Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateTuesday 18th April 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeEconomic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (18 Apr 2023)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I think the consensus continues. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, for introducing this group. As he said, this set of amendments really repeats those spoken to earlier, but in this case concerns micro-entities. He made the points about either accidentally or deliberately tagging wrongly, and that not seeming a substantial argument against increasing its use. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, companies are well used to producing and presenting accounts in different media and ensuring that they are presented consistently across them. This tool should extend their use.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others that the Clause 54 stand part debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, is not appropriate for the Bill. As others have said, micro-companies are not actually that small. Some numbers have been presented, but the figure I have is that 1.3 million micro-entity accounts were filed in 2019-20, the largest proportion of accounts filed with Companies House. The figures I have are of a turnover of less than £632,000 on a balance sheet of £316,000 with 10 or fewer employees. Over the years, I have been involved in a number of businesses of that sort of size, but they can and do sometimes grow into much larger businesses. There needs to be consistent tracking of these companies to see where they have come from and make predictions about where they might go, so I agree with the point on that made by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh.
Other noble Lords agreed with this point, so I hope that the Minister will resist the argument that Clause 54 should not stand part, if the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, chooses to speak to it, and is sympathetic to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register of interests, including as a director and person with significant control at AMP Ventures and as a shareholder of several other businesses and companies. I do not believe I have any personal conflicts represented today.
I also thank all Members of the Committee who participated in our useful and instructive discussions over the past month or so. I am sorry that the Easter break we enjoyed sort of broke our continual discussions, but I hope that we will reinstigate them in the near future. I am fully available over the next few days, particularly before the next series of Committee amendments and over this process, to make sure that the House collaborates together to reform Companies House for the first time in nearly 100 years, and that we bring to bear the crucial reforms that will enable us to have a transparent business environment that allows businesses to flourish and the data that they provide to Companies House to be used more effectively to create greater wealth and private enterprise in this country. I hope that, in my actions, noble Lords see my desire to collaborate very closely with all your Lordships to ensure that we all reach the same end.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Regarding the position of micro-entities, I spent a great deal of my time as a micro-entity in a partnership. I did not avail myself of limited liability provisions but, when people do avail themselves of the privilege of limited liability, they must recognise that there is an extra public interest requirement upon them because they have been freed from the prospect of personal ruin. Nowadays, we tend to forget about that balance—that bargain—and I just put in a plea that that is not forgotten. There is a bit of a quid pro quo for limited liability when it comes to transparency because you have to protect the public from otherwise unscrupulous people who just willy-nilly go easily bankrupt.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. In discussions about the Bill, that philosophy has been raised. I may have mentioned on our previous day in Committee—I certainly mentioned it in private—that, given the very large number of companies registered in this country, one has to ask whether they are all necessary for the function that they purport to perform. Many individuals may be better off as sole traders or in other forms of partnership that do not need to go through these registration processes.
I am also aware of the privileges that limited liability offers, as a result of which there is a fair exchange in terms of the amount of information to be released. I absolutely agree with these principles that we have discussed. However, in this specific instance, it is absolutely right to have a thorough and deep consultation to make sure that through our actions we are not prohibiting people from running legitimate businesses and at the same time compromising their personal privacy or security. That is a sensible debate to have. The point, which is not necessarily specific to this amendment, is about the information that we collect. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we collect the right amount of information so that we can increase fundamental corporate transparency and reduce abuse of the system.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his reply and repetition of some of the remarks he was kind enough to make at our last meeting. He has prompted me to remind the Committee, for the record, of my commercial interests, as noted on the register, which include directorships and shareholdings of micro-entities. I will read Clause 73 again more carefully, and we might return to this on Report if I am not satisfied with that explanation.
On the micro-entity point, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is right. Those bands are correct, but it is two out of three: one could have a small balance sheet and a small number of employees but a huge turnover and be under the net. I was going to make the same point as that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted: that is the bargain that a proprietor of a limited company makes with the public. You are protected by limited liability, but there must be disclosure. In fact, as I understand it, the information has to be prepared and disclosed to HMRC in pretty much the same format, so there is no extra burden in submitting it to Companies House. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his Amendments 48 and 54, my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton for his Amendments 49 and 51, the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their Amendment 50A, the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their Amendments 50B and 51A and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his Amendment 52. I hope I have that right. I will try to cover everything in order this time. These amendments all relate to authorised corporate service providers, known as ACSPs. I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate.
I will cover one point made by my noble friend Lord Naseby on the difference between “foreign” and “worldwide”. Foreign is if you are headquartered abroad; worldwide is if you operate in a large number of jurisdictions. I hope that clarifies that point.
I will start with Amendment 48. The question asked was why not? Why not publish the name of the authorised corporate service provider against its verification? One noble Lord suggested that it would be good advertising for the authorised corporate service provider to attach itself. I am sure that many of them will be delighted to attach themselves to noble Lords’ names when they receive the unique identification number. We have to hope that is the case.
I asked that question myself: why not? Why would it not be sensible to have the name of the verifier next to the entry? I would like to have further discussions with noble Lords about how this can be achieved. The Government do not believe that putting this into primary legislation will be helpful, given the complexities around administering this process.
There are also some specific areas where identities need to be kept discreet so there may be complexities around the process of identifying the ACSP in the sense that there would not be a verified identity to—
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
If noble Lords will allow me to continue with my train of thought before intervening, the difficulty I have is in finding too many justifications as to why it would not be sensible for us to have a full consultation on and review of why we do not want to put the name of an ACSP next to the identity that it has verified.
I welcome the input from the Committee and our discussions on this issue but it is not necessarily as simple as accepting this clear amendment. It is important for the Government to make sure that we have not missed anything but, in principle, having a further discussion around this matter and seeing whether there is a way to ensure that the corporate providers can be clearly identified, with the verification of the individuals in Companies House, seems to be something that we should look at very closely.
I have had private conversations with a number of the speakers in today’s Committee proceedings in which I have been clear about what I am trying to achieve, which is exactly this: an increase in transparency; making sure that bad actors are clearly identified; and making sure that patterns of poor behaviour can be measured and assessed effectively. However, I hope that noble Lords will respect my position on the Bill and the amendments that we are discussing, including my reluctance to support this amendment and the other associated amendments in a specific sense. I would want to make sure that we did this right but noble Lords have my commitment to look deeply into the possibility of ensuring that the proposals that have been discussed today are brought to bear in how we manage the verification and listing of ACSPs.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for his qualified support. I would be interested to understand why the Government decided to go along with this recommendation for the overseas entities register and are resisting it, at least to some extent, for the domestic Companies House. I am not sure that I understand why the two things should be different at all.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his interventions. As I said, we are looking forward to having a full discussion about this issue in our proceedings over the next few weeks. From my personal point of view, it is right that there is a higher degree of transparency and it is absolutely right that we should look closely at trying to ensure that the identity of the verifier is also linked to the verification of the identity.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I was interested in the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I have been listening carefully to what my noble friend the Minister has been saying. When we have these further discussions, either in Committee or elsewhere, could he kindly come with a few reasons to support the arguments that he is currently putting forward? I do not get the impression that the cogs are quite meeting here. I know that the Minister is under some constraint because this Bill has been pushed here from the other place by the Secretary of State, but I would be interested in getting to grips with the underlying rationality that supports the words that the Minister is uttering. I do not intend to be rude—I hope that I am not coming across as such; it is probably my fault for being obtuse—but I am missing bits that might encourage me to think that we are moving forward.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble and learned friend for his intervention, as always. I am sorry if my words have not been clear enough. I hope that, over the next few weeks as the Bill proceeds through the House, we will have conversations that will allow us to come to a sensible conclusion on this issue. In trying to justify why we should not publish the name of an ACSP against the verified identity, we will of course provide reasons. The point is that we should have a sensible, legitimate discussion about this. It is not for me at this Dispatch Box to come up with a variety of reasons or excuses because this is an important point that we want to look into with great seriousness.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I can perhaps come partially to the aid of the Minister by pointing out, and I do not want to be partisan, that if for some reason that we are all looking forward to hearing about it is felt that companies which are registering—these ACSPs—are right to be shy about having their name attached, I point out that Amendment 50A requires those companies simply to notify the registrar of how many companies they have registered and the codes that they have used. That will throw up the sorts of patterns that the crime agencies are very interested in. For example, if registering body X has registered 3,000 companies in a year or 300 companies under a particular code which is of interest, that will emerge very quickly from the data, even if it is not necessary for some reason to attach the name of the company to the companies it has registered, which I think, in line with my noble friend Lord Vaux’s amendment, it should be, but I appreciate that we are going to discuss that later. I want to draw to the Minister’s attention that the statistics that will enable those who are interested to focus on what companies are being registered by whom in what sectors would still emerge without having to attach the name of the registration body to the company.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I would like to clarify my point, which is that this is a very relevant point raised by a number of noble Lords in the Committee. I have been doing a great deal of investigation into this point over the past few weeks and have great sympathy with the sentiments expressed about making sure that the bodies that verify identity can be tracked in some way, in public as much as in private, because I feel that to be very important.
However, there may be technical points that I have overlooked, so I am reluctant to commit today to accepting an amendment, as noble Lords can imagine. It would be inappropriate for me to do so, but I hope noble Lords can hear from my clear words the commitment that we make to see whether the principle around this amendment could be made possible as we look into how the Bill will develop over the forthcoming period, so I greatly thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his amendment, and I look forward to having discussions over the next few weeks to see how we can find a way to try to implement the philosophy of the principles.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I rise to press the Minister to answer my question about the consultation and what ACSPs asked for in relation to this. I am confident that the Minister will have that discussion and include everyone in it. It is very clear what his inclination is, but I will add one testing question, which I think is important. If an ACSP wished to have its identity associated with its professional, accurate and helpful work and to have that association with the business that is being registered known publicly, would the Companies Act, as amended, facilitate that? Would it be allowed to do that? Would it be allowed to publicise who it is or are we forcing anonymity on everyone who does this work and not allowing their name to be associated with sterling, world-class work?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. I am intrigued about whether or not that is true. That is why I think it is important that we look into this in detail to ensure that it can be done properly and that we are making legislation that improves accountability and transparency. Without repeating myself, I hope noble Lords feel comfortable that we have made a significant and serious commitment to see what we can do about this point, and I will take a personal interest in this.
I will move on to the point about standard industrial classification, which has just been raised, and Amendment 50A, put forward so well by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I greatly thank him for his amendment and, again, agree with the intention to increase transparency.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
On that same point, following on from what the Minister said about the vast majority of these organisations being good, trustworthy and so on, is it that the risk of one mistake being associated with them, because their name would be available, means that people would not want to do it? I asked this associated question: what is the consequence or penalty for getting an identification verification wrong? I made the parallel with the rental side of things, where landlords are expected to be able to know whether they are looking at forged documents and that kind of thing. Are we trying to protect the reputations of organisations in case they make the odd mistake but it blows them out of the water? I am still grasping for reasons but I wondered whether that was part of the response. It is the inverse of what the Minister was referencing.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intervention. I do not have an answer to the question as to whether there was concern over reputational damage but I personally do not see that as a particularly significant reason to withhold one’s identity. If you are an auditor of a corporate account, your name is public. As I am sure we have found with some auditors relating to some national political parties, their embarrassment will be palpable but at least it will be public for us all to see.
To answer the noble Baroness’s other point on penalties, just so she is aware, it is an offence falsely to confirm the identity of an individual. I am unable to make comparisons with the private landlord sector but it is very clear that falsely identifying an individual would be a serious offence. That is part of the legislation we are providing for.
On Amendment 50A, I consider that the measures included in and added to the Bill provide a significant amount of transparency. I will come on to discuss that in a moment. To look at the process that allows an individual to become an authorised corporate service provider, they have to be supervised under the money laundering regulations. They are already required under those regulations to take appropriate steps to identify and assess the risk that their customers would have on their business. Although I understand the noble Lord’s intention, I do not think that this is the right place to consider publishing information about risk assessment processes. In our view, it is beyond the role of the registrar to gather and store this information, or to question it.
The right place to consider the quality of risk assessments is through money laundering supervision. Supervisors are already empowered to compel this information and take enforcement action against firms found to be non-compliant. I have well heard the comments around the money laundering process and whether the supervision regime is adequate. A review is being undertaken at the moment, which is raised in one of the amendments we are about to cover. It makes sense to include discussion of how ACSPs are monitored in that review.
I turn to the suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, around standard industrial classification, or SIC, codes and the publication of this information. SIC codes allow Companies House to track what a business does and are used primarily to indicate emerging trends and the strength of the UK economy. I support the noble Lord’s intention to have clear information about the activities that companies are undertaking. Through the Bill, the Government are extending the requirement to provide a SIC code to limited partnerships. As my noble friend Lord Leigh rightly pointed out, such provision is already obligatory for companies. Companies House already runs reports on how SIC codes are being used and will be capable of filtering these to show only the SIC codes of companies that were registered by ACSPs, for example. I therefore consider that requiring ACSPs to provide this information as well would be duplicative.
I also consider it disproportionate to require ACSPs to provide annual reports to the registrar on the SIC codes associated with the companies that they have registered. It is possible that thousands of ACSPs will be registered and it would not be possible for these reports to be regularly monitored. This is a concern in terms of the cost and burden to Companies House.
Furthermore—this is a very relevant point for me that has been made; it does not negate the necessity to assess the process of SICs but it is important in the context of this debate—a company’s SIC code can and often does change. There is a great deal of—I do not necessarily know the right word—greyness about how people classify their business activities. In my investment career, I looked at a tank company that was classified as a consumer discretionary and I saw a military defence business that had a lingerie subsidiary. I am still trying to work out whether that was related to distracting the enemy but the point is that, in many cases, it is very difficult to be absolutely certain about the occupation or classification of a business.
On noble Lords’ comments about companies obfuscating their actions, this amendment does not necessarily provide a solution. It is not necessarily the role of ACSPs or Companies House to determine the specific validity of every claim made; that would be extremely difficult, particularly where there are grey areas around activities. That change may or may not be presented by an ACSP; it would be unreasonable to expect an ACSP to be responsible for monitoring this.
I am therefore not clear what benefits this amendment would bring and request that the noble Lord does not press it, but I am happy to have a further discussion about SIC codes if they fall within the Department for Business and Trade, which they probably do. At the same time, I am happy to have further discussions with noble Lords about the review of money laundering processes and the supervision environment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I very much look forward to those discussions and certainly do not want the reporting burden here to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. However, is the Minister saying that, if we have a problem with companies misallocating their codes, it is up to the company or the registration body to determine the code? If the registration body is deliberately miscoding companies, we have a problem. If companies are foolishly misqualifying themselves, we have a different type of problem. Either way, we have a problem, but the Minister seems to be saying that there is no problem in either case. Could he just confirm that situation?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s intervention. As far as I am aware—I am comfortable to be corrected, as I am surrounded by so many experts in this area—it is the company that classifies itself, rather than the ACSP. If that is not correct, I will certainly come back to noble Lords. I repeat that we are happy to look at the issue of industry classification, which is very important in understanding the growth of the economy, new industry classifications and how businesses are performing, at the very least—separate from the opportunity it will give Companies House to assess high-risk areas.
I understand Amendment 50B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but I cannot support it. Information on the money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with the TCSP—trust or company service provider—sector is already published in the national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing. Risk assessment undertaken by firms on their clients can be shared with money laundering supervisors who are responsible for reviewing them as part of their supervision of TCSP policies, controls and procedures.
With respect to the proposal to provide information about the fees that they charge, I remind noble Lords that ACSPs are themselves businesses or consultants which are a part of a market economy. In our view, it would not be reasonable to expect ACSPs to disclose this information. There is nothing in the Bill which would oblige an individual to have their identity verified by an ACSP. Individuals will be at liberty to decide whether to pay any fee that an ACSP decides to charge, or to use the service that will be provided by Companies House. I am confident that, if a prospective customer considers an ACSP’s fees too high, we can trust them to vote with their feet.
Amendment 51A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is well intentioned. To some extent, we have already covered this, but I will go through these points to make sure that we are complete. I do not agree that the amendment would add value. There are over 600 SIC codes which are used to inform economic trends. Trying to adapt their usage for the purpose of fighting economic crime is unlikely to be successful. I am unclear as to how the Government would determine which SIC codes would be classified as “high risk” or how they could be applied fairly. Perfectly legitimate lower-risk businesses would almost certainly be inappropriately labelled high-risk. I hope that I have covered the other points relating to standard industrial classification codes.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Bennett, for Amendment 54. As I said, I hope that I have covered the points raised in enough detail to satisfy noble Lords present today that there will be a significant amount of work and inquiry in relation to that amendment.
Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, is about blocking the use of ACSPs until HMT’s supervisory reforms have taken place. It would be disproportionate to block all ACSPs from carrying out identity checks while the Treasury works through its reforms to the supervisory regime, which, as I said, I hope will conclude around the summer of this year. It would have a disproportionate effect on the thousands of high street accountants and solicitors, and their business clients, who operate entirely legitimately. I remind the noble Lord that ACSPs will be required to carry out checks to at least the same standard as the registrar and that she will keep an audit trail of their activity and will be able to query any activity that she thinks suspicious. She will be able to share information with the ACSP’s supervisor and suspend or deauthorise an ACSP, preventing it from conducting identity verification.
A delay in allowing ACSPs to carry out identity checks could also impact other areas of reform; for example, limited partnerships will be required to make certain filings via an ACSP and may wish to have their identity checks done simultaneously by an ACSP. The Bill already provides in Clause 65for secondary legislation to be made which would allow spot checks to be carried out by the registrar under Section 1098H. I am confident that, if any rogue agents slip through the net, they will soon be spotted by Companies House, which will have the powers to take appropriate action. In all honesty, I see no merit in delaying ACSPs making identity checks and beginning this important process of bringing transparency and clarity to the register at Companies House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Does the Minister think that there is a case for there being some form of regulation of ACSPs, or does he think that that is not needed?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention, as with all interventions today. The ACSPs are already supervised by the money laundering supervisory authority. Should there be a discussion over some type of more effective oversight of ACSPs, in the view of this Committee? We will no doubt discuss that in the future. But as it stands, they are regulated and if any noble Lord is involved with such a business—if they have a financial services business or have been involved in financial services—they will know the strength of the regulator and the fear in which decent, law-abiding firms hold their regulator when it comes to enacting the necessary practices to perform their duties and tasks.
The final amendment that I have in my notes is Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. It would require a report on foreign ACSPs to be made one year after this Act is passed. I do not consider this amendment to be necessary, the main reason being that colleagues in the other place have already agreed to the addition of Clause 187, requiring the Secretary of State to prepare reports on the implementation and operation of Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill and to lay a copy of them before Parliament within six months of the Act being passed and every 12 months thereafter. Since authorised corporate service providers are provided for in Part 1, they should already be captured.
For the reasons given, therefore, I do not support these amendments. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, to withdraw Amendment 48.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Captivated as I was by the Minister’s mellifluous tones, I am not quite clear if he is saying that he is prepared to write to us about proposals for SIC codes or to meet us or both. I totally accept that it is within the scope of the Bill and certainly within the scope of the purpose of the Bill, but it is an extra exercise, an extra burden. None the less, I wonder whether he feels it is something he could take on.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point, and I hope I have not overpromised. Personally, I am very keen to make sure that every part of the Bill is discussed and I am very happy to ensure that the comments we have raised in this debate today are passed on to the right office, which in this case is the Office for National Statistics, which falls under the Treasury rather than the Department for Business and Trade. I am sure it will welcome involving itself in this discussion.
I would like to make a correction: the consultation on the money laundering oversight regime will begin in the summer, not conclude in the summer. I apologise for that.
Lord Fox (LD)
I do not want the Minister to leave this process with the concept that we are entirely satisfied with his answer on the regulation of ACSPs because of the multiplicity of those regulators and, frankly, the variability of those regulators, never mind the absence of any structure or template, which the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggests. I hope the Minister can continue to keep that in his list of things to think about at the end of this session.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Will the Minister clarify something? I am sorry that I hesitated, but I am sort of in shock. Has the Minister just told us that he is not going to have consultations with us about so many of these points, but we are going to be talking with the Office for National Statistics about them?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I hope that the noble Lord did not misunderstand my point. I think I referenced the fact that I assumed that SICs would fall under the Department for Business and Trade, but it turns out that that is not the case. I was mistaken in my knowledge of departmental structures and it turns out that they are under the Office for National Statistics, which is under the Treasury, so it would be wrong for me to suggest too much consultation on account of the fact that that is not my department. However, I have committed to making sure that we have further discussions around this. It is clearly very important, and if we are to make the function of SICs work properly, they need to be seen as effective and useful, so I am very comfortable to commit to ensure that a suitable discussion is held around that. I would be delighted to make sure that the relevant officials are brought before noble Lords to have a further discussion around how that can possibly be effected, but clearly I cannot commit another department to a specific activity.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Will the Minister be joining those discussions or is he absenting himself from them?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the point. I very much look forward to those discussions. I would have to be dragged away from such discussions, unless it turns out that it would be inappropriate that I should attend any part of them.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I cannot promise to drag the Minister anywhere, but I, too, look forward to those discussions.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The Minister very comprehensively dismissed my amendments, but earlier in the debate he committed to thinking much more carefully about bringing much more transparency to the regime that oversees ACSPs. I just want to make sure that is the case. I also want to offer a couple more anecdotes about why I believe this is so important.
The former chief executive of HMRC Sir Jonathan Thompson questioned the role of HMRC in regulating these people. He did not understand, or was not prepared to accept, that anti-money laundering duties were part of the core activities of HMRC. I gave earlier examples of the failings of oversight by HMRC. The Financial Action Task Force review stated that there were “significant weaknesses” among all supervisors, and specifically recommended that HMRC should consider
“how to ensure appropriate intensity of supervision”.
My point is that Companies House is going to be relying on what I believe to be a broken regulator at the moment. I am not suggesting that we create a new regulator, but that is why the risk assessment in Amendment 51 is so important. Who is minding the minders? At the moment, nobody seems to be. It is all moving at a glacially slow pace, and we keep being told that everything is okay, but I do not think that everything is okay. I accept that the protocol is that I do not move my amendment, but I would like a slightly stronger commitment from my noble friend that he really is going to kick the tyres on this and lift a few drain covers, if I can mangle my metaphors.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s mixed metaphors. I hope I have been clear that the process of making sure that the ACSPs operate in an environment that is trusted and clear is at the root of much of the activity we are discussing today. I will certainly make myself available for further inquiry but, as I hope I have made clear, ACSPs are regulated by the money laundering supervisory authorities and a review of that important process will begin in the summer.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly long debate for their support. Once again, consensus seems to have broken out in the Committee, which must be a good thing.
The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, dramatically set out the scale of this problem. We all stand around it. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I must confess that I thought the Minister was rather complacent in his views on the efficacy of the anti-money laundering regulations as they stand. The Treasury review is welcome; it has been hanging around and talked about for quite a long time now. The fact that it is only starting in the summer is somewhat alarming. We need to fix what is a broken system. In talking to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, it surprised me by telling me that the vast majority of accountancy firms are not regulated by it. This is not consistent and really does not work well; it is an area that we have to improve.
At the outset of today’s debate, the Minister said that he is open to constructive and practical suggestions for improvement. We are all grateful for that. In this group, we have a number of simple suggestions that would add little or no burden on either the registrar or business and could make a genuine practical difference. The Minister was quite right when he said that the vast majority of ACSPs are diligent and honest, and that it is an important industry. It is worth repeating that. I am sure that that vast majority would like to see the poor minority driven out of the business so that it stops giving it a bad name.
I am disappointed that the Minister cannot accept some or all of these amendments today, I must say, but I am grateful for his confirmation that he will consider them seriously. I look forward to the promised discussions that he has agreed to have. On that basis, for now—although I am absolutely certain that we will come back to this issue on Report—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Garnier (Con)
We had a great deal of fun working out which part of the identified person’s anatomy should form the main part of the photograph. I am happy to say that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has obviously learned from that hideous experience. This seems an altogether better set of proposals.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for Amendment 50. As has been discussed, it seeks to require that the new identity verification process includes the use of photographic ID issued by a recognised authority. Although I welcome our shared ambition to ensure that identity verification will be a robust process, I am concerned about noble Lords’ proposed approach to limit the acceptable documents in primary legislation. Under Clause 64 of the Bill, the procedure for identity verification, including what evidence will be required, will be set out in secondary legislation.
I apologise, as always, for not answering noble Lords’ questions. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised how I dodged his question the first time. I hope I am not dodging it a second time but I would be delighted to write to noble Lords with some further information on the specific detail that is required for identity verification. Let me be very clear: we assume that it will include a photograph. However, I will come on to explain why that may not necessarily be the case in every instance.
Setting this out in secondary legislation will allow for flexibility and ensure that the technical detail of the identity verification process can be adapted to meet evolving industry standards and technological developments. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations via the affirmative procedure. I assure noble Lords that, for the majority of individuals, photographic ID will be used. The primary identity verification route will be via the so-called “selfie verification” method, which will involve the person providing documents such as a passport or driving licence. The person undergoing identity verification will take a photograph or scan of their face—my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier may be pleased by this specificity—and the identifying document. The two will be compared using likeness-matching technology, and the identity verified.
However, I am concerned that the proposed amendment would exclude individuals who do not have photographic ID. Restricting the acceptable documents could inadvertently discriminate against a number of people and raises equality concerns. For example, would it be fair for the law to prevent individuals setting up a company simply because they do not have a passport or a driving licence? Should an individual who has owned the freehold of their home for decades via a company now be forced to apply for photographic ID despite there being no other statutory requirement to have one? This is why, for individuals who cannot provide such documentation, there will be alternative options available. I assure the Committee that these will be robust and proportionate.
Most importantly, all providers will conduct checks in line with the cross-government identity proofing framework—the GPG 45—which will be comparable to verification checks conducted elsewhere in government. Under the GPG 45 framework, a combination of non-photographic documents, including government, financial and social history documents, can be accepted to achieve a good-level assurance of identity. ID documentation from an authoritative source such as the financial sector or local authorities is also recognised under the cross-government identity proofing framework and is routinely used to build a picture of identity.
For the reasons I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will understand the philosophy of my approach and agree that requiring in primary legislation that an individual provide official photographic ID to verify their identity would be unnecessarily restrictive and potentially unfair. I am afraid that I must therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that serious answer to the amendment that I have just moved. I am also grateful that he has said that the Government’s intention is to harmonise the identity-checking methods across a number of different parts of the government process, if I can put it like that. I acknowledge that the technology for identifying individuals is evolving and that photography itself is not the end of the story; that part of the identification process is evolving as well. I will reflect on the Minister’s answer to that point. I need to look at other pieces of legislation and see whether the way in which identity is going to be checked is explicitly put on the face of the Bill in other Bills. Nevertheless, as I have said, I thank the Minister for the serious way in which he has answered the points that I have raised. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I will speak briefly on this amendment because key to it is: what is the purpose of the unique identifier? Perhaps like the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I thought that it was like the resource identifier that you use for searching. I know that if you search on my name, you do not find all my directorships. I keep amending my name to try to make sure that they are all the same, but you still cannot find them in Companies House, so I was thinking that it was a better way than names of finding out all the companies that people were involved in, and so on.
I can see that, if it is more of a login approach, that might be different, but that then begs the question: is there not a better way of identifying companies and individuals that works on the searches? If you are searching to see whether somebody is doing something in a different company, or how many directorships they have, simply going by name means that too often there are minor variations, and it will not flag up what you are looking for. Like the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I am curious about what the purpose of this identifier is, and therefore why it is confidential.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his Amendment 53. Unique identifiers are unique codes allocated on an individual basis. The Bill will allow unique identifiers to support the effective operation of identity verification, such as allowing Companies House to link an individual’s verified identity across multiple roles and companies. I like to look at it as operating as a username. That is important; it is not a public but a private number that the individual will have allocated to them.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, that this amendment is not necessary to achieve the objectives that they have described—although I am concerned about the noble Baroness’s difficulty in tracing herself in the records of Companies House. This will be a good test as to whether the systems work. Companies House will be making changes to how members of the public view the register so that, although the unique identifiers themselves will not be public, it will be possible to see accurately connections between individuals and entities. That is the central point of the reforms being made to Companies House. This includes how many companies for which an individual is a director or person with significant control.
From my own experience of using the Companies House database, I come up under the various different forms of my name: D Johnson, Dominic Johnson, DRA Johnson or whatever it may be. It works in that instance, but it is absolutely right for noble Lords to be concerned about whether the system will work. We have undertaken to make sure that it does. It is the cornerstone of our activities and everything that the Bill points towards.
Regulations made under Section 1082 will govern the use of unique identifiers. We intend to prevent individuals from having more than one unique identifier, as the name denotes, and anyone submitting a statement with an incorrect unique identifier will commit a false filing offence. Furthermore, the primary purpose of a unique identifier is to allow its owner to communicate securely and privately with Companies House; as I said, it should be looked upon as a username. Unique identifiers can be considered personal data so making them public could expose the registrar to data protection breach risks, in the same way that it would be inappropriate to publish individuals’ national insurance numbers.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the registrar to require a person to provide information not only to determine whether the document is properly delivered but more generally to determine whether it is a document that must be registered.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the registrar— (a) not to make available for public inspection any information on the register relating to an individual;(b) to refrain from disclosing information on the register relating to an individual except in specified circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the registrar to refrain from using or disclosing information relating to an individual irrespective of whether the individual makes an application.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I intended to sign Amendment 72, but I was beaten in the stampede to support it, which must in itself say something about the quality of the amendment. Amendment 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is very similar. Like others, I think that both include important elements and it would be great to try to combine the best of both when we get to Report.
I shall not repeat what has already been said, but it does seem that adding this level of transparency into the system must help in ensuring that we have got this right. During the debates on ECB 1, the previous economic crime Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan said:
“When we introduced the provisions on PSCs—persons with significant control—in relation to UK companies, we had to make some iterative changes to that, as it became evident over time that aspects were not working as effectively as we had hoped”.—[Official Report, 14/3/22; col. 44.]
The best way to see if things are not working as effectively as we had hoped is transparency and reporting, so I hope the Minister can accept this very simple and sensible amendment to promote that level of transparency.
With permission, I will make one addition to the list of items to report on set out in the amendment. Given the importance of the ACSPs to the process, as we discussed in the previous group, I think it would be useful to include some statistics on the number of ACSPs that have approved, both UK and foreign, who they are regulated by and the number which are suspended. With that addition, I add my support to these amendments.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
As always, I offer my thanks to noble Lords for their participation and to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their Amendment 64. I also thank my noble friend Lord Agnew, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their Amendment 72—if I have got that correct. These amendments address reporting requirements in similar ways and are very relevant and important.
I agree that it is important that Parliament is informed about the implementation and delivery of these reforms. That is why the other place agreed to add an amendment to this effect on Report, which noble Lords have discussed. Companies House already reports on many of the items set out in these new amendments and, in many cases, actually goes much further, either through its annual report or via quarterly and annual statistical releases. Legislating to duplicate this, given the new reporting duty at Clause 187, seems unnecessary.
It is important that any report is holistic and of use to Parliament and the wider public. It should provide the necessary context to facilitate an informed view of performance, which would be difficult based solely on the raw data that these amendments propose. However, I agree that some of the new items of data identified in these amendments could be of interest. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised some specific points, which I believe are already covered in part in some of the quarterly filings. In any event, if they are not, they are certainly worthy of discussion. I am happy to explore with Companies House officials how they might incorporate these into their reporting without the need for this statutory requirement.
It may be worth returning to some of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to cover some of the key points raised. Under Amendment 72, each report must
“provide annual data on … the number of cases referred by the registrar to law enforcement bodies and anti-money-laundering supervisors”.
As I understand it, this is already enabled via the Commons amendment and is expected to be included. Also in Amendment 72, each report must provide annual data on
“the total number of company incorporations to the registrar, and the number of company incorporations by authorised corporate service providers to the registrar”.
These incorporations are published quarterly via the statistical release. The amendment says that each report must
“detail all instances in which exemption powers have been used by the Secretary of State”—
which is also covered by the government amendment—and
“confirm that the registrar has sufficient financial resources to meet its objectives”.
The registrar’s resources will continue to come from fees, which will be set according to how much activity Ministers want to be undertaken. Also, each report must
“provide annual data on … the number of companies that have been struck off by the registrar”
and
“the number and value of fines”.
Removals from the register are already reported on quarterly. The number and value of late-filing penalties are published in annual management information tables.
That just gives the Committee reassurance that there is already a great deal of detail published, and we will be looking to publish more. I look forward to a discussion with noble Lords on specific areas that we can cover; I am sure that my officials are looking forward to those discussions. This is all about the sort of data we provide that allows us to run an effective and transparent company system in this country. But I am very reluctant to legislate specifically, according to these amendments, given what I have said and our commitment to making sure that we are publishing useful information.
I will cover the comments from some of your Lordships relating to the supposed sunsetting of requirements to report. As I understand it—I may have misunderstood, but I hope I have not—the purpose of the clauses on six-month and annual reporting relates to the implementation of changes in Companies House that will bring it up to the standards at which we wish to see it operating. At that point, the reports will be included in annual and/or regular reports. It is not that reporting ends, but that it becomes commonplace to report on the data rather than necessarily on the changes that we are instigating to Companies House. I am happy to clarify that further, if my description was not accurate enough.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Clause 187 says
“on the implementation and operation”.
Therefore, I hoped there would be ongoing commentary and reporting on the operation. I accept that the sunset clause implies that it is about transient stuff, but if the operation—it must be the ongoing operation because it might break down; we do not know—is included in other reports, I would be satisfied. If it is not, I suggest that we need to keep Clause 187 going.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s point. As I said, the sunsetting effectively becomes business as usual, which is provided for to enable Companies House to report according to the criteria that have been established. I am happy to discuss what data it is useful to provide. That is a very important and relevant point. My assumption is that it will evolve over time to some extent, but we can be pretty comfortable that a great deal of information is already provided. It might be useful for us to assess that and then engage in further discussions with officials. We are very open-minded on the data provided. I am reluctant to legislate for this, since we are trying to make data useful rather than simply a legislative process.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
Is the Minister suggesting that he will clarify the noble Baroness’s point? The wording in Clause 187(1) it quite specific in saying “operation”. Is he saying that he wants this to drop away as part of the sunset clause, but that another report will endure and he will discuss it with us to ensure that it is fit for purpose for the longer term?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I believe we will have further discussions on that point, yes.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
When the Minister replied to me he used the word “data” rather than “operation”. There is a difference between data and operation. This might not be something that he can instantly resolve, but the ongoing concern is about not just the data but the operation of Companies House. Those are two different things.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that point. There are two separate components to that, one of which is the data and/or requirements tabled in these amendments, which are relevant to understanding the activities of Companies House and ensuring that we have a comprehensive assessment of what they are. The second point is that there is the assumption that, over the next six or seven years, Companies House will have reached its operational capability to deliver on providing the relevant data, so we have a good deal of time to assess whether that has been achieved. There is a potential for Companies House to achieve its ambitions before 2030, at which point it would settle into business as usual reporting.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, this discussion about how we fight economic crime would be an awful lot easier and better informed if we had seen the Government’s national fraud strategy, which I believe was supposed to be with us at the back end of last year. Perhaps the Minister might like to find out when we might finally see it.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships, as always, for this very passionate debate. I am struck, after however many pleasant hours we have been together debating in Committee, by the convinced passion and determination of Peers on all sides. An Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill might be considered a dry, technical matter for specific and weighty thought, but the reality is that this is an emotive subject. It is important for all noble Lords to know the Government’s shared passion for stamping out illegal activity and economic crime in this country. From my point of view, it is extremely costly to the economy to enable financial crime to be enacted in the UK. It is not invisible, and every crime has a victim. I hope all noble Lords understand that my personal passion and that of the Government are allied in trying to make a Bill that is practical, will achieve its goals and will allow businesses to flourish.
I would also like to apologise. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned the meeting which many officials here attended yesterday. I was unable to attend that meeting, for which I sent my apologies. That was the only morning that I have been away in the past six months. I hope all noble Lords will feel comfortable in contacting me directly to arrange further formal or informal meetings.
I now turn to the amendments. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their Amendment 65 on fees and penalties. I also thank my noble friend Lord Agnew, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baroness, Baroness Bowles, for their Amendments 69, 70, 71, which address the economic crime fund and the retention of fees by economic crime enforcement agencies. I also thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for her Amendment 106E on fees and an economic crime fund.
I shall attend initially to the fees and penalties element. The level of Companies House fees has been the subject of much speculation, and I know from our conversations and the amendments in this group that noble Lords have a significant interest in this. At no point do the Government believe, or could anyone in all seriousness believe, that £12 is a reasonable amount for setting up a company. People have suggested that if a commercial organisation cannot afford whatever arbitrary figure one may wish to pick—it could be £50, £100, £150 or £500—for the creation of a limited liability company, it should question whether a limited liability company is the right structure in which to operate.
However, it is very important that fees are set via regulations and that the Government have flexibly over the right level of fee, which has not yet been established. I was grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for confirming his view that that is the most appropriate way to set fees. The fee will be determined following an analysis and appraisal of the volume of investigation and enforcement activity to be undertaken, the associated cost base, the timelines for recruitment and systems development and other factors which we have raised in this important debate. We are currently finalising our modelling but are increasingly confident that we can fully fund the reforms, including creating around 400 new roles at Companies House, while keeping fees low. Current estimates from Companies House suggest fees of no more than around £50.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the annual administration fee. There is an establishment fee for setting up a company and then there is an annual fee, which is currently £13—it is more expensive to register your firm annually than it is to set it up in the first place. I am not entirely sure how we reached those figures, but we are not looking to enshrine a minimum level of fee in primary legislation because to do so would severely restrict flexibility which may be required at a future date. Fees will continue to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that they are providing the level of funding that Companies House needs. Companies House is able to retain incorporation fee income under current arrangements between it and HM Treasury, with the arrangement reviewed periodically. That is important. The current intention is that the fees will be used to pay for Companies House, so a raised fee is absolutely right. It is estimated to be used for the functioning of Companies House.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
Will my noble friend clarify the annual filing fee? He mentioned that the one-off fee will go up to around £50. Can he give us any sense about the second fee? I think it is more important because it is regular income. I think the stock of new companies will drop because of this legislation. It will stop very small actors, as we have discussed—the plumber, the painter or whatever—and bad actors will not come in, so annual new registrations will drop, but that is why the filing fee is very important. Will the Minister give the Committee some indication?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend. We do not have an estimate for the annual registration fee so I would not like to speculate on it, but clearly it would be raised to a level commensurate with the £50 initial fee. The Government set the fee levels, as is appropriate under legislation, but they will come from the recommendation from Companies House. We will look very closely to ensure that it has enough income to perform the functions that we want it to perform. I do not think it is anything more complicated than that.
I have had many enjoyable debates about what the fee should be. To some extent, we can enjoy those debates but they are slightly speculative. What is important is that the Government have the flexibility to ensure that the right level of fee is charged and to change that if necessary. I do not think that anyone in this Committee would disagree fundamentally with that principle. Setting a minimum fee level does not seem reasonable, given the flexibility that we wish to retain.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Can my noble friend explain to the Committee what advantage the Government believe would flow from having low fees for incorporation? There seems to be an idea that we need to raise it to £50 only, as though there is some benefit in having a low fee—I am not sure in what terms, given that the EU average is €300, the US cost is between $570 and $1,400 and the BVI charge £1,000. In the Government’s view, why would there be an objection to going with the Treasury Select Committee recommendation, for example, of at least £100? It would not mean that they could not charge more. It seems to be the general view of the Committee that £100 would not be an unreasonable minimum, at least, for this incorporation fee. The annual fee can always be set in a different way.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate my noble friend’s intervention. It is probably a good thing that we will be cheaper than the EU when it comes to registering a company; we could call it a Brexit dividend. Without being facetious, this is about giving the Government flexibility to ensure that they charge the right amount. I have no personal view on whether it should be £75, £100 or £125; we can have this debate all evening, and I have great sympathy with it. The point is that I do not believe that anyone in this Committee is suggesting a significant change in the volume of cost for either establishing a business or registering it, so it is absolutely right that we should consult widely and make sure both that the right amount is charged and that we have the flexibility to change it one way or the other, if appropriate.
Lord Fox (LD)
This has turned into something of a Dutch auction. We have lost sight of the purpose of this group of amendments, which is to look through the telescope from the other end. This is about enforcement: how much money will be needed by the enforcement authorities to enforce the Act? Does the Minister agree that the current level of enforcement with the current legislation is inadequate? If so, what will change to fund the organisations to create adequate enforcement? If it will not happen through the measures being discussed in this group of amendments, how will it? That point was made by various noble Lords in the Committee. It is the nub of the answer that we are seeking from the Minister.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. If I may, I will come to my conclusion before answering those important points. The Government need to continue setting fees via regulations. I would personally be very reluctant to try to set any minimum floor. The assumption will be that the right amount of fees will be set and they will be higher than currently charged. Estimates from Companies House suggest around £50. We are happy to have discussions about that as we go forward but I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
Has any thought been given to the possibility—I know that the Government like this sort of structure—of having an independent fee review body that looks at all this and makes recommendations? The Government could still set the fee but there would be an independent group of experts looking at the objectives that we have set ourselves. Is it too late to put some provision like that into this piece of legislation? I know that the Government like reviews.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for suggesting the creation of another authority but, in this instance, I would be reluctant to do that. As I said, I have noted his comments very carefully, and I will be happy to have further discussions with noble Lords around this issue. I am sure it will be a matter of debate, but the important point is that I do not believe that we should be setting minimum costs by legislation. It would be completely impractical and would remove the flexibility and purpose.
I now come to the economic crime fund and economic crime enforcement agencies Amendments 69 and 71 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and the economic crime fund Amendment 106E tabled by my noble friend Lady Altmann, which are very relevant. As we have discussed—and I take this view personally—we can have as many rules and regulations as we want, but if they are not enforced properly, they will have no value. That is why when noble Lords come to me with new ideas—there is an ever-bubbling font of new ideas—for new regulations, strictures and penalties that could be imposed upon businesses to reduce economic crime, I sometimes push back. I say that it is not necessarily about introducing new regulations and rules but about making sure we have the resources, focus and capabilities successfully to prosecute existing crimes.
That is at the core of my next comment: the Government are committed to ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the funding they need. The combination of the 2021 spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the new economic crime levy will provide funding of £400 million over the spending review period. The levy applies to the AML-regulated sector and will fund new or uplifted activity to tackle money laundering, starting from 2023-24. I believe that the levy is expected, or targeted, to raise £100 million. I am not sure whether that figure is confirmed; I will come back to noble Lords if it is wildly inaccurate.
In addition to this, a proportion of assets recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are already reinvested in economic crime capability. Under the asset recovery incentivisation scheme mentioned already by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and some other noble Lords, receipts that are paid into the Home Office are split 50:50 between central government and operational partners, based on their relative contribution to delivering receipts.
Proceeds from fines issued by Companies House are placed into the Consolidated Fund, which is used for financing the expenditure of government departments on important public services. The proposed amendments would see the incorporation fees, all fees paid under regulations made under Section 1063 of the Companies Act and all penalties paid under regulations made under Section 1132A of that Act being surrendered into an economic crime fund. This would be contrary to the fundamental principle that the fees are paid for the benefit of incorporated status and would fall foul of long-established Treasury rules preventing fees being used to fund activities that may be completely unconnected. I am happy to be corrected, but I do not believe that this is pushing back against the concept of hypothecation. The point is simply that these are fees to be paid for a service, and it would not be appropriate for them to be directed to another function.
This would also encompass almost the entirety of Companies House’s income, leaving it with no resources, and it would require funding from elsewhere, primarily from the taxpayer, so going completely against what many noble Lords, this Government and I want, which is to use the fees to pay for the functioning of Companies House. The fees would then go into a fund, so we would have to pay for Companies House on top of that. I am sure that is quite clear. The Government do not believe it is appropriate to place the burden of funding Companies House on the taxpayer, and this would be contrary to the fundamental principle that the fees are paid for the benefit of incorporated status.
I would like to attend now to some comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the Home Office practice on this. The Home Office has a very clear practice of full-cost charging for visas for entry to this country. I think it now costs £2,000 to £3,000, for example, for the spouse of a British citizen returning to this country to get settled status in Britain. If some parts of government are now insisting on full recovery of costs, perhaps this is a model that could be applied here as well.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord; that is exactly what I am saying. The whole point about the fees is that they are charged in order to pay for Companies House; that is precisely the same principle. Unless I have misunderstood the intervention, this goes directly against the amendment that introduces a fund that has to be paid for by the fees levied on people who are setting up companies or annually registering.
I want to attend to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. He said—rightly—that the whole point of this legislation is not to profit or make money from it but to stop the bad practice happening in the first place. The fines and penalties to be issued by Companies House are designed to drive a change in behaviour, not be a revenue-raising tool. I was grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for raising the point around how these fines could or should be used. It is possible to suggest that the same situation happens with speed cameras. The theory there is that we want to reduce speed on the roads, not raise revenue—at least, that is my personal opinion.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I do not have an interest to declare there, I might add. Using fines to fund other activities results in the perverse scenario of that funding being dependent on behaviour that we are actively trying to stop. I strongly believe that, in many ways, the principles we are talking about are negated by a well-intentioned concept: trying to make sure that there is enough money so that our law enforcement agencies are properly funded in order to achieve their ambitions.
Given the limitations that I have set out—this goes to the point about providing a report—I am not convinced that there would be merit in providing a report on the prospect of a fund or, indeed, providing for a fund. I hope that noble Lords understand my conclusion here.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I am sorry to intervene but I just want to say something. The Minister agreed with all of us that the crime-fighting agencies need to be properly funded but he did not explain how that will happen because he does not accept that we should hypothecate. He gave some good examples of other situations where it was about not the hypothecation but the use of revenue for activities that were not part of the original source and funding litigation. In June last year, the Information Commissioner announced a new arrangement with DCMS in which it could keep some of its civil monetary penalties to fund it to take on large technology companies. All I am trying to do is ensure that we will have the resources to take on these bad actors.
The Minister and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier mentioned ARIS. As I said earlier, the funding has declined by 35% in five years—that is without inflation—yet the problem is getting worse. I do not expect the Minister to come back to us on this tonight but I am looking for some reassurance around how we are going to fund these things properly because we are not doing so at the moment. Everybody seems to be in denial and the Minister has offered me no assurances that we are going to deal with this.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate my noble friend’s intervention. I hope that I have made clear to the Committee the importance that this Government place on fighting economic crime.
If I may—I am not sure of the protocol—I wish to question my noble friend’s intervention. He said that the asset recovery incentivisation scheme has seen a considerable drop in the monies deployed to law enforcement over the recent period. However, I have a figure here: since 2006-07, just under £1.3 billion—that is based on nominal values and not adjusted for inflation—has been returned to Proceeds of Crime Act agencies to fund further asset recovery capability and work that protects the public from harm. In 2021-22, £354 million was recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act, of which £298 million was paid into the ARIS pot. So I certainly will research the figures given to me by my noble friend.
The point is that we are looking to provide funding of £400 million over the spending review in order to focus on fighting economic crime. I am happy to have further debates around this issue but I hope that I have made my point in relation to these amendments, minimum fee levels and creating a fund out of the fees, which would be completely contrary to the ambitions that we have set in our legislation around Companies House.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have to say that there is a bit of work to be done on this group of amendments before Report. The Minister certainly failed to convince me and I am sure he failed to convince many, if not everyone, on the Committee. There is a real problem here. There is a problem with raising the fee and what it should be. The Government say that it is a matter for us and then came up with the figure of £50, which I think is inadequate. There we go; there clearly needs to be discussion about that on Report. I take the point that a number of noble Lords have made that the fee is not just to fight economic crime but for the additional responsibilities that Companies House will have. That is very clear.
Lord Johnson of Lainston
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) require a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, relevant PSC particulars except in circumstances specified in the regulations;(b) confer power on the registrar, on application, to make an order requiring a company to refrain from using, or refrain from disclosing, relevant PSC particulars except in circumstances specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This brings the drafting of the amendments made by Clause 89 into line with the drafting of the amendment to Clause 49, page 33, line 19 that appears in the Minister’s name.