Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

There are a number of amendments and they do not all do what is intended. On amendments 24 to 26, I respectfully ask the Members concerned not to push them to a vote, but I will happily work with them to see what more we can do in the other place.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

My understanding is that the Government accept amendments 24 to 26 in principle and will work in the Lords to put something in the Bill that delivers what they suggest. Am I correct in that?

[Paul Scully]

Essentially, yes. We want to make sure that we can work with hon. Members on that. I do not want to accept all those amendments here and now, but I want to make sure that we can get it right in the other place, working with them at that stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to be called so early in the debate, and I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and those of colleagues on both sides of the House. I refer to amendments 24 to 27, and new clause 10. First, let me deal with new clause 10 and then come back to the main issues associated with the other amendments.

New clause 10 is really about the issue of debate in this House and being able to scrutinise properly the nature of what is being done or not being done to those whose ill-gotten gains are being used for purposes they should not be. It would place an obligation on the Government to schedule a debate on the annual sanctions regulations report. I know that the Government argue that that is the responsibility of the House, and of course it is, but it is also important that this provision would be specifically tied to this particular issue. There is a reason for that: it is too easy for Governments to find lots of reasons why they do not end up doing that debate or they schedule it somewhere else and it gets pushed away—I say that having served in Governments myself. The new clause would mean that within 10 days of the report there would have to be a debate. That is important as it opens this up to a proper debate and proper scrutiny. Therefore, I wish that the Government will give it further thought, but I will come to that later on, if necessary.

I return to the key area where I and others have tabled amendments. Amendments 24 to 27 are linked and consequential, but, crucially, they are linked to clause 31. Like others, I had concerns about that clause because it seemed to leave a back door open to any enabler to avoid any requirements for reporting by appealing to the excuse that they did not know that the assets or money they were dealing with had any link to any individual or entity. I draw the Minister’s attention to what clause 31 actually says. Subsection (1) uses the words:

“It is an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly”.

So the excuse is, “I didn’t know” or, “I’m not acting recklessly, because I didn’t know”. It is peculiar that we would want in a Bill a defence that someone may wish to use subsequently if they were in court. This will mean that they will never get to court if they challenge the Government.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and then to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).

[Stella Creasy]

I thank my neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that many of our constituents will be looking at this and will be bemused, because when it comes to their own tax affairs they do not get the same leeway? They can be penalised for acting both recklessly and carelessly. So if we want to make sure that this legislation is watertight, we should take a lesson from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and make sure that we are not giving people a loophole in that way, especially if they are oligarchs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Yes. I take the hon. Lady’s point. The point I am making is that we should rightly assume that this is their responsibility—there is no let-out. If they misrepresent their position, they should face the full rigours of the law. It should not be a case that they can defend themselves before—

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

First, I will give way to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon.

[Layla Moran]

I was going to make the point that was just made: we should expect oligarchs to abide by the same rules that all the rest of us do.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

We all have to stop agreeing like this, as it will give the House a bad reputation.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. I have looked at these amendments. Is not the best way to achieve his aim to make this offence a strict liability one, which does not require a state of mind and simply involves a set of facts having been established? There could be a reverse burden, whereby the subject demonstrates that they have not acted unlawfully. Strict liability might be the best way to achieve his aim.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I always bow to him in the knowledge of the law, as of course I would. I thought he was an excellent Justice Secretary—I will just slip that one in, gratis, and I am sure he can dine out on it. I agree with him wholeheartedly, because what he says is right. I will come back to the flexibility that is required, but I come to the principle of what we are saying. We are seeking to strike out that little lacuna that results from the words “knowingly or recklessly”. That would make this about the responsibility of the person concerned and that would be it—there would be no let-outs, no issues and no quibbling. This is the key. Everything in the other amendments is relevant to it; they merely backfill various areas, and it is important that they should refer to clause 31. They make it clear that responsibility rests with the individual—the entity, should I say—in this particular case.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

It is important to note that these amendments in my right hon. Friend’s name, my name and those of others do not set us apart from is happening in the rest of Europe and in America. America is applying the same principles. Although the Bill closes the front door on much of Putin’s dirty money, we must ensure that no back door is open. We should therefore be working in line with our NATO allies, and with many other European colleagues as well.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That is exactly correct. All we are doing is asking for the UK to be at the same level as the United States, and I do not think that that is asking too much. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions, and this is very much what we are driving at. In fact, I love the idea that an individual who is sanctioned in the United States should be sanctioned here, and that if we sanction individuals the United States should sanction them as well, and that the same should happen in Europe. We would have this common purpose: there is nowhere for those people to go. They are sanctioned, full stop, and they cannot use their ill-gotten money anywhere.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether his amendment, and the Bill, will address the issue of nominees? That seems to be a way in which someone could get away with it: “I can hand my property to a nominee.” Do the enforcement mechanism and the reference to named individuals enable us to stop them doing that?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

They should, because the individual has to declare the whole chain. “Not knowing” would be no excuse. It would be the responsibility of individuals to know who those nominees were and to declare them They could not defend themselves. What my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) suggested might be a better way of doing this, but my point is that my amendment would nevertheless address it.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is correct. The Bill defines a legal entity as

“a body corporate, partnership or other entity”.

rather than an individual. I am not sure that, in those circumstances, the amendment would cover the individual.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It might not, but I think it would, because it covers the information that individuals are asked to declare. It may not cover the sanction on the individual, but it covers the knowledge of who that individual is. If there is a better way to do it, however, I am up for it. That is feasible, and it may be that my right hon. and learned Friend’s way of doing it is a better way.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I think we are all wandering around the same point. May I clarify it? The Minister agreed to look at our amendment 3, which addresses the question of whether this is an entity or an individual, and whether, if it is an entity, that entity can put forward a company provider and thus hide the identity of the owner of the property. The Minister has agreed to look into what could be a loophole in the legislation, and then consult with us on it. I think the point is valid, and I hope that the Minister will look at it and that, between us, we can all close that loophole.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree that clarity is everything in this instance. The Bill will be going to the other place, and by the time it comes back, we will be looking for those loopholes to be shut down and sorted out.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I do not want to sow further confusion, but I think that the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) is critical. Before the Bill passes into law, we need to understand whether a nominee can be the name at the end of the trail. If that is the case, I am afraid that this register will be largely pointless. If I wanted to conceal the ownership of a property, I would simply set up a shell company in the British Virgin Islands through a nominee, in which case, I am sorry to say, all our efforts today would be for naught. We must resolve that before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Let me simply say that the purpose of this debate is to tease out exactly that. I wish that we had less debate on Second Reading and more on the details, but that is water under the bridge, and this is an important factor. In a second—although not quite yet so he need not worry—I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister to explain what he actually plans to do, so that we are clear about that. However, I agree that we need to understand what that relationship is. My assumption was that they come together, but it may not be right, and if it is not right, we will end up back in the courts with delay upon delay and we will never get these people sanctioned.

I know that we must make progress, so I will not go into the details of each amendment, but, as I said earlier, amendments 24 to 27 are connected. We will, I hope, be able to vote on all those amendments, but I am prepared to give some leeway, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me now what his attitude is to amendments 24, 26 and 27?

[Paul Scully]

I will cover this at the end of the debate, but I should like to work with my right hon. Friend on amendments 24, 25 and 26 to ensure that we can make changes in the other place. However, we want to go further than amendment 27 in the second economic crime Bill.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I take it from what he has said that he accepts amendments 24, 25 and 26 in principle, and that he will seek in the other place to deliver their meaning through other amendments, so that by the time they return here, this point has been established. May I draw to his attention the debate that we have just had on the definition of whom this provision encompasses? That will be a vital issue, as my hon. Friends have said, but it is not clear. I hope he agrees with me. I will take a nod from him at this point. Hansard can register his nod, because that is how it works.

[Paul Scully]

indicated assent.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful.

Let me end by saying to my hon. Friend that this legislation is probably one of those great critical junctures at which we finally decide and agree in this place, as a result of an emergency that is going on elsewhere, that our procedures and our laws are wrong, and that we have to make change. When we have to make change, we should not baulk at it; we should make wholesale change, and ensure that what we deliver leaves the next generation clear about where they will be, and clear about the fact that we did not fail them. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to stick to his agreement with us, and when the Bill comes back, we will look to it. Otherwise we will have to amend the Bill, but I take my hon. Friend at his word.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I want to speak about the amendments and new clauses in my name and those of my colleagues. I refer to amendment 41, new clauses 4 and 21 to 23, and amendments 18 to 23 and 40. I have indicated my support for a number of other new clauses and amendments. I dare say that given the cross-party nature of the amendments that were tabled over the weekend, if we had had more time we would have had more names attached to all of them. The Minister would do well to listen to the cross-party calls from Members of both Houses. I have little in common with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and I disagree with him vehemently on many issues, but I have signed some of his amendments.

I share the horror felt by my colleagues and my constituents at the news that is coming through from Ukraine. We condemn the flagrant and repeated breaches of the Geneva conventions by Putin and his troops. I thank the people of Glasgow Central who have been raising funds and gathering goods across the constituency, but particularly those at the Hindu mandir, dropping off those goods to help the people fleeing Ukraine. Their sense of humanity has been undoubted, and I hope that it will be met by Ministers—not least the Home Secretary, who disappeared before we could raise further issues with her—because the people of Ukraine deserve our support.

This Bill is patently not enough. The volume of worthy and sensible amendments, and indeed the Government’s own amendments, testify to that. Action is long overdue. Stephen Gethins, Professor of International Relations at St Andrews and our former colleague in the House, has said:

“For years we have turned a blind eye to Putin's dirty money, propaganda and influence in our democracy. Those who called out the corruption were badged as anti-Russian when it was the Russians who were Putin’s first victims. It is a shame that many are only paying attention to his crimes after such grave events. I hope that real action will be taken. After years of inaction we owe the people of Ukraine and Putin’s other victims at least that.”

I agree very much with Stephen Gethins.

The situation we find ourselves in today, legislating in great haste, did not need to happen. This is not new. Putin and his cronies have been shifting their ill-gotten gains through the UK for many years now, unimpeded—and indeed facilitated—by UK Governments of various stripes, while journalists, civil society campaigners and, to their credit, many Members across this House, such as the right hon. Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), have repeated their calls for action throughout many Bills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

Yes, I do, but my hon. Friend must bear in mind that the burden in the new clause—the responsibility and requirements—falls on the person who is sanctioned.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I was not going to intervene on my right hon. Friend but I have been looking back over the list in his new clause. Does he think there is a slight problem, in that the new clause talks of

“selling any assets they own or…moving any assets they own or have an interest in out of the United Kingdom, or…moving any of their funds out of the United Kingdom”

but it does not cover anything about gifting assets out to an individual who may then transfer them immediately? Does he think that ought to be included in the measure?

[Mr Davis]

Yes, my right hon. Friend makes a good point. The reason why gifting and transferring to relatives, which is another category, is not in there is because I took—I almost ripped it out of the legislation—the legislation that we put in place for Skripal, which also omitted those things. My right hon. Friend is quite right, though, and had my new clause been accepted today, I would have looked to make two changes when the Bill went to the Lords, the first of which would be to do that—to tighten it. The other would be to include a right of appeal if it went on too long the other way round, to balance the human rights issue.

We should bear in mind the fact that the National Crime Agency, for example, has people on police bail. I know of a case in which people have been on police bail for five years and we know nothing about it, so the restriction in my new clause on somebody who faces possible sanction is much less than the restriction the NCA imposes on some people. It is vital that we prevent ultra-wealthy individuals, with their teams of highly paid lawyers, advisers and accountants, from exiting the UK with their ill-gotten gains or hiding them where we cannot find them or get them.

By the way, I am a great believer in the presumption of innocence, but if somebody came out of the old Soviet Union—Russia—in the years between 1990 and 2010 with £1 billion, £2 billion, £3 billion or £4 billion to their name, and they were previously an officer of the Russian state, I do not quite start with the presumption of innocence that I would normally start with. I would start with a requirement on them to explain where that came from. That seems to me to be a reasonable, common-sense modification of my normal “mad-libertarian” interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

It always seems to me absurd that it costs £12 to establish a new company in Companies House. Obviously we want to make it easy for new businesses to enter the market, but £12 is absurd. We know that that gets exploited in relation to shell companies, but does it also facilitate economic crime? If we quadrupled that figure to £50, it would still not be a fortune, but we would then have a massive investment that we could put into our enforcement agencies without raising any further money through taxation. There are a whole range of mechanisms that would not have a direct impact on public spending. They may mean that the Treasury gets a little bit less than it thought it would, but they would not have a direct impact on public expenditure and we could employ them to make these enforcement agencies fit for purpose.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can see some way forward on a point that I made earlier. Europe, the UK and the USA all have separate sanctioning bodies, with the USA way ahead of the pack. If the USA is sanctioning somebody, it surely should be for this Government, or for that matter for European Governments, to argue why they will not be sanctioning the individual against the evidence that is shared by the USA, rather than why they are looking to sanction the individual here. It seems that, if we are all in this together, it would be far better if we had a much closer set-up, so that we sanctioned people if somebody else had found the evidence and we thought that it was okay.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

There are already arrangements for the sharing of information and data, but it is not enough. It is absurd. When I talk to the enforcement agencies and the anti-money laundering people working in the banks, they tell me that they cannot share information. If one bank has information that makes it suspicious about a particular client, it ought to be able to share it around the banking system so that they can all take action. There are pragmatic steps that we could take to share information and knowledge across jurisdictions, from America through to Europe to us, which would massively improve things and actually bring in money.

Let me take one example that came out of the FinCEN files. Standard Chartered Bank is a British bank. In 2019, it was fined by both America and ourselves for poor money laundering controls and other offences, including breaching sanctions in Iran. The British bank was fined £842 million in America, but only £102 million here by the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK. The Americans have got it right. There are lessons that we can learn from them. There are also ways in which we could properly resource all the enforcement agencies. We could perhaps reduce them as well—we do not need all these people. Every time I refer a matter, whether it is for a corrupt or an illegal activity, to one enforcement agency, I am either told that it is the responsibility of another agency or it goes into a big black hole and I never see anything arising out of it again. That situation is completely and totally unacceptable.