from HMRC that a fit and proper person test has been carried out on a person applying to be an authorised corporate service provider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will look in detail later to ensure that what I asked for is there, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 8, in clause 63, page 50, line 23, leave out “registered or”.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

This amendment would mean that a firm applying to become an authorised corporate service provider would always have to state its principal office, rather than having the option of stating its registered office.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 63, page 53, leave out from line 29 to line 5 on page 54.

This amendment removes the provision enabling the authorisation of foreign corporate service providers.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 99, in clause 63, page 53, line 37, leave out from “that” to “similar” and insert,

“has been assessed by the National Crime agency as having”.

This amendment would ensure that the judgement as to whether foreign jurisdictions have similar regulatory regimes would be in the remit of the National Crime Agency, rather than in the view of the Secretary of State.

Amendment 100, in clause 63, page 53, line 40, at end insert—

“(2A) No person who is subject to a relevant regulatory regime under the law of a territory outside the United Kingdom may become an authorised corporate service provider if there is evidence that they have been disqualified from acting as a corporate service provider in any other jurisdiction”.

This amendment ensures no corporate service provider based outside the United Kingdom can become an Authorised Corporate Service Provider if there is evidence that they have been disqualified from acting as a corporate service provider abroad.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Once again, I find myself somewhat baffled by what the Government are trying to get into the Bill. The provisions set out under clause 63 in proposed new section 1098I of the Companies Act 2006 would enable the Secretary of State to allow foreign corporate service providers to operate in the UK, outside the scope of the UK’s money laundering regulations. There has been such extensive coverage in recent years of the risks that that would entail that I am really quite amazed that this needs to be reiterated yet again, but, in a nutshell, any UK laws attempting to regulate the activities of company formation agents, some of which have been responsible for the most flagrant examples of money laundering and sanctions evasion according to recent reports, could well be rendered essentially meaningless by these few clauses.

I say that because, if enacted as drafted, the clauses would appear to hand the Secretary of State a blanket power to disapply the money laundering regulations to foreign agents, on no one’s authority but his or her own. We need not look too far for examples of how profoundly damaging that could be to our own laws, given how significant the divergences often are between anti-money laundering regimes in countries such as the UK, and those in overseas jurisdictions better known for their corporate secrecy than anything else. In fact, we need look no further than the UK’s own overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

Any Member who is either unaware of or in denial about the scale of the problem would be well advised to read an enlightening, although also alarming, article published by Forbes on 9 March 2022. It had the somewhat provocative title of “Evading Sanctions: A How-To Guide For Russian Billionaires”. The piece documented the use of opaque offshore corporate structures to launder literally billions-worth of assets held by Russian oligarchs in the last few months and years. What is most troubling about the account is that most of the jurisdictions that it specifically mentions as hotbeds of money laundering and sanctions evasion are UK-linked territories. It will surprise nobody that the list includes the Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands—in other words, the usual suspects.

I do not wish to dwell too long on the overseas territories, because I am sure there will be further discussions in the Committee when we come to debate later sections of the Bill. The point the Opposition are trying to make is simply that if we are going to allow businesses of any kind to operate in the UK, we should expect them to abide by our laws. If we start letting them off the hook, for reasons that Ministers have entirely failed to make clear, we are complicit in their actions. In short, the proposed new section 1098I would have us trust in the infinite wisdom of the Secretary of State to allow corporate service providers to operate outside the law, on the basis that those powers would be used only in cases where the relevant overseas jurisdiction has a regulatory framework with “similar objectives” to the UK’s own rules.

I frankly do not trust the wisdom of the Secretary of State to use those powers for good. I do not believe that it is at all appropriate for such sweeping, ill-defined powers to be conferred on the present or any other Secretary of State. Although amendments 99 and 100 are probing amendments that give us the opportunity to seek answers from the Minister on these extraordinary provisions, amendment 98 is intended quite simply to remove the powers from the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Once more, I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendments. They are driven by concerns that AML supervisory regimes outside the UK may not be robust. That is why the Government are specifying that authorised corporate service providers must be subject to the UK’s AML regime. Nevertheless, it is possible that in the future the UK may become a party to an agreement—a trade agreement, for example—that would require it to accept applications from abroad where that regime is equivalent to that of the UK. I do not think the example the hon. Gentleman gave of Russia would qualify in that regard.

The power in the Bill would facilitate such an agreement and remove the need for primary legislation to implement it. I draw Members’ attention to the wording already in the Bill, in proposed new section 1098I(2), introduced by clause 63. The UK would only become a party to an agreement if it could be assured that the regime was no less effective than its own. To be confident of that parity, the Secretary of State would need to establish that a regime was the equivalent of the UK’s by considering evidence and advice from a range of sources, including the National Crime Agency. That would include the consideration for whether prospective authorised corporate service providers are disqualified under the relevant legislation.

As the legislation makes clear, the power would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and parliamentary scrutiny. While I understand any concerns expressed, I hope that Members will withdraw the amendment.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for his response. As with the previous debate, I am not particularly happy with the position, and we will look for opportunities to return to the issue during the further passage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

General exemptions from identity verification: supplementary

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

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We debated the clause at length in the previous groupings. I do not propose to repeat the arguments, and I hope the Committee agree with the Government’s position.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have no further comments to add on clause 64.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Seventh sitting)

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott.

Government amendment 1 is one of six amendments that the Government have tabled to clauses 32 and 34. Before I discuss the Government amendments and those tabled by the Opposition, it is worth explaining what clause 32 does in order to understand better the purpose of the Government amendments.

Currently, individuals subject to an asset freeze—designated persons under the regulations that contain prohibitions or requirements of the sort referred to in section 3(1)(a) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—can continue acting as a director. They can also be involved, directly or indirectly, in the promotion, formation and/or management of a company. It is not appropriate for asset-frozen individuals to be company directors. It would be perverse for a person who is forbidden from dealing with their own funds or economic resources none the less to be free to direct a company.

Clause 32 prohibits individuals subject to an asset freeze from acting as directors, and does so by amending the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to prohibit individuals subject to an asset freeze on or after the day the provision comes into force from acting as directors of companies or directly or indirectly taking part in or being concerned in the promotion, formation or management of a company. Such individuals will only be permitted to take part in such activities with the leave of the court.

An individual in breach of that prohibition will be committing an offence, the maximum penalty for which will be two years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. It will be a defence for the person if they did not know and could not reasonably have known that they were subject to an asset freeze at the time that they acted as a director or were involved in a promotion, formation or management of a company. The provision will take effect in England and Wales, and Scotland; clause 34 makes the equivalent provision for Northern Ireland.

Government amendments 1 to 6 all work to the same purpose. Collectively, they will ensure that new director disqualification measures impact those who should be prevented for public policy reasons from acting as directors, namely individuals who are subject to an asset freeze. The amendments will also ensure that we do not disproportionately and unnecessarily extend measures to categories of people whose sanction status has no bearing on whether they are fit to act as company directors. The narrower definition introduced via the amendments includes only designated persons subject to asset-freeze measures of the sort described in section 3(1) (a) of SAMLA.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Could I trouble the Minister to explain a little more about what categories of people who are sanctioned should therefore allowed to be designated as unqualified as directors under the legislation? He has said that amendments are an attempt to narrow the definition to assets-based, but is he therefore saying that someone who is sanctioned for human rights abuses should nevertheless be able to be qualified as a GB director?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will go on to describe the categories. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an assets freeze is a type of financial sanction. Only those sanctions are relevant to someone’s ability to manage, form or promote a company. Non-asset freeze financial sanctions, such as securities and money market instrument prohibitions, can apply to a broader category of person beyond designated persons, for example, all persons connected to a particular country. To subject entire populations of countries to the directorship ban is grossly disproportionate. It would also be operationally unenforceable, as only designated people appear in published sanctions lists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

On the point about the FCDO not sanctioning anything apart from asset freezes, does it not impose travel bans? Is a travel ban not a non-asset freeze type of sanction?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, that is right. What we are focusing on in the Bill is people who are subject to asset freezes, not travel bans. Hon. Members can argue that other people should be banned from being the director of a company, but we do not think this is the appropriate place to make that restriction.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Are the Government saying that if somebody has been sanctioned and given a travel ban but not an asset freeze, they are still a fit and proper person to be a director of a British company?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The point is that they may be or they may not be. Putting a broad ban in the Bill just because somebody is subject to a travel ban is not the appropriate way to do it, in terms of whether they are a fit and proper person to run a company.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Are the Government seriously arguing that somebody who has been sanctioned by the FCDO and given a travel ban but not an asset freeze is still a fit and proper person to be a GB director? If the Minister is saying that the Bill is not the proper place to deal with that issue, where in our legislative framework will it be made clear that somebody who has a travel ban under FCDO sanctions is not a fit and proper person to be director of a British company?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

What we are talking about here is financial sanctions. These matters relate to companies and financial sanctions, not to travel sanctions.

Let me explain these points further. Not automatically imposing these measures on potential future scenarios will give the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office the flexibility it needs to impose the most appropriate and meaningful conditions on people designated for financial sanctions beyond asset freezes. Without these amendments, director disqualification measures introduced by the Bill would automatically apply to anyone against whom the designation power under section 9 of SAMLA 2018 is utilised—for example, transport or immigration sanctions, or any future measures that His Majesty’s Government choose to design. Although those are extremely serious matters, such sanctions ought not by necessity impact on the person’s ability to act as a company director. Furthermore, should there be a future need to extend director disqualification measures to people subject to those broader sanctions, that can be done via future legislation as and when the need arises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a fair point and it is covered in the Bill, which seeks to make it easier for Companies House to share information proactively with other organisations or, indeed, commercial organisations and vice versa. Here, we are talking about specifying the exact circumstances in which that should happen, which we think is the wrong approach.

I now turn to amendment 93, which seeks to expand the criteria for disqualifying individuals from being company directors to include people suspected of facilitating evasion of UK sanctions by sanctioned individuals, in addition to the sanctioned individuals themselves. Any person enabling or facilitating the evasion of certain sanctions would already be committing an offence, for example, under regulation 19 of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The maximum penalty on indictment is seven years in prison or a fine. Those are already dissuasive measures to ensure compliance with sanctions.

It is not appropriate and proportionate to apply director disqualification and offences to an individual who is only suspected of facilitating the evasion of sanctions. It is not clear what would constitute such suspicion and at what point a person would be prohibited to act. That could mean exposing an individual to criminal liability in circumstances reliant on suspicion alone, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Barking would not want to see. The uncertainty of what would constitute the criminal offence and potential interference with presumption of innocence has implications for the rule of law. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendment.

I will now speak to clause 33. New section 11A of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, introduced by the Bill, prohibits individuals subject to relevant financial sanctions, such as asset freezes, from acting as directors of companies. The clause limits the scope that prohibition by disapplying it for building societies, incorporated friendly societies, NHS foundation trusts, registered societies, charitable incorporated organisations, further education bodies and protected cell companies. The Secretary of State may, by regulations, repeal any of the subsections in the section, therefore applying the prohibition on individuals subject to an asset freeze from acting as directors in any of the organisation types in the clause. That allows the Secretary of State to apply those measures only to company directors in line with the policy focus of the measures in the Bill, without that unnecessarily applying to other entities currently not in scope. That will take effect in England and Wales and Scotland. Clause 35 makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Clause 32 raises important questions about who we should and should not allow to hold positions of power and responsibility in UK companies.

Currently, under the 1986 Act, the circumstances in which a disqualification order can be imposed are strictly limited. For the most part, they involve individuals with a criminal record for breaches of company legislation involving UK companies. Clause 32 expands the disqualification criteria to provide an explicit prohibition on any sanctioned individual serving as a company director. That is entirely proper, but the Opposition’s question is: why are the Government not going any further? They have considered who should be banned from serving as a company director, but the decision to add only those specifically designated under UK sanctions legislation feels like a missed opportunity.

We tabled amendment 93 to better understand and probe the Government’s thinking and to explore how additional changes could contribute to the Bill’s aims. The amendment is largely self-explanatory: it would add to the criteria those who aid and abet sanctioned individuals, or so-called “enablers” who help sanctioned individuals to evade our laws. The Minister will be aware of the army of lawyers, accountants and other so-called service providers who are in many ways doing Putin’s dirty work in London. In our view, it is crucial that they are caught in the net that the Bill seeks to cast.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to clamp down on the enablers of dirty money, but does he understand the point behind the provisions? There are serious penalties for somebody convicted of breaking sanctions—up to seven years in jail—but his amendment seeks to penalise somebody who is not convicted but merely suspected of facilitating that kind of activity. Does he understand why that is a difficultly for the Government?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I do understand that; the Minister makes a valid point. As I was saying, this is what one might describe as a probing amendment to try to get from him a sense of the proactive action the Government are going to take to go after those enablers.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

The Minister is quite right to say that the powers are there, but I hope he agrees that a way to facilitate this would be to introduce a new criminal offence of failure to prevent economic crime. In that case, the enablers to whom my hon. Friend refers could be caught and rightly punished for their role in colluding or facilitating economic crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely useful and eloquent intervention. That is absolutely the case, because the enablers are, by definition, experts in knowing how to play and game the system. We know it is going on, but they are notoriously difficult to track down. If we put the onus on industries to act proactively to prevent this sort of activity, that changes the game and makes prevention much more of a duty. I agree with the Minister that we cannot punish people if they are only suspected, but we can have a proactive ex ante approach. I would be grateful to hear his thoughts on that. In many ways, the amendment was designed to illicit a response from the Minister on what my right. hon Friend has just so rightly described.

The Minister has already pointed out that specifically designated individuals represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the scale of economic crime in the United Kingdom. There are any number of others who seek to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our ability to enforce them—for example, by creating opaque corporate structures to hide kleptocrats’ assets. Adding to the criteria those who help to facilitate the evasion of sanctions by designated individuals—not necessarily as our amendment suggests, but through a more root-and-branch, proactive ex ante approach—is one way the Government could really improve the Bill. I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on that. Restrictions on company directorships, as envisaged by amendment 93, should go much further.

Clause 33 extends the provisions of clause 32 to sectors other than companies—for example, building societies—and clauses 34 and 35 extend the same provisions to Northern Ireland. We support those clauses and, of course, amendment 83, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking.

At various points in recent years Ministers have outlined a number of specific proposals, which now appear to have fallen by the wayside. It seems reasonable to expect that all companies should have at least one director who is an actual human being. We do not have to be experts to intuit how easy it is to abuse the existing system, which allows a company to name another company as its director provided that at least one human being is on its board. In the Government’s own words in a 2021 consultation paper:

“Evidence suggests that the use of corporate directors can muddy the waters around ownership and provide a screen behind which to conduct illicit activity…More generally the opacity they create can weaken corporate governance by preventing individual accountability.”

The Government even went so far as legislating in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 to enable the Secretary of State to impose a ban on corporate directors. After more than seven years, however, regulations to implement that have yet to be published. In fact, clause 37—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston will speak shortly—makes some changes to the relevant section of the 2015 Act. The apparent intent of the changes, which is to make it easier for corporate directors to be held to account for their action, is certainly welcome, but what is not clear to Opposition Members is why the Government have decided to amend the primary legislation—namely, the 2015 Act—when, as we understand it, the secondary legislation to implement the ban on corporate directorships under that Act has still to be introduced. Perhaps the Minister will shed some light on that.

Another glaring omission is the issue of nominee directorships. As long ago as 2013, the Government raised that as an issue that company law reform should deal with. Again, the Government’s own words provide us with a useful summary of the problem:

“Where a company is being used to facilitate criminal activity, the individuals who really control the way that the company is run will likely want to avoid making this information public. They may use ‘nominee directors’ to do this. Nominee directors are individuals who go on the public record as the director of the company to be, effectively, a ‘straw man’ or ‘front man’ for the company. The beneficial owner ‘stands behind’ the nominee and controls the way that the company is run”,

de facto. The failure to address that in legislation remains a cause for serious concern.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am not sure I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Irrespective of who the directors are, if people of significant control are exerting such influence, they will have to be named and have their ID verified under the Bill.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My understanding is that the regulations under the 2015 Act have not yet been put in place. Our question is: why are the Government not implementing those regulations but instead seeking to introduce the provisions in the Bill? That is simply a point for clarification and explanation. We welcome the fact that ID verification is provided for, but we are trying to get to the bottom of who a nominee director is and who actually controls a company. It would be useful to understand what happened between 2015 and 2022 to prevent the implementation of the regulations.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Two separate things are going on. The Bill enables regulations to ban corporate directorships unless the corporation itself has all its directors named and they are all actual persons and ID-verified. It will do exactly that. The other point that I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about is people who sit behind companies and influence them but might not be named in those companies. If people do that, they are persons of significant control; under the definitions in the Bill, someone does not have to own 25% of the shares of a company to be a person of significant control, but they have to be named and ID-verified.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

rose—

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will stand up and then allow my right hon. Friend to intervene.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

As I understand it, if the owner of a company is an opaque company in the British Virgin Islands or another one of our tax havens, the ability to get behind that and see the person of significant control is pretty nigh impossible, so there is still a mechanism there. People could intentionally set up a company in the UK that is totally owned by a company established in the BVI. That information is not currently on the public register, although we are anxiously waiting for it to be so in 2023. There is no way of getting the persons of significant control verified, because it is outside our control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will now stand up and allow the Minister to intervene on me.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There are two separate things going on here: ownership and directors. We were talking about directors, and the right hon. Lady is now talking about ownership, which is a slightly different thing, but we will talk later about ownership and how that information has to be made public under this legislation.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister; I think he has just provided clarification that he is confident that there is now a ban on the use of nominee directors as a front to obscure true beneficial ownership. We are grateful for that absolute reassurance. There was perhaps a misunderstanding on our side of some of the technicalities in the Bill that I am seeking to probe, so I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.

It is worth noting that the World Bank published a report just a few months ago that explained how, under current UK law, nominee directors of UK companies can neglect their duties by failing to submit accounts and certify companies as dormant, even though tens of millions of pounds are passing through those accounts. A crucial point is that the impunity of delinquent nominee directors is especially pronounced if such nominees are not UK residents. On the rare occasions that they are questioned, such directors tend to make the legally false argument that because they are only nominees they have no responsibility to know anything about the company, let alone control its actions.

The lack of progress on this issue—certainly until the Bill’s introduction—has raised concerns with us. Again, perhaps the Minister will say a little more about the Government’s thinking. What does he think has been the impact of not implementing the regulations from the 2015 Act? Can he reassure us with absolute confidence that the issue of delinquent nominee directors will be eradicated by the passing of the Bill?

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a really important point about nominee directors. Is he aware of a “File on 4” programme —I believe it was aired last year—about nominee directors being recruited via Facebook groups and paid to take on that role? Is he concerned that it may still be possible to do that? Does the Bill need to do more to clamp down on the recruitment of nominee directors who get some money for taking on that role?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point and illustrates the absurdity of the situation we have got into. There seems to be a “wild west” approach to running corporate affairs in the UK and it is simply not acceptable. I thank her for that intervention and reiterate my hope that the Minister can give us an absolute reassurance that the issue of nominee directorships will be dealt with firmly and clearly in the Bill, without any loopholes. I also hope he will share any other thoughts he may have on the matter.

[Liam Byrne]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am sorry that I have not checked the sartorial guidance for the Committee, but I assume it is okay for me to speak without a jacket on. I defer to the Chair if she wants me to clothe myself more adequately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not think this is a case of micromanagement, and nor are we asking for hundreds of things. We are making a specific request, based on specific research. I think an automatic alert could be triggered, and perhaps the Minister—

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will my hon. Friend give way just on that point?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady is intervening on me.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Sorry. Good point, well made.

[Seema Malhotra]

I will just finish my point. Should the registrar be watching this debate and decide that an automatic alert is a good idea, does the Minister agree that the power of information sharing would enable the registrar to consult the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation and the National Crime Agency should a relevant change have occurred in the previous three months?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I have already said, such information-sharing is exactly what the Bill facilitates. It may well be that Companies House decides that that is exactly the right trigger to share information with the OFSI. Our view is that we should not direct Companies House in that level of detail as to how the registrar should perform her wider duty. We will continue to disagree on that point if the hon. Lady presses her amendment.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene where I should have done in the first place. On the quantum that we are considering, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has just said, 1,200 individuals and 120 businesses have been sanctioned since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We are not talking about a huge number. Perhaps the terms of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking could be more tightly drawn to make it clear that it is not about every movement of assets and everything a company has done, but simply designed to ensure that if there was a change of director or change of address, the registrar should share that information with the other relevant agencies. The quantum is quite small, so would the Minister consider that proposal?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think we need to move on, and I think the hon. Gentleman is missing the point as well. This is not about my deciding whether the proposal is right or wrong, or whether Companies House has or has not got the resources. For me, it should have the resources that it needs. However, it is for the organisation itself to determine the best way to alert other authorities to the risk. That is the principle at issue here, and it is one to which I will strongly adhere.

The argument about enablers has been well made, and we have referred to corporate criminal liability and the failure to prevent that. As the Committee is aware, I have been a key advocate in introducing such liability for fraud and other offences. Members may have noted the details of a case this morning, in which the current offence of failing to prevent bribery was a key element in the case against Glencore, which has pleaded guilty to that offence. The Serious Fraud Office launched a successful prosecution against Glencore and, although the number of times it has proceeded against a company is far too few, that prosecution shows that the current legislation can be effective. I am keen to discuss that further in our proceedings.

On travel bans and securities, Committee members might find it useful to sit down with officials to discuss those measures, so that they then understand why those things might not mean that a person is not a fit and proper individual to be a director of a company. I would be happy to extend that opportunity to members of the Committee.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central spoke about nominee directors and associated abuses. Under the terms of the Bill, any director, nominee or otherwise, who acts outside the terms of the legislation and is subject to the control of another undisclosed person could be put in jail for two years. That is exactly what we are seeking to do and to clamp down on such inappropriate use of companies.

In terms of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said—is it right hon. or hon?

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Sixth sitting)

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 14, page 8, line 11, leave out “at least” and insert “no more than”.

This amendment, and Amendments 88 to 93 would require that, when a company is ordered to change its name under the provisions of this Bill (including in cases where the name is considered misleading or it may facilitate criminal activity) the company must comply with the order within 28 days. This requirement would replace the Bill’s provision to provide the company with a potentially unlimited period of time to comply with the order.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 72, in clause 14, page 8, line 16, at end insert—

“(2C) The Secretary of State must publish the use of any such direction as set out in subsection (2B) on the registrar’s website.”

This amendment would add a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish any extension of the period of compliance set out in subsection (2B) on the Companies House website.

Amendment 88, in clause 14, page 8, line 19, leave out “at least” and insert “no more than”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 87.

Amendment 89, in clause 14, page 8, line 23, leave out “at least” and insert “no more than”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 87.

Amendment 90, in clause 14, page 8, line 29, leave out “at least” and insert “no more than”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 87.

Amendment 73, in clause 14, page 8, line 34, at end insert—

“(3B) The Secretary of State must publish the use of any such direction as set out in subsection (5)(a)(3) on the registrar’s website.”

This amendment would add a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish any extension of the period of compliance set out in subsection (5) on the Companies House website.

Clauses 14 to 16 stand part.

Amendment 91, in clause 17, page 10, line 5, leave out “at least” and insert “no more than”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 87.

Amendment 74, in clause 17, page 10, line 10, at end insert—

“(The Secretary of State must publish the use of any such direction as set out in subsection (4) on the registrar’s website.”

This amendment would add a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish any extension of the period of compliance set out in subsection (3) on the Companies House website.

Clause 17 stand part.

Amendment 92, in clause 18, page 11, line 13, leave out “at least” and insert “no more than”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 87.

Amendment 75, in clause 18, page 11, line 18, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must publish the use of any such direction as set out in subsection (4) on the registrar’s website.”

This amendment would add a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish any extension of the period of compliance on the Companies House website.

Clauses 18 to 26 stand part.

Amendment 76, in clause 27, page 16, line 19, after “person” insert—

“and published on the registrar’s website”.

This amendment would add a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish any written notice of exception based on the national security etc. on the Companies House website.

Clause 27 stand part.

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell.

I add to the comments of my right hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, to his place. Over the past few weeks and months, it has been a bit difficult to keep track of who is going where and of the blizzard of appointments. His appointment in particular stood out as a very wise decision by the Prime Minister. We very much look forward to working with the Minister on the Bill and on other issues.

I must add that I am looking forward to working with my colleague the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. We will work together on the Bill, but I represent the shadow Home Affairs team, looking at the issues through the lens of security, which is so important to our country and is very much the other side of the coin from the economic resilience issue that we are also exploring.

I will speak to clauses 14 to 28 and the amendments to them. Economic crime has a devastating impact on an individual level for our constituents and businesses, and at a national level for our national security and economic resilience.

[The Chair]

Order. May I say that clause 28 stand part will be a separate debate? I remind the hon. Gentleman that in this group, we are debating up to clause 27 stand part.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Up to and including clause 27, finishing, and then moving on to clause 28. Thank you for that clarification, Ms Bardell.

The National Crime Agency estimates that £100 billion of dirty money flows through the UK every year and that fraud is causing £190 billion of damage to our economy. According to PwC, 64% of businesses have experienced fraud, corruption, or other economic or financial crime within the past two years, which is up from 50% only four years ago.

The Labour party believes in stronger action to defend our national interest, our economy and our national security from the organised criminals, fraudsters, corrupt oligarchs and kleptocrats. Indeed, as the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said on Second Reading:

“Ours is a country that has long prided itself on the rule of law and on strong economic institutions, which is what traditionally made it a good place in which to invest, but that is being undermined by economic crime”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 291.]

It is also being undermined by the illicit money flowing through what many call “Londongrad”. As much as that brings shame, it should also bring pride that we are coming together as parliamentarians to debate and scrutinise this important Bill.

We support the Bill, but the devil is in the detail. With 250 pages, a huge amount of detail needs extensive discussion. Part 1 is critical, because it aims to get to the crux of one of the major barriers to tackling economic crime. That problem is the underfunding, lack of regulation and lack of teeth at the heart of Companies House.

Clauses 9 to 22 cover legislation on changes to company names. I have moved amendment 87 and tabled amendments 72, 88 to 90, and 73 to clause 14, as well as amendment 91 to clause 17 and amendment 92 to clause 18. We are surprised that the Bill states that when a company is directed to change its name under the Companies Act 2006, including in cases where the name is considered misleading or might facilitate criminal activity, that company must comply with the direction in “at least 28 days”. That requirement would replace the provision to provide the company with a potentially unlimited period of time to comply with the order. In a moment, I will pause to allow the Minister to clarify whether that provision is deliberate, because it appears to be both rather confusing and rather too generous. Surely, it should say that the company must comply with the order within 28 days. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve—as opposed to “at least” 28 days, it must be within 28 days.

The Bill includes lengthy provisions on company names, and sets out how and for what reason a company may be required to change its registered name. The aim of those provisions is to enable companies’ names to be prohibited in cases where they may be intended to facilitate dishonesty, deception or another criminal offence. Although that aim is laudable, there appears to be a disconnect between the seriousness of the offences that the Government are seeking to prevent, and the lengthy periods of time that Ministers are prepared to allow for a company to comply with an order to change its name.

Given that such an order will generally be made only when a Minister has identified a clear risk of harm in relation to a company’s name—including a risk of fraudulent or other serious criminal activity—it is hard to understand why a company would then be given potentially limitless timeframes to comply with that order. The Opposition believe there should be, at the very least, a time limit on orders to change a name believed to be intended to deceive the public of the company’s true purpose. Companies that fail to comply with such an order within a reasonable period of time, and a 28-day limit seems reasonable to us, should also be penalised if they cannot provide a good reason for any delay or refusal to comply. I am happy to pause here if there is anything that the Minister would like to clarify.

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

I am happy to do that. The issue is in the drafting. I had to read this on a number of occasions and speak to officials before I got my head around it, but the provision achieves the purpose that the hon. Gentleman sets out. Clause 14(5)(2) states:

“The direction must be in writing and must specify the period within which the company is to change its name.”

It is a fixed period of time. It sets out the ability to give a company more time in certain circumstances, but the intention is to do exactly as the hon. Gentleman wants: a company has 28 days to comply. It will be told how long it has to comply, and that may well be 28 days.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that response. As he pointed out, he had to read the provision several times in order to be clear on the drafting. Clause 14 (5)(3) says:

“The period must be a period of at least 28 days”.

Our intention is to make it clear that it has to happen within 28 days. There is a clear difference between “at least” and “within”. “At least” gives the impression that a company could have an unlimited period of time beyond those 28 days, whereas if we clearly state that it must happen within 28 days, then there is no room for doubt whatsoever. Would the Minister like to come back to me on that?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Again, if the hon. Gentleman reads that in the context of clause 14(5)(2), he will understand that it is a fixed period of time. That is what companies will be given.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Maybe the Minister and I are just not seeing it through the same lens. I agree that there should be a fixed period, but I think it should be clearly defined that the fixed period must be a maximum of 28 days. Does the Minister think that the Bill as drafted makes that clear?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The point is there may well be valid circumstances where a company might take longer than 28 days, for example if it needs to seek a resolution from its shareholders or directors. In those cases, a company might then apply to Companies House or the Secretary of State to extend that time period. That is where the “at least” comes in, and it must be seen in the context of the “within”. Listen, I am not a lawyer. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. The lawyers have chosen to draft the legislation in this way. I do think it serves the purpose, but I can understand why the hon. Gentleman is seeking clarification.

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

You are absolutely right to keep us in line, Ms Bardell. We need to ensure we can operationalise the Bill in the clearest and most succinct way that leaves absolutely no room for doubt. The Bill is designed to regulate a sector of the economy that is like water; if it can find cracks to slip through, it will find them. We are trying to close those loopholes.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am bewildered. The Minister may be too. Proposed new subsection (4A) in clause 14(5)(b) sets out that an application must be made “within the period of three weeks”. Obviously the lawyers do not think it is bad to put “within a period of three weeks” in that particular context. If someone says “at least”, that is a minimum, not a maximum. At least is a minimum. I cannot think that a lawyer would not have common sense about it. Perhaps the Minister wants to go away, reflect on this and move an amendment later. I do not believe lawyers are quite that removed from reality and common sense. It literally says in that clause “made within”. The lawyers do not mind using that term sometimes, so why can they not use it always?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.

Moving on to clauses 15 to 22, we are content with clause 15, which would allow for objections based on the company name being misleading outside the UK and for the shareholders and directors of said company to be joined as respondents or defenders in the claim. In their February 2022 White Paper, the Government explained the rationale for expanding the grounds for objections to be made to a company’s name. It was broadly accepted that the current restrictions, for instance on names that imply a link to the UK Government, were too narrowly drawn.

Responses to the consultation reflected widespread concern about the impact company names that are clearly deliberately misleading might have on legitimate businesses in cases where rogue companies try to suggest they have a connection to a well-known business and thus benefit from wider public recognition of, and perhaps even loyalty to, an established brand. Such appropriation of company names is now understood as a means of scamming would-be investors out of their money. Earlier this year, for example, there were high-profile reports of a scam involving a company calling itself Diageo Partners Ltd. It attempted to solicit an investment by presenting itself as an arm of the well-known drinks company of that name. Another case flagged by the Financial Conduct Authority in January involved similar attempts by scammers to link themselves with the financial institution Wells Fargo.

Clause 15 is a welcome recognition of those issues and should go some way toward addressing them. However, many legitimate companies that raise objections via the Company Names Tribunal are currently facing delays of three months or more before they can get a decision. I wonder whether the Minister could explain what steps the Government will take to help speed up the Company Names Tribunal process and ensure that fraudulent company names are corrected as quickly as possible.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points in my full response. There are some amendments we have tabled that address his exact points, and I would like to speak to those in detail.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Excellent.

We support clause 16, which gives extra powers to the Secretary of State to direct a company to change its name only if he or she deems it to be as little as “a risk of harm” and makes it clear that harm can apply outside the UK. However, in clauses 15 and 16, the Bill seeks to broaden the scope of misleading or otherwise harmful effect, which can be used as grounds to require a change of name. The provisions cover the potential for a misleading company name to cause harm in any part of the world, not just in the UK, and that is surely welcome recognition of the reality of today’s landscape of online fraud. Clearly, scammers and fraudsters have no respect for national borders and it is right that a UK company that is causing or attempting to cause harm in another country should be subject to enforcement actions requiring it to stop. The wording used in clause 16 and elsewhere, referring to actions that pose a risk of harm to the public, is exceptionally broad. Will the Minister expand on how that definition might be given greater clarity and, indeed, clearer definition? Will he provide some practical examples of how those powers might be used? I look forward to his insights.

Clause 18 introduces a procedure that allows the Secretary of State to direct a company to change its name where the name breaches the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, including as amended by the Bill. Failure to comply would be a criminal offence by the company and all responsible officers. The provisions in clause 20 would empower the registrar forcibly to change the name of the company if the company does not do so. That all sounds eminently sensible and we support the measures.

We support clause 21, which makes consequential amendments to the new powers to change a company name under the Bill, for example, because it contains computer code. That requires the registrar to replace the old name with the new one on the register. We also support clause 22, which provides for the Secretary of State to allow company names that are otherwise prohibited where considered necessary for national security or to prevent or detect serious crime.

While the previous clauses refer to company names, clauses 23 to 27 refer to a company’s trading name or business name, which can be different from the company name registered with Companies House. Business or trading names do not need to be registered with Companies House, but they need to adhere to the general restrictions listed in part 41 of the Companies Act 2006.

Clauses 23, 24 and 27 make similar changes to trading names as clauses 10, 16 and 22 in respect of company names. We have no objections there, although my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston might wish to speak to her amendment to clause 27 shortly. Clause 25 prohibits a company from using a business or trading name that is the same as a company name that it has been ordered to change. Continuing to use a trading name in such circumstances amounts to a criminal offence by the company and every responsible officer. Clause 26 states that where a company has been ordered to change its name, it is a criminal offence for an officer or shareholder of that company, with some exceptions, to use that company’s name as the business name for another company. We recognise the sound reasoning behind each of those clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I apologise. I will not do it again.

Clause 15 makes a set of changes in how objections to a company name are to be considered by the company names adjudicator, established under section 70 of the Companies Act 2006. In cases brought before the adjudicator under section 69 of the Act, the company complaining over another’s misuse of a name is known as the applicant, and the counterparty to that complaint is the respondent. Clause 15 amends section 69 in several ways. First, in recognising that the activities of companies registered in the UK are not constrained by our borders, it removes the geographic scope of complaints that the adjudicator can consider. That allows the adjudicator to consider the ability of a company name to mislead members of the public in jurisdictions other than the UK.

Secondly, the clause plugs a loophole in the existing legislation that allows directors of respondent companies to resign their position to avoid being joined alongside the company itself in the adjudication proceedings. Finally, at present it is the case that unless it can be demonstrated that the respondent registered a name in order to obtain money from the applicant, an application must be dismissed if the respondent has begun trading under the name or has incurred substantial start-up costs. That defence will no longer be available.

Clause 16 amends the Companies Act to lower the bar in terms of the harm test. Currently, section 76 of the Act allows the Secretary of State to direct a company to change its name if, in his opinion, the name gives such a misleading indication of its activities that it is likely to cause harm to members of the public. In future, the Secretary of State will form a view on the basis of whether the name poses a risk of harm, instead of considering whether the name is likely to cause harm, thus giving the Secretary of State greater discretion in the exercise of that power. The clause also clarifies that the potential harm at issue need not manifest itself in the UK alone, but might do so anywhere in the world.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The issue with clause 16 is the term

“pose a risk of harm to the public”,

which seems to be very broad. Can he expand on how that risk might be more clearly defined? Can he give a practical example of how the proposed powers might be used?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If I may, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that point once I have some information on it from my officials.

Clause 17 will give the Secretary of State the ability to direct a change of a company name where, in his view, it has been used, or is intended to be used, to facilitate the commission of an offence involving dishonesty or deception, such as fraud.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Briefly on clause 17, I would just like to mark the card because, again, there is an issue with the use of the phrase:

“The period must be a period of at least 28 days”

in proposed new section 76A(3) of the Companies Act. I suggest that that phrase should be replaced with “This period must be a period of no more than 28 days, beginning with the date of direction”, because I think it would be so much clearer and tighter.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come to that, but the hon. Gentleman’s solution to that does not give any discretion should a company need more time. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is the reason why the clause is drafted in that way, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point before the end of my remarks.

The ability to direct a change of a company name recognises that there may already be some companies, among the 4.5 million or so companies already on the register, with names that are facilitating criminal conduct or have the ability to do so. In order to address those instances that may come to the Secretary of State’s attention, the clause will give him the ability to direct a company to change its name. The clause also sets time frames for compliance, penalties and methods of appeal.

I turn now to clause 18, which gives the Secretary of State the ability to direct the change of any company name already on the register of companies that appears to them to contravene any requirement of part 5 of the Companies Act 2006. The Secretary of State can also direct a change of name if, at the time of registration, they had proper grounds for forming an opinion on whether the name was in itself an offence or was offensive, being used for criminal purposes or contained computer code. Without the ability to take action to address such names once incorporated, undesirable impacts can go unchecked. A consequential amendment applies this section to provision on overseas companies.

Clause 19 complements clause 11 of the Bill. Clause 11 makes it unlawful for a company to be registered with a name that contains or comprises computer code. Clause 19 addresses the possibility that computer code lurks among the names of the 4.5 million or so companies already on the register, empowering the registrar to determine a new name.

Clause 20 provides the registrar with the power, by her own action, to change a company’s name where it has not followed a direction to do that itself. Where she does so, she must inform the company and annotate the register accordingly.

Clause 21 makes a consequential amendment related to the administrative aspects of the company name-changing powers contained within the Bill, specifically the duty of the registrar to issue a new certificate of incorporation following a change of a company’s name.

Clause 22 introduces a section into part 5 of the Companies Act that gives the Secretary of State discretion to disapply any prohibition on naming a company or operating under a company name where, in his view, that is justified in the interests of national security or for the purposes of preventing serious crime. On the point about the exercise of national security, commitments to transparency on security exemptions might well by their nature defeat the purpose of the exemption’s use.

I turn now to amendments 87 to 92, tabled by the hon. Members for Aberavon and for Feltham and Heston. The amendments concern clauses 14, 17 and 18, which I have just taken Members through. I thank the hon. Members for the amendments, as they have helpfully highlighted a gap in the Bill. We acted on that yesterday by tabling amendments that address the issue and, I hope, resolve it, albeit in a different way. I refer hon. Members to new clause 34, which effectively allows the registrar to instantly suspend the material on the register referring to the name. In that way, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a new range of powers to direct companies to change their names that supplement and strengthen the existing powers under the Companies Act. [Interruption.] That is on page 65 of today’s amendment paper.

In respect of the existing provisions, it is at the Secretary of State’s discretion to determine the period within which a company must comply with directions. Clause 14 of the Bill seeks to regularise that period across both existing and new direction provisions in part 5 of the Companies Act. That period would be a minimum of 28 days from the date of direction. These amendments seek to make the period no more than 28 days.

I have sympathy with the view that companies should not be afforded longer than necessary to take the steps to comply with a direction. I would, however, draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, in respect of the new classes of prohibited name, the Bill is drafted to provide the registrar with the discretion to remove the name of the subject of the direction from the publicly accessible register where a direction has been issued. I assure hon. Members that where there is potential for harm to be caused, the registrar will exercise that discretion and, therefore, the harm will cease at the point the direction is issued, regardless of the length of the compliance period.

Where a name is removed from the register, it would normally be replaced with a company registration number. I anticipate that we will legislate in secondary legislation for the registrar to annotate the register, explaining that the name had been changed because it was the subject of a direction. The Opposition’s amendments have highlighted that the suppression capability is not at present available to the registrar in all circumstances where a direction might have been issued. The Government amendments will ensure that in future it will be. Members can see those amendments in the amendment paper and will have the chance to debate them in a future sitting.

Clauses 23 to 27 comprise a chapter on business names. Clause 23 mimics clause 10, which I explained earlier, in the context of the use of business names in the UK. It builds on existing safeguards in part 41 of the Companies Act 2006, which makes it an offence for a person to carry on business that gives the impression of a connection with the UK Government and public authorities. The clause supports that framework by making an amendment to the 2006 Act that provides safeguards in the international sphere. The clause also contains the same safeguards for those conducting business with legitimate connections.

Clause 24 amends section 1198 of the 2006 Act to lower the threshold for the likelihood of harm required to satisfy the legal test. Currently, it is an offence for a person to carry on business in the UK under a name that gives such a misleading indication of activities that it is likely to cause harm to members of the public. In future, the offence will be based on whether the name poses a risk of harm to the public.

Clause 25 closes a loophole in existing legislation. At present, there is nothing to prevent a company that is the subject of a direction or order from carrying on business in the name that it has been directed or ordered to change. The clause makes it an offence to do so. There are exceptions to that where the period for complying with the direction or order has not passed, where the company has since been registered with the name following approval under proposed new section 57B of the 2006 Act, or where the direction or order was given before the clause commences.

Clause 26 introduces a proposed new section in the 2006 Act and builds on what is done in clause 25. Clause 26 makes it an offence for a company to carry on business in the UK under a name that another company has been directed or ordered to change where both companies share, or have shared, the same officers or shareholders.

Clause 27, the final clause in the group, introduces a proposed new section in the 2006 Act and gives the Secretary of State discretion to disapply any restriction or prohibition on carrying on business under a name, if it is in the interests of national security or for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime. Where such discretion is exercised, the Secretary of State must give written notice of confirmation to any relevant person. It is necessary that sufficient flexibilities exist in all areas to take the steps most appropriate to safeguard security and target serious crime.

Amendments 72 to 76 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish details of instances where he had extended the deadline for companies to comply with directions that he had issued to them to change their company name. I am not sure, however, that it would achieve what the Opposition really intend it to. It is of course always dangerous to make assumptions, but I suspect that what those who have tabled the amendment really want is for information to be published about each and every direction that the Secretary of State has issued, and that is not what it would do. I reassure hon. Members that we will consider how that information might best be made available—potentially, for example, through annotations of the companies register, which would of course be available to view through the Companies House online service.

I thank Members for their patience. I have taken them through a technical but important part of the Bill. I hope that they will appreciate that their amendments perhaps do not have the desired effect, particularly taking into account the Government amendments that have been tabled.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for coming back in such detail on our points. We certainly look forward to studying new clause 34. We have not really had an opportunity to look at it yet, but it is great to see that the Minister and his team have taken our amendments on board and come up with something that will hopefully enable us to find common ground.

I want to make two additional points. The first goes back over the ground of “at least” versus “within” debate. I spoke earlier about proposed new section 76A(3), on page 10, as introduced by clause 17(4), which says that the period must be a period of “at least” 28 days; our amendment suggests that it should be “no more than” 28 days. The Minister said that making that change would give no leeway to the Secretary of State to be able to override in certain cases. We accept that there are certain cases where further direction is required to extend the period; there may well be extenuating circumstances, and we certainly do not want to create a straitjacket for businesses—we take that point. However, proposed new subsection (4) does precisely that. That is why we should lay out in proposed new subsection (3) that the basic principle is “no more than” 28 days. We have no desire to change the provisions of proposed new subsection (4)—with extenuating circumstances, the Secretary of State should be able to extend the period.

We would be more than happy with that change. It only requires the insertion of “no more than” in proposed new subsection (3), and no change to proposed new subsection (4). That would give the right balance between the need for a basic, tightly defined standard and still having the ability for the Secretary of State to extend the period where required.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said before, I think the Bill achieves the same objective; it might not be with the words of the hon. Gentleman’s choosing, but I think the objective is served by the drafting we have. It may well also be served by the drafting he suggests, but I do not see the point of changing the wording when it already does the same thing.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for that response.

My second point is on clause 15, which considers changing names. As we have said, the clause is a welcome recognition of the issues around name changes and companies using names for fraudulent purposes—trying to give themselves connections to well-known brands and so on. Many legitimate companies that raise objections via the company names tribunal are facing delays of three months or more before they get a decision. I asked whether the Minister could assure us that the Government are alive to the issue. What steps might they be taking to speed that process up?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to. I think we would all acknowledge that, due to various reasons beyond any of our controls, tribunals have fallen behind in the cases they are hearing. I am very happy to look at the timeframes that the hon. Gentleman refers to, as I was not aware of specific issues. The important principle behind the clauses is that they allow the Secretary of State, via Companies House, to bear down very quickly when there is the risk of harm to individuals, companies or others.

[Stephen Kinnock]

In the light of the fact that new clause 34 has been tabled, which we have not yet had the opportunity to study, we will not press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston wish to move any of the other amendments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 28, page 17, line 14, at end insert—

“(2A) An address is not an ‘appropriate address’ if—

(a) it is not a place where the business of the company is regularly carried out;

(b) the registrar, upon inspection, has reasonable grounds to suspect that the company does not have permission to use the address; or

(c) it is a PO Box address.

(2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for exceptions to subsection (2A) above; and

(b) for the registrar to exercise discretion to disapply subsection (2A) in exceptional cases.”

This amendment seeks to clarify the Bill’s definition of an “appropriate address” for a company’s registration.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 94, in clause 28, page 17, line 32, at end insert—

“(4A) After section 87, insert—

‘87A  Duty of the registrar to verify appropriateness of address of registered office

(1) This section applies where the registrar has received—

(a) a statement of the intended address of a company’s registered office (under section 9(5)(a)), or

(b) notice of change of address of a registered office of a company (under section 87(1)).

(2) The registrar must assess the risk that the company is involved in economic crime.

(3) If following the assessment required by subsection (2) the registrar considers that there is a real risk that the company is involved in economic crime, the registrar must—

(a) take steps to determine whether the address which has been supplied is an appropriate address within the meaning of section 86(2), and

(b) refer the matter to the relevant law enforcement agency.’”

Clause 28 stand part.

Clause 29 stand part.

[Stephen Kinnock]

This important amendment seeks to clarify the Bill’s definition of an appropriate address for a company’s registration. We have talked many times, both in this Committee and elsewhere, about red flags in company formation and registration. It must be an overriding aim of the Bill to ensure that any indicators of suspicious activity can be swiftly and easily identified in order to ensure that the appropriate investigations and, where necessary, enforcement actions are carried out at the earliest possible opportunity.

One thing is glaringly obvious from the many recent reports on how criminals are able to exploit weaknesses in the company registration system. The widespread, unchecked use of false addresses for criminal purposes is surely one of the most urgent problems for the Bill to address. In evidence to the Committee last week, there was a high degree of consensus from all our witnesses that the fraudulent use of addresses is among the most serious problem within the current register.

Bill Browder provided a cogent summary of the issue. I will not quote him in his New York accent, but I am sure you can imagine it. He said,

“This whole post-box idea just lends itself to anonymity and so on. Why do people not just register their companies at their own home or their own business address if there is a legit company? What is this business with 2,000 companies in one strange industrial park in Glasgow?”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 74, Q152.]

Though all due respect to SNP colleagues—I am quoting, Ms Bardell, please don’t shoot the messenger!

It is now a well-established fact that there can be hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of different companies registered to a single address. It is hard to think of a more obvious red flag. Ensuring that Companies House can more quickly and easily identify and investigate specific addresses used illegitimately by multiple companies is a vital prerequisite for better enforcement of laws on economic crime.

There are other fairly basic steps that the Government could take to tighten up rules on the kinds of addresses companies can provide as part of the registration process. Amendment 86 provides some specific examples of how that could be done. We hope that the amendment can serve as a starting point for efforts to ensure a much more rigorous set of registration requirements than those currently in place. An obvious place to start is to tackle the apparent overuse of PO box addresses. They have been linked with fraud and other criminal activity in several high-profile cases highlighted in recent media reports.

The FinCEN files also provide evidence of the scale of the problem in the UK. In its February 2022 report on economic crime, the Treasury Committee also described how PO boxes provide many criminal enterprises with a highly convenient way to establish a front for illicit activities while making detection and tracing of those involved much more of a challenge for law enforcement. Amendment 86 would seek to tackle the issue by establishing a general presumption against allowing companies to designate PO box addresses when registering, while leaving open the possibility for exceptions to be made in some cases where there may be legitimate reasons to do so.

Our amendment also goes further by introducing a general requirement for companies to provide a UK address where it actually conducts its business on a regular basis. The absence of such a requirement under the current rules makes it much easier to obscure the true purpose of a company and much harder for law enforcement to trace that and control it.

In part 2 of the Bill, the Government are seeking to strengthen requirements for limited partnerships to provide an address that is its principal place of business in the UK. The Opposition welcome that approach and believe that it could and should be applied more broadly. Therefore, amendment 86 proposes that the address requirement for all companies should be brought closer in line with those of limited partnerships under part 2, as proposed by the Government.

The amendments are all designed with our shared aims and values at heart. I hope that the Minister will take time to reflect and consider their worth.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberavon, and that tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking, because a lot more needs to be done to regulate what is an appropriate address and to verify it in the real world.

In his evidence, Graham Barrow mentioned a 92-year-old gentleman whose name has just been used by scammers for a second time. People fraudulently use names and addresses that belong to real people to set up companies and those people have no idea that their names have been abused. Graham Barrow also highlighted a piece on “You and Yours” on Radio 4 where a lady who had had Asda Limited registered to her terraced house in Huddersfield received 7 kg of post, and all kinds of other threats from bailiffs and others who turned up at her door. That goes to show how the current system is not working. I seek to be reassured by the Minister that the proposed clauses will be sufficient to deal with the problem.

Over many years I have been familiar with problems associated with Scottish limited partnerships—SLPs. The Ferret reported in October 2021 about a company named The Edinburgh Office—a company formation, agent-type of business—which had registered 2,000 companies at their registered address of 101 Rose Street South Lane in Edinburgh—there are no such things in Glasgow, obviously, but these things happen in Edinburgh. Perhaps they do not happen in Aberavon, but they happen in many, many places around the country. Such companies hide behind mailbox addresses. Many of them were at best iffy, others involved outright criminality and all kinds of nefarious activities.

There was a photograph in The Ferret article—I cannot pass it on to include in Hansard—which showed a boarded-up building. That should be a red flag: 2,000 companies registered to a boarded-up building that does not look like a working building at all, but those companies were allowed to carry on their business. I do not know whether the clauses will make a real difference and people will be empowered to check whether those addresses exist in the real world and are being used.

There is also the issue of companies abusing actual companies’ real addresses too. David Leask and Richard Smith, who have been excellent investigative journalists, taking Scottish limited partnerships to task for many years, reported in The Times back in April this year that an SLP in the name of Alexey Krapivin called Clover Consulting Partners gave its listed address as that of the Edinburgh legal firm Burness Paull. Burness Paull said that it knew nothing about it. Clearly, it had been receiving mail, so I do not know the extent to which it checks such things, after receiving mail for a company that does not exist. In any event, it ceased to offer services for company formation to companies of that kind back in 2018.

This company had been using Burness Paull’s address with absolute impunity, and it was not new to dodging the Companies House rules. The company was formed in 2005 and made no meaningful filings to Companies House until it was forced to register a person of significant control in 2017. That was 12 years of non-compliance with the existing Companies House rules, yet there was no comeback on that. I seek from the Minister provisions in the clauses around enforcement, which is not happening under the current rules. I need to be convinced by him that it will happen under the rules that he is laying out.

The clauses talk about fines on a standard scale, and all those kinds of things. Those fines are not even being issued. I have asked parliamentary questions about that. Since the rules came into force only one Scottish limited partnership has been fined for failing to register a person of significant control, and that fine was £210—nothing, in the scheme of things. I ask the Minister whether the rules will be enforced. Will addresses be checked, to ensure that they are real businesses, carrying out real work, with real companies and real people? If not, will he accept the amendment, which goes some way to ensuring that the companies exist at the addresses that they say they do. Without boots on the ground to check such things, it does not matter whether we set it up in Aberavon, Glasgow or Edinburgh; nobody will know that it is not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Gentleman may think a duty to check 4.5 million addresses is proportionate. I think it would be disproportionate. The vast majority of those addresses are bona fide addresses of bona fide companies. We have to take a risk-based approach; I think we would both agree on that.

The right hon. Gentleman returns to resources. We have already had a long debate on resources. He knows that I agree that the registrar, and the law enforcement agencies for that matter, must have sufficient resources to ensure that the registration of persons of significant control is undertaken. That body of work is ongoing now with Companies House.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Would the Minister consider a PO box address to be an appropriate address—yes or no?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

No, and I will come to that point shortly.

Clause 29 provides an important new power for the registrar to deal effectively with those abusing our systems. As we have discussed and all agree, for too long criminals have acted with impunity, providing fraudulent addresses for companies set up deliberately to scam people, many of them vulnerable. We know the distress and inconvenience that can cause to many constituents, including when bailiffs arrive at the door in connection with a matter with which that person has no connection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am very happy to do that. I think we all want the same thing. All we are trying to do is find the best way of doing it. I will be pressing this amendment to a vote, I am afraid. My warning to the Minister is that if he does not do the work in this area, he will find that he has left a very wide loophole, which will be exploited by those who want to use us as a destination for illicit finance.

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is difficult for me to match what my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking has so eloquently said and what other colleagues have said. I think we need to reinforce the point that we need somewhere in the Bill a very clear indication that it is the duty of the registrar to conduct risk-based assessments. If not, the Bill will leave a loophole, and we should not allow that to happen. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 94, in clause 28, page 17, line 32, at end insert—

‘(4A) After section 87, insert—

“87A  Duty of the registrar to verify appropriateness of address of registered office

(1) This section applies where the registrar has received—

(a) a statement of the intended address of a company’s registered office (under section 9(5)(a)), or

(b) notice of change of address of a registered office of a company (under section 87(1)).

(2) The registrar must assess the risk that the company is involved in economic crime.

(3) If following the assessment required by subsection (2) the registrar considers that there is a real risk that the company is involved in economic crime, the registrar must—

(a) take steps to determine whether the address which has been supplied is an appropriate address within the meaning of section 86(2), and

(b) refer the matter to the relevant law enforcement agency.”’—(Dame Margaret Hodge.)

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (First sitting)

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Liam Byrne]

Q So you would say to Members of Parliament who are worried about bad people transferring control of an economic asset to proxies that, at the moment, we do not have enough safeguards in the Bill.

Nick Van Benschoten: I think they could be improved, yes.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Q A couple of quick questions from me. First, on resourcing, the Bill puts a number of additional tasks, requirements and responsibilities on Companies House. How would you estimate the gap between where Companies House is now and where it would need to be if it were to properly implement and execute the Bill? Secondly, we have seen that a number of other jurisdictions—the Netherlands and Singapore in particular—have moved further and faster than the UK on data sharing. Do you think the Bill will bring us up to the gold standard for data sharing?

Nick Van Benschoten: Are you addressing the question to me?

[Stephen Kinnock]

To both of you, if you do not mind. It would be good to hear from both of you on both questions.

Nick Van Benschoten: My view is that, in terms of resourcing, there is a lot of new technology. Companies House is quite lucky that it can leapfrog using best practice. We have had a number of meetings with it. I think you may be hearing evidence from Graham Barrow later; we had a roundtable with Graham Barrow, Companies House and some other providers to try to explore this issue. Companies House is quite lucky in that it does not need to be a manual exercise: the goal is to get very much a minority manual review by humans, with the majority being technology and machine learning and so on.

That said, we also did a webinar with a number of data providers, including well-known companies that are looking at the size of the challenge and the opportunities. There is a big difference between quick wins and longer-term investment. Companies House already has a risk engine; it has data analytics already. It is just that its enforcement people, working as hard as they can, have their hands tied behind their back. I think there will be a lot of policy development, and work to implement not just the technology but the way that it interacts with the regime that it wants to set up. It is a challenge, because the short term is a burning platform.

Known patterns of abuse are identified every day. Also, a number of companies may be about to walk off with a lot of stolen public money through bounce back loan scheme fraud, and that is an area where Companies House may or may not have powers. Whatever powers the Bill gives need to be operated at speed. Sorry, that was a roundabout way to get to your question. There are short-term things it can do now, and there is a long-term thing; but it must make sure that it is dealing with the urgent as well as the transformative. We understand that the transformative exercise will take a long time, but there is also need for it to apply more tactical focus around the risks, especially in the short term. What was your second question? Sorry, I forgot it in my enthusiasm.

[Stephen Kinnock]

On data sharing.

Nick Van Benschoten: Each country has its own threats and problems. Singapore’s COSMIC database addresses particular exposures and problems that it has with trade-based money laundering. The UK is in a different place in that market, but we have our own problems. In terms of data-sharing, one of the key things we would like is for Companies House to enable permissioned access to the regulated sector. We have a lot of problems that are not so much in high-end corporate, but in the retail customer base. We have money mules for fraud, we have a lot of spoof companies enabling purchase and investment scams. Trying to work out where exactly the needle is in the haystack is difficult when we do not all have access to the same data.

Companies House seems to be facing a binary choice: either it is public, or it is only for the public sector. There does not seem to be a middle ground that works on a need-to-know basis, where you have an obligation to apply money laundering checks and to have careful, need-to-know handling procedures and anti-tipping off and so on, and where that information is available for the purposes of safeguarding your customer and maintaining the integrity of the market. From a UK perspective, that is definitely something that we would support. We also think it might allow us to develop something equivalent for our own risks, as the Singaporeans and other countries have done.

Gurpreet Manku: We have focused on the limited partnerships provisions in the Bill, but in principle we would support Companies House being appropriately resourced to implement all these changes effectively. I have no objections to data-sharing with relevant authorities. Our investment community operates across the globe, so we are used to this type of activity in other jurisdictions.

[The Chair]

Perhaps two quick final questions. Alison, you wanted to come back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q So crypto is a bad thing, is it? It goes very quick. There is no friction.

Nigel Kirby: Respectfully, I think that is a different question.

You asked me to put my other hat on, Dame Margaret. Looking at the scale of fraud—you know, you have got it here; you are familiar with it—and the number of victims and the cost to the UK, it is time for the UK and those with the power to do so to either think about fraud as a strategic policing requirement or, going even further, ask whether it is now a national security threat. I do not just mean with that label—that is really important. You can put a label on these things, but if it could be classed as a national security threat and have the available resources brought together from our national agencies and national policing, that might have a greater impact for the public.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Thank you, Mr Kirby. You have used terms such as “world-leading” and spoken quite positively about what is happening in the UK. I have to say, as an interested observer, it does not look like that to me. London has generally become known as the laundromat for dirty money, particularly from Russian oligarchs and others. Money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% over the past five years in the UK. In March 2022, the budget of the NCA’s international corruption unit was cut by 13.5% to £4.3 million, leaving corruption investigators massively outgunned by the oligarchs.

I have two questions. First, I am trying to understand why you have this sense of optimism, because it looks like a pretty dire situation to me. Our enforcement agencies have been starved of the resources and capabilities they need. Secondly, you have had a long career in the NCA and in enforcement; I am sure you are still in touch with some of your former colleagues. If you had to define the resources they need, what extra would they need to be able to turn this situation around? It would be great to hear from you on that.

Nigel Kirby: For clarity, I used “world-leading” specifically in reference to private-public partnerships and what we are doing for voluntary information sharing. Look at the joint money laundering intelligence taskforce and the facts in that space: it has supported 950 investigations that have led directly to 280 arrests, with £86 million secured. There are some hard figures around here that are different. When I was in law enforcement, we had law enforcement from other countries coming to ask how we did it, including Singapore and Holland. I am in the private sector now, and we have private sector colleagues coming to ask us how do we do that part. That is just a part of the ecosystem that is important—

[Stephen Kinnock]

Point taken.

Nigel Kirby: If I misled you or you took it that way, that was not intended.

On your question about if I were still there, I am sure that Graeme Biggar, the DG of NCA, will have plans for what that could look like. When I was there, we certainly put forward evidence-based propositions such as, “If there were x amount of funding, these are the extra capabilities we could bring and this is the impact we believe it could have.” I am afraid my contacts are not close enough now to know the detail of that.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Very diplomatically put. Would you agree that the Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on if the enforcement agencies are not properly resourced to do the job?

Nigel Kirby: I fully agree that we need enforcement to be properly resourced with the right capabilities to be able to deliver what it is asked to do.

[Liam Byrne]

Q Just to crystallise this, in your first answer, you described quite a simple layering exercise of money moving through five different banks, and you said that was a difficult problem to stop. Does this Bill help us stop that problem that you just described?

Nigel Kirby: Well, it does not stop that in the UK because our financial system launderers are in there, but what we can do is to prevent them from continuing to abuse the financial system. Take the example I gave with the five other banks—four were sending money—that were involved with Lloyds. The Bill will allow us to have a conversation with the four banks that were sending money into our companies, and to say “In relation to our responsibility for understanding due diligence, money laundering and so on, can we share information on those four companies so we can better understand those flows from those companies?” That is important, because some of them may have been legitimate and some may have been illegitimate, but that will help us to define the good from the bad in that particular space. It will also act as an alert trigger for those other four banks to have a look if they have not done so already.

An intelligence-led approach would say, “Lloyds has a concern about these four companies” and it could look further into the matter and do an investigation into its own relationship with its customer. The other element on all that money that came through to us—it was in the millions—that went out to a fifth bank, which I will call bank F, is that we could alert that bank about our money laundering concerns, provided we had exited those three companies, which we did. If that bank had not already picked it up with its transaction monitoring, it would have an intelligence-led trigger to be able to do its own investigations, and to stop that and report it to the authorities.

The final and important part of this is the indirect part—we call it the utility. The ability to better share this information for others is important because. If all those companies were exited out of the financial system by the five banks involved, it is highly likely that they would go on and open up accounts with other banks. This Bill gives us the opportunity to be alerted to that and to take the appropriate action and due diligence that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. We will go straight into questioning.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Thank you very much. First of all, I have a question for you, Mr Gould. The national fraud policing strategy states that the police’s response to fraud is delivered by local forces, but capability across those forces varies widely. It mentions the regional organised crime units being very limited in their capacity. Do you think that that situation has improved since 2019, when the report was published, and could you say a bit about what extra resources the ROCUs need?

Andy Gould: Sure. Fraud is not really my area of responsibility—I am focused very much on computer misuse act offending—but yes. I know there has been significant additional resource put into the ROCUs for fraud in the last couple of years. Is there enough capacity to meet the demand? Probably not. What policing probably needs to do is take a slightly different approach. Rather than trying to investigate those volume crime offences, it should focus more on those organised crime groups or individuals that are doing the most harm. That is the kind of pivot that policing is trying to make, in terms of being more proactive. I know Commander Adams is giving evidence this afternoon, and he will be able to tell you more about that.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Thank you. I have a question on cryptoassets. Do you think, broadly speaking, that the enforcement agencies have the expertise that they need to deal with the economic crime dimensions of the cryptoassets issue?

Andy Gould: Yes, I do. I think we have got the capability, but what we lack is capacity. The capability we have got today does not necessarily mean we will be able to maintain that capability tomorrow. We have invested, through the national cyber-security strategy and the programme through Government. We have got about an extra £100 million that has been invested over the last four years or so, building capability across policing. Some of that money we have effectively taken into crypto, so that cyber money is being used to cross-subsidise wider policing. We have created what we describe as cryptocurrency tactical advisers across the whole of policing. There are now officers in every force and every regional organised crime unit who are trained and equipped to do that. We have nationally procured the investigative tools to enable them to progress the investigations, and we have a national storage platform to store that once we have seized it.

We are in a position where we have actually seized hundreds of millions of pounds worth of cryptocurrency assets within the last year or so. The challenge we have is that it is getting harder and harder to do. The assets themselves are becoming more diverse and more technically complex, so our officers are in a bit of an arms race trying to keep up.

On the tools that we use, you might have one supplier that is brilliant on Bitcoin but not so good on another asset class, so we need more than one investigative tool to be able to investigate effectively. That is very expensive. One of the providers is currently quoting $60,000 to $80,000 per licence. That is unachievable, or unsustainable, for policing. We need to procure nationally for everybody, so we have an 80% discount on our current investigative tool, taking that approach.

The big worry for me at the moment is not just the technology changes and whether we will be able to maintain that level of resourcing and expand the capacity across policing; we have created a real staff retention problem. Because crypto is an emerging market, some of the best expertise and understanding of crypto in the UK sits within policing. We have been investigating cryptocurrency since 2015 or 2016. One of my sergeants has just been offered 200 grand to go to the private sector. We cannot compete with that. That is probably the biggest risk that we face within this area at the moment.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Thank you. Ms Trozze, I know that you are a specialist on crypto, so would you like to add anything to that?

Arianna Trozze: I would echo Andy’s point about the difficulty of tracing certain cryptoassets and investigating certain chains and things like that, and how this is evolving rapidly in competition with the existing providers and the blockchain services themselves. It gets more and more difficult to investigate as time goes on. You need more and more capacity building and investigative tools. At the same time, the crypto companies and the blockchain companies are seeking to develop their technologies in ways that will evade that detection, so it is a constant race between the two sides to be able to effectively investigate and prosecute these crimes.

[Alison Thewliss]

Q Leading on from that question, we are putting a lot of provisions in the legislation. Is the legislation sufficient to keep pace with those technological changes?

Arianna Trozze: One of the key ways that legislation can future-proof itself in the face of this rapidly developing technology is via the definitions. I think that the definition of cryptoasset in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill is sufficient to do that. Probably most importantly, the inclusion of cryptographically secured contractual rights means that the definition will cover smart contracts, which is really the technology that underpins all the major advances in the space of, for example, decentralised finance and non-fungible tokens that have taken place, and that we expect to continue to develop in the coming years. Furthermore, the ability to amend those definitions via secondary legislation is clearly a positive, because in the event that something slips through the cracks and develops in a way that we cannot anticipate, it will make it more efficient to change them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)]

Q Mr Gould, to follow on from that important point, I understand that the Bill removes the need for powers of arrest before you can do search and seizure. Can you explain the impact of that? Will it be useful for reducing the number of victims once you have spotted an issue happening?

Andy Gould: Yes, definitely. That is a huge benefit of the Bill; it is one of the provisions that we have been asking for. Imagine a scenario where you execute a search warrant on criminal premises: you go in and you can see stolen property, but at the moment, if they are not there, they are not under arrest and there is no existing investigation. You then have no power to take that crypto under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. So yes, that is a big step forward for us.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Thank you for giving me another go. I have two quick questions. If you had a blank sheet of paper and you were able to amend the Bill in the cryptoassets space, what would be your No. 1 amendment to improve it? Secondly, Mr Gould, do you also look at counter-terrorism within your brief?

Andy Gould: No.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Okay. I was going to ask something about counter-terrorism, but I will not if that is not your area. So my only question is to both of you: if you had an opportunity to amend the Bill, what would you do?

Arianna Trozze: I need to think for a moment.

Andy Gould: We are generally very happy with the provisions of the Bill. One area that we might want to look at is storage of the assets. Imagine you have £100 million- worth of cryptocurrency. That is really expensive to store, and there is always a security risk around where it is stored. If we were able to turn that into cash straight away at the point we get the restraint from the magistrates court, and that that was a standard power, a lot of that cost and security concern would be taken away. That would be one area where we could improve.

There is an existing power under POCA, where you can go to the Crown court and make that application, but that can be contested by the defendant. There is a cost associated with that. If we had a standard power to do that, I think we would be a bit happier, but we are generally very happy with the provisions in the Bill.

Arianna Trozze: I would echo that I generally think the Bill goes far enough—as far as is technologically possible at this time. I do not think there is anything that I personally would amend at this time.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q Apart from turning cryptoassets into cash in the way that you have described.

Arianna Trozze: I see both sides of that argument. Obviously, if assets are transferred into cash and then the original assets significantly gain value, and if the person with the assets were then found not to be a person of crime, the Government would be on the hook for the change in value of those assets. There are two sides to the argument but, as Andy mentioned, the storage is quite risky and very expensive. I ultimately agree, but I see both sides of the argument.

[Alison Thewliss]

Q As a brief follow-up, do you have any information on how much that cost is likely to be? That would be very useful to us. I appreciate you might not have that figure in front of you now, but it would be useful to have that detail.

Andy Gould: It is quite commercially sensitive, but it could be a large sum—we are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Q I will ask you just one more question, which is a little bit off piste. The Bill puts new duties on lawyers to ensure that they can be fined if they engage in work that facilitates crime, or they fail to prevent crime. I gather the Bar Council is a bit iffy about this; I wondered whether they thought it was interfering with access to justice. Where do you stand on that? Lawyers certainly come up constantly as facilitators, giving opinions that underwrite either unlawful behaviour in the tax field or illegal behaviour elsewhere. I do not know if you can help us on that—it is a bit off piste.

Jonathan Hall: The funny thing is that there is a principle in law that, if someone is giving advice to someone in order to commit a crime, legal professional privilege does not apply. It is quite hard to find examples of cases in which that doctrine has been applied, so I do not know whether it is about law enforcement having the confidence, when they have a lawyer who is deeply engaged in advising someone to break the law, to say, “We don’t care that you are saying this is privilege because we are going to run the case and say it is for a criminal purpose”. Beyond that, I do not know. I am a lawyer and I completely support maintaining access to justice—of course I do. But you are also completely right that lawyers and trust companies are at the heart of this issue, and I am afraid there are professional enablers.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q This is the same question that I asked our previous witnesses: if you had the opportunity to amend the Bill, what would you do? You have flagged up one area in which you are worried the Bill goes too far, so obviously we need to look at that, but my question is more about how you would make it go further to achieve the outcomes we are looking for in terms of the role that crypto plays, particularly in financing terrorism.

Jonathan Hall: I have not got an answer beyond the one I gave before, I am afraid. I am sorry; I have not thought of a positive thing. I would just remove that subsection (b) from the definition of UK-connected cryptoasset service provider.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q I am not sure if you were in for the previous session, but our witnesses talked about the need to be able to transfer crypto into physical assets or cash. What are your thoughts on that and do you have a sense of what the cost would be? Obviously, the disincentive for doing that is how much it could cost the Government for being on the hook. If it is transferred it into cash, and if there has been a rise in the value of the cryptoasset, the Government are potentially on the hook if that person is found not guilty. Do you agree that that “on the hook” argument exists? If so, it becomes a numbers game, because the cost of storing the cryptoasset is high. What is the net benefit to the Government of either transferring it to a physical asset or continuing to fund the cost of keeping it as crypto?

Jonathan Hall: It is quite a bit step to convert it to fiat currency, or pounds, because you are then interfering with the bet that person has placed on the value of the currency going up. I do not know what the figure is in terms of storage. I am interested, too, in the question of potential police liability. I am thinking about the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. As you know, before the Government brought in the suite of changes that allowed urgent sanctions, they were very careful to narrow down the potential liability that the Government might have in relation to sanctions, if they were challenged. I have not given it attention, but maybe it is worth having a look at whether there are equivalent protections for the police. The seizures can be very high in this field—they can measure many millions—so the potential liability of the police could be quite high. We would not want the police to be too disincentivised by the risk that they would be on the hook for damages, if everything goes wrong.

In terms of the balance, it may be that ultimately one or other party—the person from whom the assets are seized, or the police—is going to suffer some sort of loss. The key thing is to make sure that people have access to the courts. The courts will have to generate their own sort of expertise and case law over when you should convert a currency. I can imagine that someone will come to the magistrates court saying, “My assets have been frozen. Now is the time for converting them from Bitcoin into Ethereum”, and the court says, “What? How do I determine that?” There will need to be a body of expertise. This is a minor point, but it is something that I support: one of the intentions is to allow quite a wide range of law enforcement personnel to be responsible for the court proceedings, precisely so that you can develop a cadre of people who have got that sort of expertise.

[Alison Thewliss]

Q I want to ask about Scottish limited partnerships, particularly given their involvement in sanctions busting and various other things. Do you share my concern that they can exist in the Companies House register in a sort of zombie form and can be reanimated? Is there more that the Bill could do about that? If the use of SLPs is being tightened up, if you were looking to abuse corporate structures where would you go next?

Jonathan Hall: I do not want to say. The key thing is that I am not a Scottish lawyer, and I am not going to try and opine on whether there is a legitimate use of them. The key thing is basic enforcement. You made the point that there are zombie companies. Well, someone in Companies House needs to follow these things up. I am sure they will, but the resourcing of Companies House is where I would put my money.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill (Second sitting)

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Q You talked about outsourcing identity verification, but is that not just a recipe for disaster? If we keep on outsourcing these things, rather than Companies House controlling the process, you are just going to open it up to more fraud and dodgy dealing?

Martin Swain: I do not think we would have the capacity to do ID verification internally, certainly not within the timescale that we are looking at bringing it in. I go back to my point—and I will pick up the point with UK Finance—that we will be operating ID verification to standards that are appropriate across sectors that use ID verification. With any aspect of these reforms, there is potential for gaps in the system. What we are trying to do is design out gaps in the system. However, I think we know from the current companies framework that there are gaps in the system, and even where you plug those gaps, others will appear.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed to both of you for your evidence. It has been very helpful. We now move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Commander Nik Adams, Simon Welch and Michelle Crotty gave evidence.

[The Chair]

Good afternoon. We now have Commander Nik Adams from the City of London police, Simon Welch representing the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and Michelle Crotty from the Serious Fraud Office. May I ask each of you to introduce yourselves briefly, please?

Commander Adams: Good afternoon. I am Nik Adams, commander in the City of London police and the current lead on economic and cyber-crime.

Simon Welch: Good afternoon. I am Simon Welch, the national co-ordinator for the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the economic crime portfolio.

Michelle Crotty: I am Michelle Crotty, chief capability officer at the Serious Fraud Office.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q The national policing fraud strategy of 2019 said that, although the majority of the police response to fraud is delivered by local forces, capability and capacity varies widely across different areas. The strategy said that the regional organised crime units were “extremely limited” in their capacity. Has the situation improved since 2019, and if not could you say a word about what extra resources or powers might be required? I am not quite sure who is the best person to answer that.

Commander Adams: Shall I start, as the City of London senior rep? I have the advantage and the disadvantage of having been in this job only since April, so I can give you a view of where I think things have got to. I obviously was not part of the network when that report was written. I think it reflected an approach to economic crime that has been very much built bottom up historically, which led to the assessment that policing was fairly fragmented, with different levels of investment and different prioritisation across forces.

As long as economic crime and fraud, in particular, are not part of the strategic policing requirement, it is difficult to really get police forces to galvanise that response. We have seen, however, some fantastic work by the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to get fraud and economic crime into police and crime plans. We have seen through the support that the City of London police has provided, as the co-ordinating force, a great deal of consistency starting to layer on in local forces. In this year alone, we have visited 29 out of all 43 forces to look at their delivery of the economic crime response and of shared good practice across the country. That bottom-up has given us those improved levels of consistency.

Through the spending review and the police uplift programme, we are seeing significant investment at both a regional and a national level to help us to build some of those capabilities. By the end of this year, we will have proactive economic crime teams built around a consistent model in every single regional organised crime unit. With the anticipated investment from the economic crime levy, we will see the growth of regional economic crime teams—proactive financial investigation at a regional level—and, with our support, the continued network of those teams across the country, which will give us a growing and more consistent approach as we go forward.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Q The challenge that we have is that money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% over the last five years in the UK, and the number of crimes being investigated—[Interruption.]

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will read out the two figures. The number of crimes under investigation has halved in the past three years, and convictions for fraud offences, according to national crime statistics, have decreased by 67% since 2011. What you are talking about is theoretical; it is not what is happening. At the same time, fraud is going up and up.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will you say a word about why that is? The system seems not to be working, so what do we need to do to fix it?

Commander Adams: I will start and then bring in Simon, who is an expert on money laundering. The first thing to say is that fraud is getting increasingly complex. About 70% of all fraud emanates from overseas and, as Adrian touched on, it is very difficult for us to obtain prosecutions and convictions across jurisdictions. That is a real challenge for us, as are the growth in technology, the way in which fraudsters are now exploiting people and the changes in tactics.

Fraudsters are moving away from unauthorised payment fraud, where people’s details are stolen and used fraudulently—banks are now preventing somewhere in the region of 65p in every pound of that type of activity—and we are now seeing much more sophisticated frauds, where people are socially engineered, or manipulated, into physically approving transactions. That of course is much harder for technological solutions to prevent, when the target is a human being.

Of course, all that complexity requires a much more complex and sophisticated policing response. As I described, the growth that is coming down the line—in particular the proactive growth—will not start landing until the end of this year and then, of course, we are several years before we have fully experienced and really competent and effective investigators working on those crimes. All those things will layer on over a period. We anticipate that the technological advances will continue, both in support of us and in challenging us in how we can investigate and progress these crimes. Simon, do you want to comment specifically on money laundering?

Simon Welch: On money laundering, the amount of offences—detected offences—is going down. Criminals are getting a lot more savvy about our tactics and things like that, so we find that they are not having assets in their own names so much—vehicles, houses, things like that—and our opportunities for confiscation are probably going down a bit. However, what you can see from the seizure figures is that the cash value is up, but the volume is down. We are targeting and getting good results from the cases, but it is a smaller number of cases. In reality, POCA is now quite old, and people are used to us going after the money, so they take far more steps to protect that money from us being able to confiscate it.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Q Clause 156 extends the pre-investigation powers of the Serious Fraud Office. What is the benefit of that? How will that improve the ability to track all economic crime?

Michelle Crotty: At the moment, we have those pre-investigation powers for overseas bribery and corruption. They allow us to investigate earlier, in particular to identify banking evidence earlier, and to see whether there is a case to pursue. By extending that to fraud and domestic-based issues, we are enabled to do that in those cases. At the moment, we have to take on a case formally and to commit resource in order to exercise the powers. To some extent, we can negotiate on occasion with companies to get that material, but if we have the power of compulsion, it would make it quicker and easier to get the material and so identify whether there is a case there.

Floating Offshore Wind Projects

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Crabb]

I will mention freeport opportunities a bit later, but my right hon. Friend is exactly right. So often when people talk about freeports, it is in the context of an answer looking for a question; what we have in Milford Haven—together with Port Talbot, I might say—is a solution. It is something that will help facilitate a new industry, and if we can use the freeport process to help support that—I am looking towards the Minister—then that would be excellent indeed.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Building on his point about freeports, one of the key advantages of our freeport bid is that it is in synergy with the floating offshore wind opportunity. That will deliver a huge amount of added value through the manufacturing opportunities and long-term sustainable job opportunities that will come out of it, so the freeport offer is a strategic offer, not just transactional.

[Stephen Crabb]

As is typical, the hon. Member has gone right to the heart of the matter. Floating offshore wind is going to happen in a big way in UK waters— I absolutely believe that. The challenge that we need to get our heads around is how much real economic value and content can be captured and secured for the UK. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that a collaborative bid between Port Talbot and the port of Milford Haven provides a potential framework to allow that industrialisation and capturing of domestic content to happen.

FLOW presents an important economic opportunity for the whole of the UK—for ports, industry and energy infrastructure, and by driving up investment and regional and national growth, as well as increasing the numbers of skilled jobs and career opportunities. The levelling-up opportunities are enormous: tens of thousands of people are already working in the offshore wind industry and supply chain in places such as Hull and Hartlepool. That is the kind of domestic content and supply chain opportunity that we want to deliver for Wales and the whole of the Celtic sea region. With large-scale projects in the Celtic sea perhaps five to 10 years away, there is an opportunity now for the development of the appropriate infrastructure and supply chain capability, which will deliver significant local opportunities in the region and, in turn, drive regional economic growth.

While we are talking about Port Talbot, I should say that I was excited to see RWE recently announce a new partnership with Tata Steel in the constituency of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). That will explore how steel manufactured in south Wales could be used for floating wind projects, which is exactly the kind of innovative thinking that we need to achieve everything to which we aspire.

I hope to have outlined the scale of the vision and opportunity in front of us. It is ambitious and exciting, and in my view it is achievable. There is enormous private sector interest. However, along with the scale of the opportunity, there is an enormous delivery challenge. Ensuring that we have the appropriate offshore and onshore capabilities to deliver this is a big and complicated challenge. The 5 GW by 2030 target is ambitious. The industry is confident that it can respond to the challenge, but it will require a lot of work. Think about the sheer scale of what we are talking about: hundreds and hundreds of enormous new turbines being manufactured and towed out to sea. We have also to think about all of the onshore infrastructure around the turbine: the port infrastructure, new grid capacity, new grid connections, all the supply chain work that we have talked about, the financial architecture around it—contracts for difference—and, of course, the planning regimes in which the projects operate.

Projects cannot happen without the underpinning physical infrastructure—grid and ports—and the right policy architecture. Creating the right frameworks will require a lot of collaboration between the public and private sectors.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about all of the wraparound and complexity. One thing he may have mentioned—I may have missed it—is maintenance and servicing. Once the structures are in place, they require regular maintenance and servicing, which in itself is a huge employment-generating opportunity.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right about the operations and maintenance role. That is not just a job creator; they are valuable jobs. There is real economic value in those support services.

I come back to the delivery challenges around this big, complicated opportunity. The first challenge relates to leadership and co-ordination. As with the early development of fixed-bottom offshore wind, the support of the UK Government will be crucial in driving forward the political, regulatory and financial support frameworks that are needed to maximise the flow opportunities. I welcome recent positive statements by the Government, but there needs to be much more visible engagement from Ministers when it comes specifically to the Celtic sea opportunity. I have been impressed by the leadership that the Crown Estate has shown, and the work that it is doing to create robust frameworks around the tender process and environmental protections. However, there is a role for UK Government, over and above what the Crown Estate is doing, to push forward the Celtic sea programme. That role starts with setting credible, ambitious targets. We are in a relatively strong position when it comes to the UK’s clear pipeline of offshore projects, which is backed up by a firm commitment from Government. That is critical in increasing investor confidence in the UK market, but Ministers should be going further, perhaps by setting supplementary, longer-term targets to strengthen signals to investors and developers. Ministers should be clear about the UK’s intentions to scale up the sector rapidly in the coming 10 years.

The next area of challenge is getting the right financial architecture in place: a market environment that encourages price competition and industrial development. The contracts for difference have been incredibly effective at reducing the costs of renewable energy projects by reducing wholesale price risk, but the weakness of the structure of the CfD auction scheme is that it considers only the price of projects, and not wider industrial and economic considerations or future cost reductions. The Government should look to reform the CfD system to create a premium or incentive that recognises projects that make substantial commitments to industrial and economic development in the UK and to innovation in the UK. The aim of these reforms should be focused on fostering a market environment in which investment, innovation and economies of scale are incentivised. Consideration should also be given to what form of support can be provided to combined FLOW and hydrogen production projects, which cannot really be assessed alongside conventional FLOW from a cost perspective. I mentioned the work that RWE is doing in Pembroke, looking at the role of floating offshore wind to support hydrogen development, and there probably needs to be a different way of looking at that in terms of price support.

At the heart of the infrastructure challenge are ports. Floating offshore wind will require a lot of port infrastructure. No port close to the Celtic sea is currently ready to handle the key activities for deploying floating offshore wind, but we have a window of opportunity now to address this and ensure that the economic value of deploying these vast structures can be captured for the UK. The FLOWMIS—floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme—funding that the Government are making available will help. As far as I am aware, the Government have not yet announced how that money will be used, but a good chunk, if not the lion’s share, should be devoted to supporting the development of the Celtic sea industry.

Given the targets that we are looking to achieve and the scale of activity that will be required, there will be enormous opportunities for all ports across south-west England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a clear starting point, and we have already discussed it: the ports of Milford Haven and Port Talbot. Independent reports from the likes of ORE Catapult and FLOW developers have identified Pembroke Dock in the port of Milford Haven and Associated British Ports at Port Talbot as potential anchor ports for floating offshore wind. However, without collaboration and significant investment at both ports over the next decade, the vast majority of the potential £4 billion of benefits could simply go overseas. A combined, dual port solution, with close proximity to the Celtic arrays, has enormous potential to accelerate the deployment of floating offshore wind and increase prospects for UK Government generation goals.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, and I thank him for that. He is right that port infrastructure is vital, but another key part of our infrastructure is the national grid. Does he agree that there are real concerns about the capability of the national grid to deliver the power that we need from offshore wind, and that the UK Government need to get round the table with National Grid and Ofgem to make that happen?

[Stephen Crabb]

I swear I have not shared a copy of my speech with the hon. Gentleman, but he anticipates the next section extremely well. I will just finish this point about the freeport bid. I am not expecting the Minister to comment—it is a live bidding process—but as I said on the Floor of the House yesterday in Levelling Up, Housing and Communities questions, I hope that Ministers will look closely at what is coming forward from Milford Haven, Pembroke Dock within that port, ABP at Port Talbot and the two relevant local authorities, because it is genuinely exciting and represents something different. We should not get hung up on freeport labels; it is about doing something innovative and collaborative that can help to unleash the full economic potential of this opportunity.

Let me get on to grids, before I bring my remarks to a close. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is exactly right: potentially even more challenging than delivering port upgrades is achieving a serious step change in the way we increase grid capacity and make available new grid connections here in the UK. The planning and consenting processes are ridiculously slow and difficult—they are not fit for purpose. We on the Welsh Affairs Committee in recent months have been taking evidence on the grid infrastructure in Wales. Our report on that will be coming out soon, so I will not pre-empt that. I was pleased in the evidence we took to hear about steps that are being taken by Government to reduce the offshore wind consenting times, but the truth is that we need to see far more urgent action from Government to address grid capacity. The danger is that developers will increase their capabilities and be able to construct and deploy large-scale renewable energy infrastructure way ahead of the planning process, and that cannot be acceptable. We need more anticipatory investment so that new grid networks are built in time for those major new sources of generation and for demand. We could talk about other planning challenges: in the Welsh context, we have the devolved body Natural Resources Wales. Developers are concerned that Natural Resources Wales should be fully equipped to be able to handle the volume and complexity of the planning jobs that they will be asked to do, to assess the impact on seabeds and things like that.

Floating offshore wind represents a major, exciting opportunity for the UK to tackle a number of critical issues: wholesale prices, energy security, job generation, levelling up and net zero. It is an exciting package. Floating offshore wind presents a compelling answer to all those challenges. The key challenges for us to consider are the risks and potential difficulties around delivery, and achieving the scale of offshore and onshore capabilities and systems that will be required just a few years from now. I look forward to hearing from colleagues and the Minister.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this vital debate.

If the last 12 months have taught us anything, it is that if we are to better protect ourselves from rocketing energy costs, as a country we must become more resilient and less exposed to fluctuating global energy prices. The good news is that the UK is well placed to do that, but we need a UK Government who will grasp the nettle and realise our potential.

A Labour Government will turn the UK into a green growth superpower through our green prosperity plan, by creating GB Energy, a new publicly owned clean energy generation company that will harness the power of the UK’s sun, wind and waves. We will establish the UK as a clean energy superpower, delivering a zero-carbon electricity system by 2030 and guaranteeing long-term energy security. It is only through a publicly owned company that we can ensure that communities and people across the country feel the benefits of the power created on our own shores through cheaper bills, good local jobs and putting money back into the public purse.

To achieve clean power by 2030, we will need to quadruple offshore wind. Floating offshore wind will be crucial in helping us achieve that goal. The Celtic sea will be a vital next step in that journey. The deployment of 24 GW of floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea presents a major opportunity to establish manufacturing and logistical support in south Wales. Port Talbot is ideally placed to be the hub for that activity, and a catalyst for the growth of FLOW in the region. Unlocking the Celtic sea’s potential requires ports that are capable of constructing foundation substructures, component storage and turbine integration, and continuous maintenance of those turbines.

Port Talbot’s deep sea harbour, with the land around it fully available for development, makes it the only port with capacity to combine FLOW fabrication, assembly, staging and flotation. The harbour is sheltered from high winds by a natural bay, and the space, size and water depth means that it can easily accommodate the substructure construction for the largest turbines in sufficient quantity to meet long-term Celtic sea demand.

Port Talbot also has the key infrastructure to support that groundbreaking technology. We are centrally located and have excellent transport links, with easy access to the M4 and the rail network. We also have world-class steelworks and the existing manufacturing supply chains, which bring with them the vital workforce skills and labour pool, including port workers, heavy industry workers, and maintenance and servicing workers, to support the quality manufacturing and assembly jobs essential for FLOW to become a reality.

Local businesses already in the manufacturing supply chains are keen to bring their transferable skills to the table and be part of this new, cutting-edge technology. Such is the scale of the FLOW project that there is significant potential to attract new industries in the supply chain, to create thousands of skilled jobs and to open up a world of opportunity for my Aberavon communities and those well beyond.

In short, Port Talbot has the capacity to deliver this scale of growth. It is a daunting project, but we have the basic infrastructure right there; it just needs to be mobilised. We have the critical mass and established manufacturing base needed to make a success of this future industry, but it is not just Port Talbot that would benefit. The benefits would be felt right across south Wales and beyond. The Swansea Bay economy has the ability both to absorb the initial demand and to translate it into new economic activity, and the sheer scale of what we are talking about would require additional resources to support Port Talbot, with the ports of Swansea and, as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire so eloquently pointed out, Milford Haven having the capacity to carry out vital supporting activities right through the supply chain, including integration, maintenance, and assembly of mooring and cabling components. This has to be a team effort if it is going to work.

A south Wales freeport centred around Port Talbot and Milford Haven has huge potential to support FLOW manufacturing, assembly, installation and associated supply chains, and those opportunities can be distributed between the ports of Port Talbot and Milford Haven, which complement each other and offer the prospect of establishing the energy and manufacturing coast in south Wales at the necessary scale. Freeport status for Port Talbot and Milford Haven would help to create an environment to attract inward investment for the manufacturing of components for FLOW and the development of wider industrial manufacturing. The proposed new port infrastructure at Port Talbot will be an attractive site for the co-location of manufacturing for offshore wind components, improving the logistics of the supply chain. Port Talbot will also offer access to new export markets as well as the industrialised economy of south Wales.

The ability to offer the benefits of freeport status for development land in close proximity to the newly constructed port infrastructure will provide significant advantages for potential investors seeking to establish new manufacturing capacity in the UK, but also across Europe. I have had extensive discussions with Associated British Ports, which stands ready to invest over £500 million in new and upgraded infrastructure to enable the manufacturing, assembly and launch of floating foundation substructures and the import, storage and integration of wind turbine components in Port Talbot. These plans would be transformative for my Aberavon constituency and the surrounding area, but support from the UK Government will be a crucial precondition for drawing in private sector investment so that the FLOW project can get off the ground. FLOWMIS co-funding would demonstrate the UK Government’s clear long-term commitment to developing the site and the sector, giving confidence to allow investors and other funding providers to back the project and unlock sizeable private sector investment potential.

There is no time to waste. As the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire pointed out, other European countries, such as Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal, are also looking at investing in FLOW, so we must act now if we are to secure first mover advantage. We missed the boat with onshore and offshore wind in the past; other countries stole a march on us, and now they benefit from energy produced here. The largest onshore wind farm, which also happens to be in my Aberavon constituency, is paying for schools and hospitals in Stockholm. The Chinese Communist party has a stake in our nuclear industry, and millions pay their bills to an energy company that is owned in France. Such countries, rather than the local communities where the energy is actually being generated, also benefit from the manufacturing jobs that go with these industries. It is simply scandalous, which is why I am lobbying the Crown Estate to ensure that when it grants the lease for the Celtic sea, local benefits are maximised and we grasp the opportunity to build a homegrown manufacturing base to underpin these local industries. The manufacturing supply chain must stay in south Wales.

Worryingly, the Crown Estate’s announcement last week on the seabed licences lacked detail on the supply chain and the local content commitment that developers will have to give when bidding for seabed licences for FLOW development in the Celtic sea, and I urge the Minister to raise the issue with the Crown Estate as a matter of urgency. Under the current criteria, there is a real risk that the opportunity will yet again be missed to maximise prospects for local jobs and supply chains. The Crown Estate must therefore provide more detail on the local content commitment that developers will have to give as part of the bidding process.

The future of our country is in our air, sea and skies, and mother nature has truly given us a gift in Wales. We were the cradle of the first industrial revolution, and now Wales can be the cradle of the green industrial revolution, with Port Talbot at the forefront. Investing in Port Talbot as the hub for this game-changing form of renewable energy would turn south Wales into a green power superpower in the generation of renewable energy. I therefore urge the UK Government and all other key stakeholders to come together to ensure we grasp this opportunity with both hands.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jackie Doyle-Price)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank you for making sure that I behaved in an orderly way at the beginning of the debate; I am very grateful. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for securing the debate, and all Members who have taken part.

As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) just said, this has been a very sensible debate. I would say it has been a very mature debate in which we have reflected on what needs to be done to properly take advantage of the huge opportunities that we have around this island for floating offshore wind, and I want to highlight some of the contributions that we have heard. There was an absolutely fantastic advertising pitch for Aberavon from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and I heard about the freeport application from both his representations and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. Obviously, that is not a decision for me, but from the agenda that they both articulated, it seems to tick all the boxes for what we are expecting from freeports. I say that as a former chair of the maritime and ports all-party parliamentary group, which has been involved in many of the bids. I wish them all well with the application, which is a competitive one.

At the heart of it, both the hon. Member for Aberavon and my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire articulated a clear vision for what freeport status would do for the bid—a clear vision based on a port that is based on energy. Frankly, what better objective could we have in these times, when energy security is such a challenge? It is great to see such imagination and, more to the point, such a practical application of policy to fix a significant strategic problem. We will wait and see.

I was very struck by what the hon. Member for Aberavon said about British ownership of these industries. As a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, this is something that I reflect on very often. Yes, we are an open, free-trading nation and open to inward investment, but we also need to recognise that maximising those opportunities for this country means that we have to be very careful about making sure that we are doing everything we can to encourage homegrown investment. We have seen too often that some of these investments are made by state-owned overseas players, which is something to reflect on.

We heard from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) about the net contribution that Scotland can make in this area, and long may that continue. I will take away the points about what that means in terms of compensation.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) reflected on the environmental implications. As we realise the benefits of floating offshore wind, we absolutely have to address the environmental consequences. We in Government have to look at all this in a very joined-up way, and sometimes the silo culture does not necessarily make for the best decision making, but laying cables once is sensible and cheaper. A more strategic approach might be necessary and the way to go.

I will reflect on the reference to investment zones by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). Of course, we are in a position whereby investment zones are a vehicle for securing the investment needed to achieve the kind of supporting infrastructure that we need if we are to properly exploit floating offshore wind. This is going to be a significant industry, and the sector could give a completely new lease of life to the port infrastructure at Port Talbot and Milford Haven. We must make sure that we are properly looking at everything, rather than just at what we can do to exploit new energy sources. It is about what floating offshore wind can do to contribute to economic regeneration and development more widely.

We have heard a great deal, and the Government would completely agree that renewable energy is central to the UK’s decarbonisation and economic growth, with floating offshore wind remaining a part. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire referred to it as FLOW. I absolutely hate acronyms, but it just so happens that this one conveys exactly what we are talking about and is a very good description of floating offshore wind, which is a bit of a mouthful. It provides secure, low-cost and domestically generated electricity, and reduces our dependence on imports from overseas—there is no better lesson than the one we have learned over the past year—so what is not to like? It is absolutely essential that the Government get behind this source.

Offshore wind generates 11% of our electricity, and through the development of floating offshore wind, that figure will grow. As we have heard, we can be proud that the UK is already a world leader in offshore wind deployment. We have the most installed capacity in Europe, and we currently generate enough to power nearly 10 million homes. As I mentioned, it also has an important role to play in delivering the Government’s growth agenda by generating jobs and attracting significant private investment. According to the WindEurope trade association, the UK attracted investment worth €56 billion over the past decade, making it the biggest offshore wind market in Europe for capital spending commitments.

The Government intend to build on that success through the ambitions set out in the British energy security strategy for developing up to 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, of which 5 GW will be from floating offshore wind. We estimate that will bring in £25 billion to £32 billion of private investment to the UK, and we expect it to support about 90,000 jobs by 2030. Those jobs will mainly be in coastal communities, which are in most need of job creation as they have traditionally been more reliant on heavy, high-carbon industry.

On that point, I was struck by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said. We often talk about those communities as if their greatest days were in the past, but they are not; they are in the future. If we get our offering right for these new industries, those communities can be the powerhouses they were at the time of the industrial revolution. We should not be modest in our ambitions. This is a great country, and we need to make the best of our assets. We really need to put our shoulder to the wheel for this sector.

[Stephen Kinnock]

All hon. Members raised concerns about the national grid, and landing and integrating power. Can the Minister say something about what action the Government are taking to resolve that issue?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened, because that is the one thing I was really tackling in my head. I really worry about the grid’s ability to respond to the demands we are making of it through our transition to renewables. We collectively need to give it enough support and oomph to make sure it delivers that. I am acutely aware of companies that have been doing the right thing by investing in renewables, but then have difficulties finding connections to the grid. It is a bit chicken and egg: if we are to exploit offshore wind, we must ensure that the grid connections are there and are effective, not least because otherwise we lose so much in terms of transition.

The Government are working with Ofgem and the National Grid Electricity System Operator to bring forward a series of strategic network designs to determine what the required infrastructure will be to support our net zero targets. A holistic network design was published in July, which includes the 1.5 GW Mona project off the north Wales coast, and an indicative network design for floating wind in the Celtic sea with a connection to Pembroke dock. It is being planned for, but we collectively need to ensure we execute that in order to realise the benefits as soon as possible. I will invite the responsible Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman fully about that, because it is a very real concern, given our experience with renewable energy in the past.

As I said, we recognise the potential of floating wind technology playing a key role in our energy mix as we move towards net zero. The floating wind deployments we have identified in Scotland and the Celtic sea represent a major development opportunity for the sector, which will create major employment opportunities.

Our support for floating offshore wind is demonstrated by the floating wind pipeline being supported in the previous contract for difference allocation round with a ring-fenced budget. That resulted in the first ever contract for difference-supported floating wind project, the 32 MW TwinHub project in Hayle, Cornwall. My Department has also joined the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult’s floating offshore wind centre of excellence. We are providing the centre with £2 million over four years and strengthening its mission to accelerate innovation in the UK’s floating wind sector. I hope that will put us in a prime position to capitalise on a growing export market as other countries look to use this technology. Our pipeline project is growing. This year’s ScotWind seabed leasing round for Scottish waters resulted in 28 GW of new projects, of which 18 are floating wind projects.

We have heard much reference to the role of the Crown Estate. As we speak, Crown Estate Scotland is running a leasing round for innovation projects to decarbonise, which could result in another 6 GW. There are more than 400 MW of floating pathfinder projects already leased in the Celtic sea next year. The Crown Estate will run its Celtic sea floating leasing round, which will bring forward 4 GW of this innovative technology in the waters around south west England and south Wales. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said, there is potential for a further 20 GW of floating wind by 2045. That is transformational in terms of decarbonisation, and we must ensure we do what we can to secure it.

Our fixed-bottom pipeline is also strong, and we have 12.7 GW already operational, with a further 6.8 GW under construction and due to come on line by the mid-2020s. The world’s largest wind farm, Hornsea 2, became operational off the Yorkshire coast this summer, and offshore construction has already started on Dogger Bank, which will eventually take over Hornsea 2’s mantle as the world’s largest wind farm.

However, it is important that we do not rest on our laurels. This summer, the Government published results of the latest allocation round of contracts for difference. This year’s auction was by far the most successful yet, at a combined capacity of almost 7 GW. The successful offshore wind projects represent a significant step towards meeting our increased 2030 ambitions. Those projects are now finalising procurement and construction plans.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. This is just the start, and I look forward to continuing the dialogue to ensure that we realise the capability of floating offshore wind to contribute to our energy mix. I wish everybody well with the projects that they are supporting.

Energy Prices: Support for Business

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Following the question from the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) about steel, may I point out that the energy-intensive industries require co-investment and partnership with Government in order to make the transition to cleaner, greener ways of making steel? Can the Business Secretary confirm that he is committed to co-investing with Tata Steel and our other steel makers to enable that transition to take place, and will he agree to meet the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries—which I am proud to chair—to set out the Government’s plans for this vitally important foundation industry?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with what he says. We are in discussions—my officials are in discussions—with Tata Steel. I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman at any time, and I make the same offer to all right hon. and hon. Members. I think it proper for Secretaries of State to make themselves available in response to all reasonable requests for meetings from Members on both sides of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his apposite and very important intervention this morning. He is a huge and doughty campaigner for Scottish interests, unlike individuals on the SNP Benches. It is comments such as those from the Aberdeenshire chamber of commerce that demonstrate how the confidence of Scottish businesses should be in the UK Government rather than the Scottish Government.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on ensuring that the power supply for Baglan energy park remains connected until a permanent connection to the national grid is secured.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for raising this issue. I know that this has been a challenging time for some tenants on the energy park. Given that these issues are largely devolved, officials from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and I are regularly in touch with the Welsh Government on this matter and this includes, as he is aware, an exchange of correspondence in the past few days, along with regular meetings between officials.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister knows that in just three days the official receiver is due to turn off the power on the Baglan energy park. The intransigence of the official receiver is putting huge pressure on local businesses and also creating massive environmental and public health risks. Section 400 of the Insolvency Act 1986 clearly gives the Business Secretary the power to direct the official receiver. Why will the Minister not step up, take urgent action and direct the official receiver so that the potentially catastrophic consequences for these businesses, houses and communities can be averted in just three days?

[Lee Rowley]

As I have said, I completely appreciate that this is a challenging time for tenants on the energy park. We have, as a UK Government, sought to review all of the powers that are available to the Government, including section 400 of the Insolvency Act. It is our view that it is not advisable to use that process at this stage. We have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, written to the Welsh Government giving a number of indicators about how we can mitigate the challenges and I look forward to speaking with the Welsh Government further, including in my meeting with the Minister for the Economy tomorrow.

Reducing Costs for Businesses

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

As the party of growth and enterprise, Labour will help British business to weather this crisis and bounce back stronger than ever. As a passionately pro-business and pro-worker party, we recognise that private enterprise is the lifeblood of the British economy, which is why we would help to create 100,000 new businesses over five years and boost the start-up loans scheme. In our commitment to boosting productivity and growing the economy, we recognise the critical role of British manufacturing and the foundational industries that underpin it, such as steel. That is why Labour’s plan to make, buy and sell more in Britain will not only get our economy firing on all cylinders, but build our sovereign capability and help to achieve our net zero targets.

We need a more resilient Britain that can stand more firmly on its own two feet, because we have had 11 years of offshoring our good jobs and selling off our strategic national assets. Over the past decade, we have become over-reliant on countries that do not have our best interests at heart. That includes our reliance on China for personal protective equipment, lateral flow tests and even our nuclear power stations.

A Labour Government would do things very differently. Through our fully costed plan, we would create a £600 million contingency fund to support struggling firms, including in energy-intensive industries. We would pay for it with a one-off windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producers, which have profited hugely from recent price rises. Ours is a fully costed, focused economic plan that can support businesses throughout this crisis and, in so doing, protect workers and their families. That is what the Opposition is all about—what a contrast with the complacency and inaction that we see on the Government Benches!

The Labour party recognises that long-term, sustainable businesses can provide those good jobs that not only provide a pay cheque at the end of the month, but offer dignity, meaning and purpose for working people—a sense of being part of something bigger. We rightly cheered and applauded key workers on our doorsteps throughout the pandemic; let us never forget that many of them work in the private sector. I think of the factory workers and steelworkers in my Aberavon constituency who kept the show on the road, and of the pride that they feel in powering our country forward. The Labour party will always stand up for those values: dignity and respect for workers, opportunity for business to grow and flourish, and a commitment to building a higher growth, more resilient Britain that can stand more firmly on its own two feet.

The British people are tiring of low-growth Tory Chancellors. Labour has a plan to get Britain firing on all cylinders. Labour is truly back in business.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Subsidy Control Bill

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow some powerful speeches on Report tonight. I share the frustration of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that we could well have moved forward with some of the issues we debated in Committee with some amendments brought forward by the Government. Some of the robust debate we had in Committee led to looking at how we could address those issues more quickly. I acknowledge the contributions from the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I will be talking about their amendments later in my speech, but we have discussed at length transparency and the ways in which we need to reform this regime in order for it to be the most effective it can be. I wish to make a brief remark about new clause 1 before carrying on further. I hear the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), because they are important, particularly in relation to legacy subsidies in agriculture, as well as future subsidies. The Minister will need to make sure that he can respond clearly to the concerns that have been raised, and we will certainly be listening closely on that.

It is a pleasure to speak to our amendments—new clause 3, on post-award referrals, and amendments 15 to 27. I will also speak in support of similar and, in some cases, identical amendments to those tabled by Labour in Committee, which I was pleased to see have been influential in colleagues’ consideration of the Bill. I refer in particular to amendments 1 to 8, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Thirsk and Malton, and amendments 10 and 12, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. There are only slight differences from our position in Committee, and I am sure that today’s debate will also help consideration of the Bill in the other place. Amendments 13 and 14 are similar to amendments 2 and 7, and are consistent with our significant concerns on transparency and accountability, which we raised in Committee. New clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), is also consistent with the position on net zero leadership that we set out on Second Reading and in Committee. We are not actively supporting two amendments—we are more neutral on them: amendment 11, which has similar intentions and principles but is slightly weaker than our amendment 16 and which runs the risk of being unclear for local authorities to implement; and amendment 9, where we understand the intention to broaden what the Competition and Markets Authority reports on. However, arguably it would not have the information on all subsidies, as most would not be notified to it, so this provision could be impractical and create a significant burden. However, in Committee we also provided suggestions on how the CMA’s annual report could be strengthened and what areas it could report on. We had a considerable debate on that, including in respect of the CMA reporting on where it had identified non-compliance with the principles and examining the geographical spread of subsidies that had been notified to it.

Labour recognises the need for this legislation, which establishes the framework for the UK’s post-Brexit subsidy control regime. It indeed allows for quicker subsidies to be granted to businesses, which we support. We recognise that a system of subsidy control is important to ensure that public funds are made available to businesses, but with appropriate safeguards in place. Where we departed from the Scottish National party in Committee is that we also believe that the Bill is necessary to protect the UK’s internal market. We are speaking to our amendments today on two main strategic areas: the purpose of subsidies; and the way in which the new regime will operate. I will deal first with the purpose and the use of subsidies. Subsidies and their controls should be an integral part of a strong, long-term industrial strategy, promoting growth and supporting industry, jobs and prosperity across the country. We want to see our foundation industries such as steel supported, and we want to see a plan for how we can buy, make and sell more in Britain.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It was an honour and pleasure to serve with my hon. Friend on the Bill Committee. Does she agree that the strategic purpose of a Bill such as this must be about supporting areas of greater economic deprivation and that therefore there is a glaring hole at the middle of this Bill, which is that it does not have that clear, proactive strategic purpose?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contributions in Committee and for that very important point, which I will come on to. We know that the assisted areas map is not part of the UK’s regime, but there has to be a way to deal with the principle of that, which is how to ensure resources are targeted to the areas where they are most needed.