Post Office: Additional Funding
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I am announcing that the Government intend to provide additional financial support to Post Office Ltd of up to £150 million, plus any contingency that may be required. This funding will enable the company to meet the costs of participating in the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and of operating compensation schemes for postmasters.
The final level of funding required is currently being finalised. The Government will confirm to the House the outcome of considerations on financing needs at the earliest opportunity following finalisation.
The Government also intend to provide additional funding to help with the development of the replacement for the Horizon IT system and to ensure that the Horizon system is maintained before that replacement is rolled out.
This funding is subject to compliance with subsidy control requirements, including referral to the subsidy advice unit—part of the Competition and Markets Authority—for review under the Subsidy Control Act 2022, and no award of funding will be made until this is completed. The subsidy advice unit should publish a report within 30 working days, in addition to a preliminary assessment being carried out and a subsequent review period where the outcomes of the review are considered.
[HCWS1081]
Smarter Regulation Programme
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for the Department for Business and Trade (Earl of Minto) has today made the following statement.
Today the Department for Business and Trade has launched a Call for Evidence into the regulatory landscape. The Call for Evidence can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/smarter-regulation-and-the-regulatory-landscape.
The Government are driving regulatory reform across Whitehall via the Smarter Regulation Programme, which launched on 10 May with the publication Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy. Smarter regulation means only using regulation where necessary, and ensuring its design and use is both proportionate and future-proof.
Since then, we have announced numerous reforms across these areas. For example, on the stock of existing regulation, we have launched consultations on reforming employment law; wine sector reforms; and the product safety and furniture fire consultations. The latter will future proof our approach to product regulation, alongside indefinitely extending CE recognition. Additionally, we launched a series of consultations aimed at improving the outcomes that independent regulation delivers—this includes Strategic Steers for the Competition and Markets Authority; the Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy regulation; and most recently we consulted on extending the existing growth duty to Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat.
We know there is concern around the complexity of the regulatory landscape; the agility and proportionality with which regulators make decisions; and governance and accountability. This Call for Evidence is an opportunity to further understand the detail of these issues and test how widespread they may be, providing an evidence base from which to identify improvements that can be made over the short and longer term.
The first step in addressing such concerns will be to collate evidence on precisely how the regulatory landscape is impacting businesses, consumers, and regulators. Our first and principal focus is to understand what works well and what could be improved in how regulators operate to deliver for the sectors they serve. It seeks views on regulatory agility; proportionality; predictability and consistency of approach. Secondly, it asks whether there are any further steps we can take to reform the existing stock of regulation on the UK statute book—both retained EU law and wider regulations.
This will be accompanied by an ambitious programme of workshops with consumers, consumer groups, businesses, regulators and think tanks.
The Smarter Regulation programme covers three pillars:
Reforming the existing stock of regulation—both retained EU law and wider domestic regulation—to cut business burdens and future proof our regulatory frameworks;
Ensuring regulation is a last resort and not a first choice, by putting downward pressure on the flow of new regulation and deploying alternatives wherever possible; and
Ensuring that independent regulators perform as well as they can and deliver the right outcomes for consumers. This includes supporting the drive for innovation and economic growth.
The Call for Evidence forms part of the third of these pillars.
The Call for Evidence will run for 12 weeks and invite businesses, public sector bodies, individuals, and other interested stakeholders to set out their priorities for an improved regulatory landscape.
The information that the Government receive through this exercise will be beneficial in shaping our approach to regulations and our priorities and objectives, ensuring that our final approach is informed by stakeholder needs.
We welcome responses from all stakeholders across all sectors in the economy but note that we are not seeking views on financial services regulators and regulations. These are handled by HM Treasury, where there have been positive and industry-welcomed reforms in this space in recent years.
Statutory Instrument Programme
In parallel to today’s Call for Evidence the Government are continuing their programme of Statutory Instruments under the Retained EU Law Act, which seek to optimise retained EU law for the UK and ensure the law is clear and accessible. Yesterday we laid Statutory Instruments (SIs) that will ensure we can continue the effective operation of rail passenger services and ensure our intellectual property framework continues to function. We will keep pursuing our drive to reform retained EU law by bringing further regulations for Parliament to consider.
Next Steps
The Government are committed to lightening the regulatory burden on businesses to help spur economic growth. We will publish a summary of responses and will continue to keep Parliament, the devolved Administrations, UK citizens and businesses updated, as we make progress.
[HCWS1069]
Post Office Compensation
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the latest steps the Government are taking to ensure that swift and fair compensation is made available to postmasters whose Horizon-related convictions are overturned.
This House is aware of the distressing impact that problems with the Post Office’s Horizon IT system have had on the lives and livelihoods of many postmasters. Starting in the late 1990s, the Post Office began installing Horizon accounting software, and over the years the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in branches. Between 1999 and 2015, those shortfalls were treated by the Post Office as caused by postmasters, and that led to dismissals, recovery of losses by the Post Office and, in some cases, criminal prosecutions. We now know that Horizon data was unreliable. I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of this House, and in the other place, who have supported postmasters in their efforts to expose the truth and see justice done.
The Government have supported the Post Office to make significant interim payments up front—set at £163,000—to those with overturned Horizon convictions. We are also funding the Post Office to reach final settlements with these postmasters. To date, 86 convictions have been overturned. The Government and the Post Office have been clear that we want to see the victims receive swift and fair compensation. I have been monitoring the delivery of compensation to those with overturned convictions, and more than £21 million has been paid out to date. Although good progress has been made on personal damages, such as for mental distress and loss of liberty, thanks in large part to a successful early neutral evaluation process overseen by Lord Dyson, progress on full and final settlements has been slower.
That is why I can announce today that the Government have decided that postmasters who have their convictions on the basis of Horizon evidence overturned should have the opportunity, up front, to accept an offer of a fixed sum in full and final settlement of their claim—the sum will be £600,000. It will not be up to £600,000; it will be £600,000. There will be no requirement for evidence to support the claim, other than the ability to demonstrate that the individual has an overturned conviction. We have arrived at that figure by looking at existing claims that have been processed and applying a generous uplift. This will be delivered by the Post Office, with funding from the Government. To be clear, this up-front offer is available to those postmasters whose convictions have been overturned as they were reliant on Horizon evidence at the time. This payment will be made net of any sums already received, such as interim payments and partial settlements, to settle the claim fully.
Any postmaster who does not want to accept this offer can, of course, continue with the existing process. It will therefore be completely optional to accept the offer of £600,000, and the Government will continue to fund the legal costs of these postmasters to ensure that they receive independent advice ahead of making a decision. However, we hope that the change I am announcing today will provide more reassurance and quicker compensation to those postmasters who would prefer this option over going through the full assessment process. Almost certainly, there will be fewer people taking the option of the full assessment process. To be clear, any postmaster who had their conviction overturned as it was reliant on Horizon evidence and who has already reached a settlement with the Post Office for less than £600,000 will be paid the difference.
Postmasters who have been wrongfully convicted have some of the most severe circumstances, having lost clean records and, in some cases, their liberty, and having suffered significant financial losses and an overwhelming impact on their lives. The Government recognise that those postmasters have suffered gravely in relation to the Horizon scandal, and for too long, and so should be able to settle their claim swiftly if they wish. The Post Office is contacting the legal representatives of eligible postmasters with further information about this offer. I appreciate that some details will need to be worked through, such as how long the up-front offer remains open. I am committed to consulting the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, which includes Members of this House, such as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and Lord Arbuthnot, on this matter to make sure we get this right. However, we did not want to delay informing postmasters that there will be an optional quick and straightforward route to settlement. Postmasters may choose to have their claim fully assessed if they prefer, whereby each claim is assessed on the basis of its individual losses.
The Post Office will continue to process these claims as quickly as possible and we are encouraging it to continue to work actively with postmasters’ legal representatives to make offers and payments as soon as possible. The Post Office has made offers to all 73 formerly convicted postmasters who have submitted a claim for non-pecuniary damages—non-financial personal losses. Awards for non-pecuniary damages are guided by Lord Dyson’s early neutral evaluation. With regard to pecuniary damages—financial losses—only 21 claims have been submitted to date and the Post Office has made offers on 12 of these, five of which have been accepted.
The Post Office has been engaging with claimant advisers on pecuniary principles for assessing financial losses to support swifter formulation and assessment of claims. The Post Office plans to move to a remediation model of claim assessment, involving an independent assessor to facilitate settlements and resolve disputes. This remediation approach will bring greater transparency to the existing process.
We know that hundreds of postmasters were convicted during the period when Horizon was in use. The Post Office contacted over 600 postmasters to help them to appeal their conviction and that work was later taken over by the Criminal Cases Review Commission as an independent party. However, still only 86 convictions have been overturned to date and we recognise that there are a number of postmasters who have not yet sought to appeal their conviction. It is for the courts to decide whether a conviction is unsafe, but we encourage all postmasters who think their conviction may be unsafe to come forward and start the process. We hope that being transparent about the level of compensation available via a straightforward route will encourage even more people to seek to overturn their conviction.
I am pleased to provide the House with an update on the other areas of Post Office compensation. To date, £79 million has been paid under the Horizon shortfall scheme, with offers made to 99% of the original cohort of applicants. The Post Office has made offers for 58% of eligible late claims.
Under the group litigation order scheme, the Department has paid £22 million to date. We also announced interim payments in June last year, and 99% of claimants have received the share of the £19.5 million to which they are entitled. The scheme opened for full applications in March this year. To date, 32 claims have been submitted and first settlements have been reached. I am pleased to inform the House that my Department will be publishing data online regularly on the progress of compensation delivery.
In addition to providing compensation, it is important that we learn lessons so that something similar can never happen again. That is why the Government have set up the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and put it on a statutory footing to ensure it has all the powers it needs to investigate what happened, establish the facts and make recommendations for the future. The inquiry is progressing and we will continue to co-operate fully to ensure that the facts of what happened are established and lessons are learned. I commend this statement to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. This is, of course, an issue of great importance and I thank him and his Department’s civil servants for the progress they have made and the work that has gone on to achieve it.
As this is my first time speaking on the matter from the Front Bench, may I put on record my tribute to the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and to all those who have campaigned for decades for compensation, justice and truth? I also recognise the efforts of Members across the House on behalf of their constituents, as well as the work done by colleagues in the other place. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). As the Minister said, he is unable to be in the House today but he has played an instrumental role in helping to chart a route to justice for thousands of people and we wholeheartedly thank him for that.
The House is in unanimous agreement that the Horizon scandal has been a shocking injustice. Indeed, I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the greatest scandals of modern times. While we continue to hear in the public inquiry the accounts of lives torn apart by the scandal we can never lose sight of how devastating its impact has been on those victims.
Labour will act in good faith on any announcements that aim to facilitate justice for those involved in the Horizon scandal. Having listened to the Minister, I understand the logic behind the approach that he has announced today, but I would be grateful if he answered some initial questions. First, how many people does his Department anticipate will take up this offer? Secondly, what assurances can he give the House that the compensation being offered to those 86 individuals whose convictions have been overturned will be at a sufficient level? I have spoken to one MP today who has a case in which various accumulated costs amount to millions of pounds. What can the Government say in response to the question that, if people go through the full scheme, the compensation would be much higher? I would be grateful if he addressed what he thinks the balance is between his figure and what other people might expect to get.
Thirdly, while I welcome what the Minister has said, the wider issue, as he mentioned, is the much larger group of people whose convictions have still not been overturned. I know that there have been some proactive attempts to engage with them, but the Minister must share our frustration with the lack of progress. What more can he do to expedite this process of reaching out, contacting and talking to those people?
We understand the logic behind today’s announcement, but we would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on those issues. As I said earlier, we are happy to work in good faith with the Government to get this right and take one of the many steps required if we are to make amends for what has been the most insidious of injustices.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for her questions. First, may I welcome her to her place? I look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I echo her comments in relation to the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance. I met Alan Bates very early on in my tenure as a Post Office Minister. He has done an incredible job and we would not be as far on as we are without campaigners such as Alan and, as the shadow Minister said, people across this House who have worked so hard to ensure that the overall cases are heard and that people are treated fairly in terms of compensation.
I thank the shadow Minister for her support for today’s initiative. Eighty six people have come forward so far. That is frustrating because we think that there should be about 600 in total who are reliant on Horizon evidence. We are frustrated, but we are keen to do what we can. We believe today’s announcement will help. People can see that they will not have to go through months of claims assessments and that they will not have to engage with lawyers unless they wish to do so—and we will cover the costs of doing that—so it will be a quick and easy process for people. Anything that is said across this Dispatch Box that encourages people to come forward would be welcome. We will continue our efforts elsewhere, to make sure that the people concerned are contacted and are aware of this particular option for them.
On the levels of compensation, this will not take away from the original route. People can still go down the full assessment route. If somebody thinks they have a claim worth millions of pounds, they may well decide to go down the full route. However, I would also say that we know of about 60 people who have sadly passed away while awaiting compensation. Clearly, that is wrong and an injustice. For some people, it will be the right thing just to be able to take this money and draw a line under the whole sorry situation. If people feel they have a claim, which is at a much higher level, they can go down the same route, as that option is still available to them. That is a judgment that they will have to make in conjunction with their legal advisers. I thank the shadow Minister for her comments.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Like many Members across the House, I have heard from people who have been truly badly affected by what has been done to them here, so I welcome today’s statement. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the group litigation order postmasters will pay no income tax, capital gains tax, national insurance contributions, inheritance tax or VAT on these compensation payments, and that the process will be as smooth as possible for them?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her work in this area. As she knows, this is something that we dealt with following the concerns that were raised about the compensation schemes and their treatment of tax. It is also important to say that there is a benefit disregard as well. We have done some similar work to make sure that people who had access to the Horizon shortfall scheme were also treated in the same way. I think we have tried, wherever we can, to be fair and to move quickly when instances of concerns have been brought to us, and we will continue to take that approach.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and the Minister about the campaigners who have fought so hard for justice. I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for his conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) in advance of his announcement. [Interruption.] There have been some travel issues today.
The announcement is a welcome further move, but it cannot return the lost years, reunite families or bring back those who are gone. It is something, but it is not enough. Will those who opt to go through the full assessment process be guaranteed a minimum of £600,000, or will they possibly be offered a lower settlement as a result?
In his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon Central, the Minister mentioned the 60 individuals who have sadly passed away, at least four of whom took their own life as a result of this scandal. Can he give us more clarity on how the compensation offer will apply to those who have died? It was not set out in his statement. Will their families be offered the same £600,000? He sort of mentioned it in one of his answers, but if we could have absolute clarity for those who are watching, it would be incredibly helpful.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions and her support for today’s announcement. She is absolutely right: no amount of financial compensation can truly compensate people for what has happened. It is an horrendous set of circumstances and one of the biggest scandals that this nation has ever seen.
The hon. Lady is right, but as I say, it was important that we drew the line somewhere on what the compensation level would be. We looked at the average compensation claims that were coming through for overturned convictions, and we settled on a figure on the generous side of that. We think it is a fair figure, but of course people can still take the other option and go down the full assessment route.
The hon. Lady makes a very good point about whether people who have been awarded less through the full route would get the minimum level. That is something on which we are working with the advisory board. We are very keen to engage with the advisory board; I think it is very important that people who are looking for compensation have the reassurance that the advisory board is in place. Its parliamentary members have been very vocal campaigners on the issue for a long time.
For anybody who had an overturned conviction, but who has passed away: yes, if they had received a lower amount, it would be topped up to £600,000.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Select Committee on Business and Trade heard some absolutely harrowing accounts of the impact on postmasters who were falsely accused. Is the Minister happy that we can now finally conclude this matter and get people back to living normally?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work, not least on the Select Committee, of which he has been a member for a long time; he does a fantastic job on it. He is exactly right: we want people to be able to draw a line under the devastating impact this has had on their lives and livelihoods, and move on. It is one thing establishing what went wrong, but a compensation scheme then has to be put in place. It invariably takes a lot of time to assess somebody’s loss, because of the complexities around financial losses and the impact on people’s personal lives. This is a way to draw a line under things very quickly, which is exactly the intention behind the scheme. We hope that people will step forward and then be able to move on with their lives.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Minister for his handling of the matter. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), to Lord Arbuthnot and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones): they have done an excellent job on what is an unbelievable scandal.
My constituent was convicted and went to prison under the Horizon scheme, but the Post Office has never accepted that it was Horizon evidence that sent him to prison. What position does that leave him in? Does the Minister agree that it would not be fair for the corrupt Post Office to be able to deny that person the compensation to which he is clearly entitled? The chances that Horizon had nothing to do with his conviction are minuscule. It should not be possible for the Post Office to prevent him from getting compensation. Can the Minister reassure me that my constituent will be able to access the scheme?
Kevin Hollinrake
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments about my predecessors, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who did a brilliant job and has been hugely supportive of the work I have done since taking over his responsibilities. I also thank the hon. Gentleman, who I think has spoken in every statement and debate on the matter in which I have participated as a Back Bencher or as part of my ministerial duties. He does an excellent job representing his constituents and many others.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point about Horizon evidence. I am happy to meet him to discuss his concern about the case. Of course, we do not interfere with what the courts decide. That is the difficulty: the courts follow independent processes under the separation of powers, as he is aware, so a conviction cannot be overturned unless the court so decides. However, I am very happy to look at the case, perhaps in conjunction with his constituent. I am keen to help wherever we can.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
My question is slightly related to the previous one, and I agree that our focus must be on ensuring that everyone who was caught up in this scandal is properly compensated. Some of the postmasters who were dismissed because of the scandal were not formally prosecuted, perhaps because they paid the cash difference for the alleged shortfall before prosecution happened. Nevertheless, they still faced dismissal and many of them were still dismissed. It has been incredibly difficult for those people to get compensation, and this whole ordeal continues to drag on. Can the Minister outline what steps have been taken to ensure that everybody receives swift and fair compensation, including those postmasters who were not prosecuted?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It is right that everyone is fairly compensated, and the detriment that people experienced will vary. As he rightly says, not all were prosecuted. That is why we have the historical shortfall scheme running, and 99% of those cases have been made offers. We also have the group litigation order scheme, which is about to be rolled out and is open for claims right now.
As I said in a previous answer, the process of assessing someone’s claim is complex and difficult, and in every single compensation scheme I have been involved in, including some of the banking schemes, it has taken a long time to settle those losses. We are looking at every possible way to expedite not just the overturned convictions scheme, but the other schemes, and we have some other ideas on how we might do that. We share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment and we are working night and day to get those claims settled more quickly.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement today. Decent, honest people have had their lives torn apart. They have been put in prison, they have been made to wait years for justice and it has been a long, painful and arduous process to get convictions overturned and seek access to compensation. Could the Minister provide an estimate of the timescale for compensation completion for those he considers eligible and not yet fully compensated? Could he also update the House on the next phase of the public inquiry? That is critical, as representatives of the Post Office, the Government and the Japanese firm Fujitsu are due to give evidence. Why has it taken so long for evidence to be taken from those key stakeholders and for them to be held to account?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady for her work in this area, from both the Front Bench and the Back Benches. She is right to say that it has been a long and arduous process for those postmasters. That is one reason we brought forward this scheme, because we do not want the compensation process to be long and arduous. We hope to deliver all compensation by our August 2024 deadline, but we are keen to deliver compensation before that. This scheme will be a new way to try to accelerate the process. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, we will not let an arbitrary date get in the way of paying somebody fair compensation. It is important to say that.
The public inquiry is independent; we do not put pressure on it to hear things within certain timescales, and Sir Wyn Williams is more than capable of making sure that people give evidence in good time. For me, and I think for others in this House, this is not just about lessons learned. If we can identify people who were responsible for this scandal, they should be held to account.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Within weeks of being elected to this House in 2010 I had a meeting with my constituents, Mr and Mrs Rudkin, and was told how they had been treated at the Post Office, and the huge miscarriage of justice. I was delighted when Mrs Rudkin was one of the first nine to have her criminal conviction overturned—back in December 2021, I think—but it is clear that hundreds have not had their convictions overturned yet and are not able to claim the compensation. For them, the misery will go on. To anyone in this House who thinks that they are guilty—they are not. The clear evidence is there in the paperwork. The Post Office relied on the fact that it maintained in court that no one could alter those sub-postmasters’ computers remotely without them knowing about it, but we know from the evidence that Fujitsu was doing it day after day, fixing problems in the Horizon system. Therefore, all those convictions are unsafe. Let us get on, get them the compensation they deserve and bring this sorry episode to an end.
Kevin Hollinrake
We absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for all his efforts on behalf of Mr and Mrs Rudkin and others. Clearly, his role in the campaign has brought the issue to light and got us towards a position where we will get justice quicker. Of course, we want to ensure that the convictions on the basis of Horizon evidence are overturned. Sadly, we cannot do that without people coming forward, so the united call from this House to the probably 520 people who have not yet come forward is this: please come forward; if your conviction is unsafe, it will be overturned, and compensation, which we are keen to pay out quickly, will be waiting for you.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the energy and dedication that he has put into trying to move this issue along, which I know will be sincerely appreciated by those who have been affected. However, no compensation will ever reflect the financial losses, family disruption, social stigma and mental trauma that people were put through as a result of deliberate lying by the Post Office and Fujitsu about Horizon. I hope that he will ensure that those who are guilty of this gross miscarriage of justice do not escape the process unscathed.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his campaigning on this issue, about which he has spoken often. He describes some of the horrendous experiences that people have had following the prosecutions and dismissals, and he is absolutely right that no amount of compensation could really make up for the destruction of lives. He talks about people lying, or lying by omission. The biggest part of this scandal is that people in the Post Office realised what was going on 10 years ago but said nothing, despite the fact that some people were in jail and they must have known that those convictions were unsafe. It is absolutely unacceptable; it is scandalous; and I absolutely join his call for people, when identified as responsible, to be held to account.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
This whole episode has shown very clearly just how beloved the institution of our post office network is—I can say that as a former postmaster. The banks will not stop what they are doing; their trend is to remove as many branches as possible from our high streets up and down the land. Of course, that puts enormous pressure on the post office network, which has to pick up the slack—I have talked to the Minister about that before. Can he assure me that he will put every effort into ensuring that post offices are invested in properly so that they can be the future dealer of authorised financial services on our high streets, perhaps making them the pinnacle of banking hubs in the future?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work in this area. He, too, has been a consistent campaigner on this matter, and, as the only Member of Parliament who was previously a postmaster, he understands it well. I could not agree more with his comments: the post office network is held in such high regard across the country. This scandal has not in any shape or form affected the brand itself, which is still highly regarded around the country and has a very bright future as long as it is properly remunerated. He raises an interesting point—one that I have raised with banks, with UK Finance and others, and with fellow Ministers, including the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is on exactly the same page as me—that if banks want to save money by closing branches up and down the country, that is a commercial choice for them, but they have to leave behind provision for access to cash and deposits. If that means that they have to pay the Post Office and postmasters more for that service, so be it. I very much encourage the Post Office to take a robust line in negotiations to ensure that we get the best possible deal.
UK Export Performance
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). I am not sure that I can be quite as animated as he was during his speech, but I will do my best.
The issue was clearly laid out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), with the stats on exports. The Government are incredibly positive about how wonderful exports are, but the reality is, when we are compared to G7 partners, the stats tell a very sorry tale.
Of course, we are the only country in the world dealing with the hangover from covid—no, wait, that is not right. We are the only country in the world dealing with the impact of the war in Ukraine—no, that is not right, either. We are the only country in the world dealing with demographic challenges—no, that is not right, either. The thing is, we are the only country in the world dealing with removing ourselves from our largest trading partner. That is the differential. That is why we are not seeing the growth in trade.
The Minister talked about the fact that there are agreements in place with 73 countries. Fabulous. We left the EU, which has agreements in place with 72 countries. So with all that work and all the running around that Government Ministers have been doing, we currently have one more country with which we have a trade agreement in place than the EU. It almost seems as if the immense amount of uncertainty that everybody—individuals and businesses—has been put through was not really worth it after all.
We could go back to 2016 and make different decisions about how to make Brexit work—six different leaders of Labour and Conservative colours have spoken about it—and how to make the best future for the economy, the wellbeing of people throughout these isles. What the Government should have done was ask, “What do we export the most? What is our trading relationship with the EU?” We exported a lot of services to the EU before Brexit. So, if it had been me taking decisions on this, I would have done everything I could to try to protect those services. I would also have done everything I could to protect those communities that would be decimated by the loss of something, such as fish processing—and whisky, which the Minister mentioned a moment ago. The Government should have been focusing on those things. Instead, they put forward that their No. 1 priority in negotiating Brexit was to end freedom of movement. They have had to suffer the economic losses that go along with that. So they have sacrificed the beneficial position we were in before Brexit, affecting a number of businesses and individuals as a result, not just because of the decision not to prioritise services but for the loss of freedom of movement. That has meant that our farmers, for example, are struggling to find people to work on their farms. It is the same issue in food processing and across some of our most rural communities, which are being decimated as a result of how much harder it is for people to come and live and work in the United Kingdom.
In the automotive debate, we heard comments about the rules of origin. I first raised the rules of origin in relation to the automotive industry in this House five or six years ago, and the problem has not been solved. That level of uncertainty has been hanging over the automotive industry since then, and there is no clear answer. The clock is ticking; there is a very short period of time before this kicks in, and decisions need to be made. At that point, I spoke about diagonal cumulation. We need to ensure that there is certainty or we will continue to see those large manufacturing companies with bases all over the world choosing to invest in improving their factories in European countries rather than those in the United Kingdom. It has been decimating for our manufacturing.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned the numbers—£3 billion—in relation to the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that we will lose £100 billion as a result of Brexit—£3 billion does not touch the sides of that number and the 4% drop in GDP that we see as a result. Whenever trade deals like these are signed, we might see an improvement in exports. In fact, after the Japan trade deal was signed, we saw a reduction in exports to Japan, so the jury is out on whether they work. However, regardless of whether there is an increase in exports, throwing beef and lamb farmers under the bus is not the way to go.
According to the OBR, there is likely to be a 15% reduction in trade intensity. The OBR has those figures as a result of the Government’s economic plans, the deals signed and the proposals in place. Our food processors and producers, who are producing the best food in the world—as a Scottish MP, hon. Members would expect me to say that—are being massively undercut because the Government have the wrong priorities when signing trade deals. We have already seen beef exports go down by 22% since the deal was signed. The price of producing lamb in Australia has reduced again, which will undercut our farmers and make us less likely to become a nation self-sufficient in food production, because it will cost us more to rear the lamb. That is a problem. The Government have prioritised the wrong things.
The Government have missed the opportunity of renewables, and not just in terms of capitalising economically on climate change and the move towards a just transition. In fact, they have missed the opportunity to invest in amazing innovations in renewable technologies and to export them around the world. During the oil and gas boom, Aberdeen in north-east Scotland became known for exports. My constituency was top for the number of patents per head of population. There is an amazing amount of research and development as a result of the oil and gas industry. We are seeing declining amounts of oil and gas and an increase in the number of countries looking to capitalise on and use renewable technologies. Because we are not seeing investment in things such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage, we are not able to stay ahead of the curve and use that tech to assist other countries around the world in the way that we were able to do with oil and gas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I am slightly confused about the hon. Lady’s policies and those of her party. I think she said that oil and gas production was coming down. Is it not her party’s policy to prevent any new exploration of oil and gas in Scottish fields? Is her own policy in disagreement with that of her party? I am very confused on that matter.
Kirsty Blackman
The party’s policy is that every new oil and gas licence should go through a rigorous environmental assessment. As much as the Conservatives try to paint it as something else, that is the party’s policy. The vast majority of my constituents who contact me would like no new licences to be granted. Far more constituents contacted me to tell me that Cambo was a disaster and should not go ahead. I have a large university in my constituency, and a huge number of people from all around the world, who are massively concerned about the impacts of climate change. I urge the Minister to come and spend some time in my constituency, to see the passion on the ground for a just transition.
My constituents really like having jobs. Most people do. It is great to be able to take a salary home. My constituents, in the main, are not terribly fussed if the job that pays them lots of money is in oil and gas or in the renewables sector. When I talk to people, they tell me that they would like a good job. Those people in the oil and gas industry ask for their tickets to be transferable so that they can go to offshore wind just as easily as they can go to oil and gas platforms. The UK Government have failed to capitalise on that. They failed to invest in CCUS. In fact, back in 2015 the then Chancellor pulled the plug on CCUS without even telling the industry. He stood at that Dispatch Box during the Budget and did that.
The UK Government have failed to prioritise improving our food exports. If they were serious about supporting our farmers, they would do everything they could to ensure them access to the labour that they need to pick the fruit, butcher the pork and export all that wonderful produce. If the UK Government were serious about supporting people and businesses in Scotland, they would have come forward far quicker with the decision on Horizon. They would have prioritised ensuring that our world-leading scientists across these islands, and particularly in my constituency, continue to have access to those research grants. They would have ensured that they could continue to work closely with European counterparts to develop the really cool tech of the future and to develop drugs for Alzheimer’s and heart disease in my constituency. All those things would have been prioritised by the UK Government if they cared about supporting individuals and businesses. They would have taken these things seriously, and they would have prioritised those industries rather than simply prioritising the removal of freedom of movement.
A number of Members have mentioned making Brexit work. It is not possible to make Brexit work. We cannot make Brexit work, because Brexit does not work. Various Conservative leaders have stood there saying, “Make Brexit work.” The Labour party has stood there saying “Make Brexit work.” It cannot work. It is not the positive economic future that we want. The Scottish National party will continue to stand for being in the single market. We will continue to support being members of that single market and, yes, having freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is great for economic benefit. In nine out of the last 10 years—and eight years running—Scotland has had the highest levels of foreign direct investment of any area, country or region in the United Kingdom other than London. That is because the Scottish Government are doing everything they can to ensure that we continue to trade and export, and continue to have a great relationship with as many countries in the world as we possibly can.
The UK Government do not even have a published trade strategy document that pulls everything together. If they had an internal trade strategy document, it would be great if they would publish it, so that we can all see their strategy. Conservative Members say that there are missed opportunities in international trade because they are not prioritising work on selling renewables around the world. Clearly, something is missing. It would be great to see that strategy so that we can provide the appropriate scrutiny. If they continue to hide it, no one can scrutinise it. We do not know what they are trying to do because they are not willing to tell us and share the strategy with us, if they have one.
The only way to ensure that trade with the EU continues to go up and to bring back freedom of movement is for Scotland to free itself from Westminster and take its own decisions on immigration and trade, ensuring we have as close a relationship with the EU as possible, not by making Brexit work but by being back as a member of the EU and the single market. That will protect our economy and our freedom of movement, and ensure our scientists have the best possible access to collaboration. That will ensure our farmers have a level of protection they do not currently have in being able to export food without whatever is going to happen with the Windsor framework, which could be disastrous for our farmers. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 continues to go over the top of what the Scottish Government would like for our future, our farmers and our food producers. I recommend that everybody looks very closely at the SNP’s next manifesto, in which we will lay out those policies even more clearly than I have this evening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. I thank all the Members who have contributed.
Obviously, the House is united on the importance of exports to our economy, but it differs somewhat on how we go about it. I was interested in the remarks of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). He talked about 13 years of economic failure. He can choose his own opinions, but he cannot choose his own facts. May I give him some facts? We are now the eighth largest manufacturer in the world; we have moved from ninth. We have just overtaken France, which is a bit of a double-win. We are the fifth largest global trader in the world, up from sixth in 2021. We are the third fastest growing economy in the G7 since the pandemic. Since 2016, we have grown faster than Germany and France and, since 2010, we have grown the third fastest in the G7. The only countries ahead of us since the pandemic are the US and Canada. Of all the major economies in the European Union, we have a great story on growth. Those are three things we have achieved on growth. Those are the facts.
The hon. Gentleman may want to depress the nation. I have met many pessimists in my life. I have never yet met a happy pessimist or a successful pessimist. The same goes when trying to get elected. The public want a dealer in hope, not these Jeremiahs who are determined to talk this country down. That is deeply unhelpful and deeply incorrect.
I have some more facts. The hon. Gentleman talks about export performance since 2010—he said there have been 13 years of failure—but it is 31% up in real terms. How is that a failure? I have a great deal of time for him away from the knockabout of politics, but his quotes were all about goods. He never touched on services. He will recognise that 80% of our economy is not goods but services, which is hugely important. It is why our export performance, in real terms, is growing.
The hon. Gentleman said that exports are down this year. In the 12 months to July 2023—these are facts, not projections—there were £849 billion of exports, up 16% on the previous year. In this debate, we should focus on the facts.
Kirsty Blackman
The UN figures are actually for goods and services, so the UK is sixth in the G7, at 6% growth, behind Canada, the US, Italy, France and Germany, on 22%. Those are UN figures on goods and services.
Kevin Hollinrake
Again, the hon. Lady is picking out certain figures. May I give her a figure? Does she know the UK’s largest export in the food and drink sector? It is whisky, at £6.3 billion. Fifty-three bottles of whisky are exported every single second. It is a huge success story and one that we are determined to mirror across the economy, and this is the strategy we are employing to do it.
As the Minister for International Trade so eloquently laid out, we are pursuing a trade policy that is unrelentingly focused on growth. I am proud that this Government have such high ambitions in this area but, to borrow an analogy from the Secretary of State, free trade agreements are like motorways—they work only if we get cars driving up and down them. That is why our Department is focusing on how to create the environment that exporters need to succeed. We must also ensure that the right support is in place.
I have seen at first hand the appetite for export growth in the UK, both in my work before I entered Parliament and today as Minister for enterprise, markets and small business. That is why the Department for Business and Trade has established a dedicated free trade agreement utilisation team to help to improve FTA awareness and take-up. The team’s first major project has been to develop new business guidance resources for the UK-Australia FTA, working with businesses and business representative organisations to ensure it captures everything businesses want and need to know, and in business-friendly language. Similar work is under way to prepare for the entry into force of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—TPP is far snappier—to ensure that businesses are equipped with the knowledge they need on fast-growing markets and the benefits of that deal for them.
We understand that taking a business global can be a daunting prospect—if you’ve never exported before, where do you start? You start where Wold Top Brewery, in my constituency, started. It is run by the wonderful Mellor family, a farming family from near Hunmanby. They started making their own beer because they had grain on their farm and an artesian well. They make some fantastic beer, including Wold Gold, which I heartily recommend. It has been in the Strangers Bar and I will tell you when it will be again, Mr Deputy Speaker. They used our trade advisers to start exporting to Italy very early on in their business growth—they did not wait until they had conquered the UK market—and they have been hugely successful, so much so that they are expanding now into Filey Bay whisky, a wonderful whisky, which, again, is exported around the world. That is the kind of export strategy we want and it is supported by the Government’s export strategy, “Made in the UK, Sold to the World”, which is built around a 12-point plan to give firms of any size the support they need on their exporting journey, be it practical, promotional or financial.
Our newly expanded Export Support Service is a one-stop shop for exporting advice. As well as an online library of resources available 24/7, our expert trade advisers are on hand with free and impartial advice. Since April 2022, they have handled 9,600 market inquiries. They work closely with our network of in-market specialists across 100 countries globally to share market insights, identify opportunities and connect businesses with buyers. We have also rolled out our export academy across the country, offering SMEs a programme of masterclasses, roundtables and networking events.
A special mention must go to our fantastic community of export champions for all they do. I have had the great pleasure of meeting some of them in person, such as those from Briggs Automotive Company, in Liverpool, and we are very grateful for all they do. As the Minister for International Trade mentioned, this is all underpinned by the important work of the Government’s award-winning export credit agency, UK Export Finance, which provided £6.5 billion to support 532 UK companies win exports and trade internationally. Eighty-four per cent of those companies were SMEs, and 82% were based in constituencies such as mine and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, the Government have also backed the British Business Bank to provide more than £12.2 billion of finance to more than 96,000 small businesses, including more than 100,000 start-up loans since 2012.
I wish briefly to pick up on some of the points made in the debate. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow West, said, “Why not enter into a veterinary agreement?” If he wants to become a rule taker again, he can do that, but it would rule out things such as gene editing, which was a fantastic opportunity for this nation. That is what he has to try to square the circle of, rather than just playing both ends against the middle.
As for the difficulties of trading with the EU, there is no doubt that those are abating. Eurotunnel said earlier this year that trade between the EU and the UK is back to where it was pre-Brexit in terms of the speed of processing lorries. Of course this is not all within our gift and the EU negotiates in its interests. Apparently, he is going to take a completely new approach. He says they are not going to join the single market or the customs union, yet he is going to wave a magic wand and all these problems will disappear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) pointed out beautifully, the Labour party’s approach is to see which way the wind is blowing. First, the Leader of the Opposition was a remainer, then he wanted a second referendum, then he made the case for free movement of people, and now he wants a complete renegotiation of the trade and co-operation agreement, even though earlier he said he did not.
The approach is simply all over the place—all at sea—despite the fact that we have made huge progress since the trade and co-operation agreement, not least because of the Windsor framework. I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about that, but it is a good basis for co-operation in future and it is very popular with businesses. There have been other steps forward, including the inclusion of the UK in the Horizon programme. There are a variety of issues that we need to work through and the Department is working hard on those. In terms of the trade agreement with India, we are very keen, but it is about the deal, not the date, as we have said many times, and getting that deal right. We have just completed the 12th round of negotiations, so I hope there will soon be some positive news about getting that deal together.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made some interesting points. She made a point about the EU agreement and how wonderful it was, and then talked about services. Well, the EU agreement did not even cover services, or not to any extent, and the Swiss-EU deal did not cover services at all—a 50-year-old agreement. The UK is 80% services, so it is important to look at the issue in the round and do what is right for the UK, not what is right for Germany. Such a deal might suit Germany but it does not suit the UK—we stand up for what is right for the UK.
The hon. Lady talked about oil and gas as a failing industry, and then would not commit to any new licences, which seems very strange. She talked about farming and said people would be better off inside the EU, but when we discussed the potential for Brexit, that was not the perspective of my farmers. She completely ignored fishing. Is the SNP’s perspective that we should rejoin the common fisheries policy? That would be highly unpopular with the fishing industry in Scotland.
Our export strategy is working. We hit £815 billion of exports in 2022 and we plan to go further this year. Our ranking as second in the world for exports of services in 2022 highlights that further. We want businesses to be ambitious in their exporting. The strategy laid a challenge for businesses and Government to “race to a trillion” exports per year by 2030. We need the support of all types of businesses, in all parts of the UK, to make that happen. Unlocking the UK’s exporting potential will help to level up the country and boost the UK’s economy, and I look forward to seeing how much further we can go.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered UK export performance.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
My Department is making it easier to do business every single day. Our smarter regulation programme—which includes implementation of the reforms recommended in the report by the taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform, co-authored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers)—is reducing regulatory burdens for business and reducing costs for consumers. We have announced reforms to employment law, wine regulation and product safety regulations, and further reforms will be announced soon.
Theresa Villiers
I thank the Minister for his answer, but can we have more urgency across Departments on regulatory reform? Using our Brexit freedoms to modernise our regulation is a key way to grow the economy and raise living standards, so can we see more progress on reforming regulation in areas such as personal data, clinical trials, agri-tech and satellites?
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right to push us on this issue. We are working across Government to implement reforms. So far, we have delivered 10 of the 69 recommendations identified in the TIGRR report, in areas such as offshore wind and reforms to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Delivery of a further 49 is ongoing, in high-profile areas such as artificial intelligence reform, easing clinical trials, pensions, the ability to invest in venture capital, the General Data Protection Regulation and the seed enterprise investment scheme, all of which is saving businesses billions of pounds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet to confirm all those points.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Government are committed to universal human rights, the rule of law, free speech and fairness. Those values guide all aspects of our international policy, including our approach to trade.
Kenny MacAskill
As trade talks continue with many countries that have deplorable human rights records and as discussions continue with India, will the Minister ensure that we receive binding commitments on human rights—particularly in relation to labour practices—rather than simply warm words, and that discussions continue with NGOs, which are well placed, and often better placed than the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, on what is going on?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The UK will continue to show global leadership in encouraging all states to uphold international human rights obligations and to hold those who violate or abuse human rights to account. The UK has successfully included labour, environment and gender provisions in the free trade agreements that we have signed—with Australia and New Zealand, for example. Those both contained dedicated chapters on trade, gender equality, labour and the environment. They uphold human rights but, crucially, also level the playing field for our UK businesses.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
As the hon. Member will be aware, hospitality support is devolved. We continue to provide energy support via the energy bills discount scheme, benefiting hospitality businesses across the UK. I would be happy to meet her and any of her colleagues to see how we can help hospitality businesses across the whole UK.
Deidre Brock
That is excellent to hear, because the hospitality sector plays a crucial role in Scotland’s economy, but it has consistently been let down by the UK Government, who repeatedly fail to support the industry with the unique challenges it faces. Businesses across Scotland are grappling with inflationary pressures, labour and skill shortages and the ever-increasing complexity of trading rules with 27 countries we once traded with freely. Why will the Minister not accept that Brexit lies at the heart of these problems?
Kevin Hollinrake
If the hon. Lady looks again, she will find that the Scottish Government lie at the heart of these problems. In England, all eligible businesses can get 75% relief on their rates, subject to a cap of £110,000, while in Scotland, rates relief is available only to small businesses and could be as low as between 25% and 0% for individual properties with rateable values from £15,000. There is far more support available for English businesses than for Scottish businesses. I think she should go back and look again at the facts.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I appreciate the hon. Member’s interest in ensuring a fair deal for his constituents. The Government’s universal service obligation on Royal Mail guarantees delivery of parcels at uniform rates throughout the UK, without any geographical restrictions. Where other courier businesses decide to serve should be a commercial decision for them.
Jonathan Edwards
A constituent who visited my surgery recently complained that one courier service in particular would not deliver to his isolated rural property. The choice of courier is, of course, currently a matter for retailers. Do the Government agree, though, that there is a case for saying that large retailers could offer the consumer the choice of which courier service should be used? That would empower consumers and hopefully improve performance via competition.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member raises a very important point. Competition plays a role in this, of course. It is absolutely right that retail business should look at this and try to get the lowest cost for their customers in terms of courier charges. It is, as he acknowledges, a commercial decision for individual retailers, but I absolutely applaud the points he raises. These businesses should be aware of those costs, because they can add significantly to the costs of the products they are selling.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. The Parliamentary Partnership Assembly created under the trade and co-operation agreement is a parliamentary body independent of Government. The Government value its work and its role supporting a mature and constructive relationship with the EU, rooted in shared values and delivering on shared interests. She is right that we should look forward, not backwards.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The loss of Wilko is a significant blow to the nation’s high streets. However, more concerning is that no rescue has proved possible because several bidders have said that town centre retail is no longer a viable business model. In the light of that, do the Government really believe that their current policy environment is sufficient for British high streets to thrive?
Kevin Hollinrake
We are very concerned for the families affected by Wilko’s demise. The world of retail is a very competitive marketplace. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that the high street is dead—not at all. It is reshaping itself, and while it does so we will help it, such as with the £13.6 billion of rates relief over the next five years.
Jonathan Reynolds
Ministers’ answers do not match the scale of the problem; 12,500 Wilko workers alone are at risk of redundancy. Labour’s plans for the high street are about reforming business rates, tackling late payment, cracking down on antisocial behaviour and stopping premises being left empty, with councils having more powers. The problem demands a response from Ministers. Based on their answers today, this Government have simply given up on the British high street.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is complete nonsense. This week, I met Helen Dickenson from the Retail Sector Council to discuss this matter closely. There are certain situations in certain companies of course. I guard the hon. Gentleman against political opportunism on the back of those 12,500 jobs, many of which have been picked up by other retailers such as Poundland in rescues of stores. On his point about business rates, which I hear time and again, all the Labour party has done is say that it will cancel £22 billion of business rates, without saying how it will replace those taxation receipts. Where is the money coming from?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is why we launched a payment and cash flow review earlier this year, which is due to report very shortly. We are ambitious to make sure that small businesses get paid more quickly through putting more pressure on larger companies, the results of which will be announced very shortly.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
In August, I was lucky to be invited to the 70th anniversary of Caterpillar being founded in my constituency. It was the first place outside the US it set up a base in, and it now employs 1,300 people, making things such as the electric backhoe loader. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Caterpillar on its investment here, from where it exports across the world? Would she like to come and see exactly what it does in Bosworth?
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member raises an important point. There is certainly, as part of the administration process, an obligation on the administrators to look at the circumstances that led to the demise of that company and report to the Insolvency Service. I am sure that she, like I, will be very interested in the outcome of that investigation.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for events, can I highlight the huge benefits the sector brings us in promoting trade, exports and inward investment? Will the Department do more to promote the UK worldwide as a great place to bring international events, business meetings and conferences?
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member raises an important point about the cost of living impact on businesses. These are global issues, not domestic issues, and she should be clear on that with her businesses. As I said in response to the question from her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), the Scottish Government might look at increasing the generosity of the business rates relief scheme, as the rest of the UK has.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
In the period leading up to 2021, sector deals were a very effective means of boosting productivity, innovation and skills in such sectors as aerospace, AI and offshore wind. What plans are there to review, revitalise and extend those effective public-private sector partnerships?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Kevin Hollinrake
I am happy to engage with the hon. Member. I missed the earliest part of his question, but we are providing an awful lot of support for small businesses in various ways. I cannot remember his amendment to the Bill, but I am happy to engage with him to see what we can do to help.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May we have an update on our proposals for a carbon border adjustment mechanism?
Kevin Hollinrake
The Treasury published a consultation in March on a range of measures to mitigate carbon leakage. Potential policies include a carbon adjustment mechanism on managing product standards. I am sure it will report shortly.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Many small businesses, particularly in the retail and hospitality sectors, still rely on high street banking. Earlier this month, the last bank in Denton town centre—the Halifax—closed. It was not just the last one in Denton but the last one in the Denton and Reddish parliamentary constituency, leaving small businesses without access to high street banking. It is not good enough, is it?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we urge banks to listen to their customers about keeping their doors open. Of course, we have the banking framework relationship with the post office network, which provides deposit and cash facilities for small businesses on high streets in Denton and other parts of the country. We are determined to make that relationship more generous to the Post Office to ensure the sustainability of the post office network.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Over the recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the historic Harland & Wolff shipyard in north Devon, where we talked about the potential for UK shipbuilding jobs linked to the offshore renewables sector. Given last week’s disappointing auction round, to put it mildly, what can the Minister say to convince the shipbuilding industry that there is a future for it in making those service vessels?
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Kevin Hollinrake ExcerptsWednesday 13th September 2023
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Manuscript Amendments, Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 13 September 2023 - (13 Sep 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 23B and 23C.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 151B and 151C, Government motion to disagree, and Government motion to insist on amendment 151A.
Lords amendment 161B, Government motion to disagree, manuscript amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to insist on amendment 161A.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is always a pleasure to speak with right hon. and hon. Members on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which they will know is close to my heart and contains many vital measures for which I have long campaigned. The Bill will give us the powers we need to crack down on those who abuse our open economy, while ensuring that the vast majority of law-abiding businesses can grow and flourish.
I am grateful that both Houses have reached agreement on several issues, including those relating to the register of overseas entities and on removing the extension of the failure to prevent offence to money laundering. However, we are here today as agreement is still outstanding on a handful of remaining issues. I urge this House to accept the Government amendments, to settle those remaining topics and ensure that we can proceed to Royal Assent and implementation of these important reforms without delay.
I will now speak to those remaining topics. In the other place, the Government tabled two amendments on nominee shareholders—amendments 23B and 23C, in lieu of Commons amendment 23A, and in response to Lord Vaux’s amendment 23 on this topic from Report stage in the other place.
The Government’s amendments will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to make further provision for the purpose of identifying persons with significant control in cases where shares are held by a nominee. This will allow the Government to work with relevant stakeholders to target the regulations in an effective and focused way that does not impose disproportionate burdens. Members of the other place agreed with the Government’s proposal and I trust that Members of this House will therefore agree with it today.
Lords amendments 151B and 151C would apply the exemption from the failure to prevent fraud offence to micro-entities only, rather than the Government’s position of excluding all small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government appreciate that Lord Garnier has moved closer to the Government’s position in agreeing to the principle of applying a threshold. However, our position remains that such an amendment would still incur significant costs to businesses. Reducing the exemption threshold to only micro-entities would increase one-off costs for businesses from around £500 million to £1.5 billion. The annual recurrent costs would increase from £60 million to over £192 million.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Where do those figures come from?
Kevin Hollinrake
We used very similar analysis to that used for the failure to prevent bribery and failure to prevent tax evasion offences. We have used a common methodology. I have not seen any figures that contradict our figures here, but in my view—having run a business and dealt with some of the failure to prevent bribery provisions—there is no doubt that there are significant costs. There may be external consultants to bring in, for example. Even if one is compliant, one might not know whether one is compliant, so there are definite associated costs to ensuring that reasonable efforts are made to prevent fraud, as it would be in this case.
Those costs would still be disproportionately shared by small business owners, when law enforcement can attribute and prosecute fraud more easily in these smaller organisations; and, as I have set out before, we must be mindful of the cumulative impact on SMEs across multiple Government requirements and regulations. In all the work I have done in the past from the Back Benches on failure to prevent, it was invariably the case that all cases involved larger businesses, not SMEs.
Large companies have the resources and specialist expertise to cope with additional burdens, whereas small businesses often have to dedicate a significant amount of time and resource, often paying for external professional advice to assess what new rules would mean for them. That is the case even where they subsequently assess that they already have adequate controls in place. That is time and resource that could otherwise have been used to grow and generate wealth for their businesses and jobs for their staff. The Government are extremely mindful of the pressures on companies of all sizes, including SMEs, and therefore do not feel it is appropriate to place this new unnecessary burden on over 450,000 businesses. I therefore urge Members of this House to support the Government motion to disagree with the Lords amendments, to ensure that we take a proportionate approach and do not impose unnecessary measures that would curb economic growth.
Turning to Lords amendment 161B, made by Lord Faulks, on cost protection for law enforcement in civil recovery cases, the Government remain of the view that the amendment would be a significant departure from the loser pays principle and therefore should not be rushed into without careful consideration. There is no clear evidence that such changes would help to achieve their intended aim of increasing the capacity of law enforcement to take on more civil recovery cases. There have been no adverse cost rulings against an enforcement authority carrying out this type of civil recovery in the past six years.
Costs are just one of many factors that determine whether law enforcement will take on a case. For example, the evidence available to pursue a case, particularly where evidence is required from overseas, often proves more vital to an operational decision. There are already a number of ways in which an enforcement agency’s liability to legal costs can be protected under the civil procedure rules in England and Wales. For instance, rule 44.2 gives the court discretion as to the payment of costs by either party, including whether they are payable to another party, the amount, and when they are payable. In addition, a cost-capping order can be applied for under rule 3.19 to limit any future costs that a party may recover under a later costs order. If we are to introduce further legislation, we must consider what gap this is trying to fill. We should also consider civil liberties and property rights that underpin our economy. We will potentially be handing huge powers to the state, which could be held over an individual.
Kevin Hollinrake
I have listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend’s points. He said a few seconds ago that this would relate only to fraud that benefits the body concerned. Paragraph 1(b) of Lords amendment 151 also covers the body or an associate within that body providing services, so this is not just about the benefit to the organisation itself.
Sir Robert Buckland
I will take that qualification. I was seeking a short cut because time is brief. My hon. Friend is right to mention the agency point, but it is still a much narrower ambit of the offence than fraud in general. That is the point I would ask him to take away, because I am not persuaded. I think the amendments should remain within the body of the Bill as amended, and I will be voting accordingly.
Kevin Hollinrake
I welcome the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) to her place. We worked closely together on the Treasury Committee and it is a pleasure to work across the House with her today. I also pay tribute to her predecessor, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for her similar approach to the work we have done on this legislation. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to this debate and their support for the Government’s amendments made in the other place. I want to refer to a number of points that have been raised today.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, referred to the Government turning a blind eye to the issue of economic crime, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us have worked on this cross-party across the House from the Back Benches and now on the Front Benches, and this is the second piece of legislation we have brought forward on economic crime in the past 18 months. These are groundbreaking new measures. This Bill contains further reforms to the Register of Overseas Entities introduced in the previous legislation. Our legislation on strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs—is world leading, and we now have the “failure to prevent” offence, which I will speak to in a moment.
The hon. Lady also referred to the resources made available to our law enforcement agencies. We are continuing to invest in measures to tackle economic crime, and we have increased the budget of the National Crime Agency year on year since 2019. Its budget has now increased 40% from the figure in 2019 and stands at just over £700 million.
Together, the recent spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the new economic crime levy will provide £400 million of funding over the spending review period, and the levy is estimated to bring in £100 million per annum starting from this financial year, 2023-24. There will be a wide-ranging review by the end of 2027, providing transparency on how the levy is performing against its original purpose, including on how the money is spent. Existing efforts will move at pace to enhance and further drive forward the unit in what are inevitably complex and lengthy operations. In considering this legislation, we have often debated the extra resources that we are determined to deliver for Companies House and will pay for at least 400 more people. That is an incredibly important part of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) stated very clearly that he feels the failure to prevent threshold is too widely drawn, and I understand his point. As I said in my opening speech, all the cases I have dealt with in this place—whether it be Lloyds HBOS Reading, HSBC, NatWest or others—have involved large organisations that turned a blind eye to fraud or let it happen on their watch. We believe it is right to strike a balance between the offence’s crime prevention benefits and the burden placed on business. There is a balance between risk and regulation, and we want to make sure that the regulations do not put excessive costs on business.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) made similar points. He cast doubt on the figures I have in front of me on the costs of the burden on business, which we believe will be £1.5 billion of implementation costs and around £192 million of recurrent annual costs. I am happy to look at other costs and analyses, but those are the figures before me.
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an interesting point that the threshold will facilitate economic crime in certain companies, but the Lords amendment allows some companies to be outside the rules. I am not sure how he can draw a line to say that there will be economic crime in some companies and not in others. It is very difficult to draw a line, and we believe that drawing a line at larger companies is right.
Kit Malthouse
Lines matter. At a point in a business’s evolution, as my hon. Friend will know from building his own business, it crosses a line. It is perfectly possible, under the definitions in Lords amendment 151C, that a company that satisfies the financial criterion will decide to go from nine employees to 10 or 11, and suddenly it crosses into this world of pain—the compliance people show up, and the company needs a whole new process and procedure that comes with employing that single extra person, on top of all the other employment and safety regulation it is having to deal with. Setting these thresholds at a level at which companies can absorb the step up in responsibility, and without a disproportionate amount of cost, seems critical. Does he agree?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do agree. I listened closely to my right hon. Friend’s remarks. He said he might be the only small business owner currently in the Chamber, but he is talking to one. I have owned a business for 30 years, growing it from a small business to a larger one, and I absolutely agree that it is not just the legislation itself but its implementation and the requirement to implement prevention procedures. As he puts it, that would almost create a new industry of advisers to advise on what needs to be done, be they accountants or third parties. He is right to raise those concerns on behalf of small and medium-sized enterprises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked about setting the threshold at a different level, the small company threshold rather than the current micro company threshold. The small company threshold is 50 employers, £10.2 million of turnover and a £5.1 million balance sheet, according to Companies House, whereas we think a 250-employee threshold would be more appropriate. That is where we differ, but I am happy to continue that conversation.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I want to ask a question that I do not think was addressed last time we debated Lords amendments, and that I do not think the Government have addressed today. What are the implications if there is an explicit threshold? What further thought have the Government given to the implications of putting in a threshold? Are they satisfied that some of the concerns raised by Opposition Members and Conservative Back Benchers have been taken into account?
Kevin Hollinrake
We are very clear that we believe we have the right threshold. Larger companies clearly have the capacity and the human resources and risk compliance departments to mitigate these kinds of risks, whereas small and medium-sized enterprises are rightly much more focused on driving their business forward, which is very important to the economic health of our country. I think we have it right. My hon. Friend made a similar point in our previous debate on this issue, and he makes it very strongly. The fact that both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) have made that point today counterbalances some of the arguments on the other side for extending the threshold further.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) spoke about my previous comments. I think I have been pretty consistent in everything I have said in the House, unless she can point to anything different I have said from the Back Benches—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), laughs, but I have always been a champion of the “failure to prevent” offence. If Members look back to the original Bill, which I think was 260 pages long—it is now nearly 400 pages long—they will see that I have been very keen to make sure that we listen to hon. Members on things like the “failure to prevent” offence and the identification doctrine, which both now feature in the Bill. All the cases I dealt with on the Back Benches, and indeed the information I have seen as a Minister, show that the kind of fraud the law enforcement agencies have not been able to prosecute is happening in larger companies, not smaller companies.
We believe that these circumstances are different from unexplained wealth orders, for which we obviously put cost-capping measures in place. Of course, unexplained wealth orders are not a process for taking somebody’s assets from them; they are a process for freezing assets. Lords amendment 161B is entirely different. In my view, there is definitely a civil liberties issue in terms of the power of the state versus the power of the individual. This measure potentially delivers an imbalance of power between the state and the individual. I would be keen to have a conversation with the very learned Members in the Chamber, but they must understand that the state is powerful and well resourced compared with the individual. Obviously there are some individuals who are very well resourced, but we still operate on the presumption of innocence in this country, and we have to be very careful. That is why we want a review to look into this and report back to Parliament within 12 months.
We have communicated with the National Crime Agency to ask for evidence on where it feels these measures are needed. All law enforcement agencies want more power and more provision, of course, but I have seen no clear, significant evidence from the enforcement agencies that cost-capping orders would be needed in this situation.
I, too, have spoken to Bill Browder, and I have spoken to officials about whether this measure is needed in the UK regime. Members will be aware that Mr Browder principally looks at the parallels with the US situation, where adverse costs do not apply across the system. Members have talked about the chilling effect of such provisions, but there is potentially a chilling effect on the other side of the equation.
Yesterday I met a barrister who defends people against such actions, and he was very concerned about the imbalance of power that would result. I have not seen any significant evidence, and I am very interested in the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst gave to the Cambridge crime symposium, at which I have spoken in the past, on whether this is needed. However, I am not aware of anything the Justice Committee or the Law Commission has done in this area. It is important that we look at that kind of evidence before we implement these kinds of measures.
The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) accuses me of being party political. I am surprised she takes that view. I have worked on a cross-party basis from the Back Benches and, as she knows, I do the same from the Front Bench, and I will continue to do so to make sure that we get this legislation right.
In conclusion, throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have worked hard to get the balance right between tackling economic crime and ensuring that the UK remains a place where law-abiding businesses can flourish without unnecessary burdens. The motions tabled by the Government today achieve that balanced and proportionate approach, and I therefore urge Members on both sides of the House to support them.
Lords amendments 23B and 23C agreed to.
After Clause 180
Failure to prevent fraud
Motion made, and Question put,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 151B and 151C and insists on its Amendment 151A.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?
Insolvency Practitioner Regulation Reform
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Government have today published their response to their consultation “The Future of Insolvency Regulation”, which was published in December 2021. This consultation was open for 13 weeks and outlined proposals for significant reform to the regulatory framework for insolvency practitioners.
The insolvency profession plays a key role in driving economic growth and supporting those in financial distress. The unique responsibilities that insolvency practitioners bear and the decisions they take help save jobs and businesses, and deliver a fair, effective and orderly winding up to deal with financial failure where that is not possible. The vast majority of insolvency practitioners do a good job in challenging circumstances, but there continue to be instances of poor conduct that directly impact those closely involved. This tarnishes the reputation of the whole profession and undermines confidence. Insolvency practitioners should be regulated within a modern framework that reflects the way the insolvency sector has developed since formal insolvency regulation was first introduced in 1986.
The Government received 102 detailed responses to the consultation. Officials also obtained further relevant evidence through targeted stakeholder engagement. Most proposals received significant support amongst a broad range of stakeholders. We are grateful for the views and evidence provided as part of the consultation process, which has informed the package of reforms we will take forward when parliamentary time allows. This most notably includes:
challenging the current four professional body regulators to deliver significant and measurable improvements to the quality of regulation through non-legislative means, whilst keeping options to replace the current regulatory model with a single regulator of insolvency practitioners under review;
expanding regulation to include firms providing insolvency services, alongside the existing regulation of individual insolvency practitioners;
reforming the way ethical and professional standards for the profession are set;
introducing a public register of authorised insolvency practitioners and firms providing insolvency services, that will include relevant and proportionate regulatory information;
developing and consulting on proposals to introduce a compensation-redress scheme for those affected by an insolvency practitioner’s acts or omissions;
strengthening the bonding framework, which requires insolvency practitioners to hold security in the event of their fraud or dishonesty.
The Government’s response to the consultation reaffirms their commitment to ensuring the insolvency profession is effectively and robustly regulated, with a regulatory framework fit for the future. These reforms, which represent the biggest change to the regulatory framework in nearly 40 years, will address weaknesses with the current regulatory framework, modernise the regime and increase public confidence in regulation.
A copy of the consultation response may be found online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-of-insolvency-regulation
[HCWS1013]
Non-disclosure Agreements in the Workplace
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I want to lend my voice to what has already been said by Members, especially by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). She and I came to the issue of NDAs together in one of the most egregious cases—the case of Zelda Perkins, who has already been mentioned and who suffered for years in silence. In that case and others that I have seen, certainly, around Oxford University colleges, I want to stress how the issue of this process being about power and control should not be undermined— this was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). It is used to victimise people. It is literally the tool of an abuser.
When I met some of the whistleblowers in the Philip Green case, they told me a story about how he had said to them, “Keep on adding zeros. I will pay anything and you will go away.” That was the attitude. That is an abuser standing in front of somebody they know is weaker than they are. This is absolutely classic in all interpersonal violence relationships. They say, “I am more powerful than you. You will do as I say because I am the strong one.” Currently, the laws in our country allow that. The law in our country is written so that that it is completely acceptable for an angry, sexually abusive bully to stand in front of a member of his staff and say, “I am bigger, stronger and better than you.” Currently, we go, “He’s got a point. He is stronger. He has more zeros to add to the end of that cheque. He can shut you up.” That is the situation today. This will be happening to somebody today. Right now, as we speak, somebody who is trying to speak up about something bad happening is being told, “You’re weak. You’re pathetic.” That is a form of coercive control, and a form of violence. It is absolutely a form of victimisation, and I lend my support and voice to the amendments that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke has tabled to the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
The crux of the problem is that we, as lawmakers and policymakers, are saying, “That’s fine. That’s okay. Don’t worry because, you know, trade secrets.” That is the situation today, but let us make it so that tomorrow—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The hon. Lady speaks passionately, and I absolutely accept many of the comments made in the debate, but the law specifically does not allow a non-disclosure agreement to prevent somebody from going to the police about a sexual abuser. That absolutely is not the law.
Jess Phillips
I did not say that the law said that, although incidentally Zelda Perkins’s NDA did say that. I do not know what is written in all the NDAs in the country, although I have quite a lot in my inbox, so I have an idea of some of the things that people get asked for.
Of course what the Minister describes is illegal, but it is not illegal to say, “You can’t speak about this. You can’t tell the woman in the next cubicle along that the man you work for has been groping you, because you’ve been silenced.” That is what we are apparently saying is okay; we are fine with that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this debate and for her long-standing and effective campaigning in the area of non-disclosure agreements—she will remember that I engaged with that as a Back Bencher—and the negative effect they can have when used inappropriately. I thank hon. Members across the House for their very valuable and passionate contributions.
These agreements, which are also known as confidentiality clauses, can be used in a variety of contexts and contracts—for example, to protect commercially sensitive information. However, I will restrict my comments to the area of concern, which, as Members have discussed, is NDAs used in settlement agreements in cases of discrimination or harassment.
The Government have already taken significant steps to prevent the use of NDAs in the higher education sector to protect students, who are in a particularly vulnerable position as they have moved away from family and support networks for the first time. In January 2022, we introduced a world-leading pledge, with the campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence, that commits higher education providers to voluntarily ending the use of NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct. As of 1 September, 84 providers, covering almost two thirds of students, have signed the pledge.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 goes further and bans the use of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and other forms of bullying and harassment in higher education. It is expected to take effect in 2024, and I recognise the important contributions made by Members here today—my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—throughout the passage of that Bill.
As a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade, I know that good employers will look to tackle bad behaviour head-on and improve their organisational culture and practice, rather than attempting to cover it up, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) clearly outlined. Organisations that do not treat such complaints in the way that he described are, in my experience, missing an opportunity.
Members of this House and organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence have brought to light examples of where NDAs have been drafted to intimidate employees from making disclosures to anyone, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon).
It is important to note that there are existing legal limits on the use of NDAs in the employment context. Some key ones were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson)—I thank her again for all the work she does on the all-party group on whistleblowing—and by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who talked about the seven NHS staff. An NDA cannot prevent a worker from blowing the whistle. That means that an NDA would be unenforceable if it stopped a worker from making a protected disclosure about wrongdoing, for example, to a lawyer or certain regulatory bodies or other prescribed persons for whistleblowing purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle pointed out that the current whistleblowing regime has limited scope—I think those were her words—and, as she knows, we are now undertaking a review, which will conclude by the end of this year. Indeed, officials involved in that review are in the Chamber today, so they will have heard her points clearly.
Peter Grant
We all understand that an NDA cannot prevent an employee or an ex-employee from making certain kinds of disclosures, but that is no good if the former employee does not know that. Does the Minister agree that we should change the law to require every NDA to say explicitly, on the face of the document, that it does not apply to particular kinds of disclosures, so that the former employee who has a copy of the agreement knows exactly what rights they still have?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will come on to some other points on that issue, including on the guidance that we have given to ACAS in that area.
NDAs cannot prevent workers from reporting a crime to the police or from co-operating in a criminal investigation, because such a clause would be unenforceable—[Interruption.] I may have misheard what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, but it is very important that anybody listening to this debate, who is considering what their rights are, knows very clearly that such an agreement cannot prevent them from reporting a crime in this area.
Furthermore, the use of an NDA by an employer could amount to a criminal offence—for example, if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. Independent legal advice is a requirement for settlement agreements to be valid.
In 2019, the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consulted on the misuse of NDAs in an employment context. The consultation followed evidence found by the Women and Equalities Committee that individual workers may not be aware of their existing statutory rights and may be intimidated into pursuing claims even where the NDA is unenforceable—a point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke does very important work in that area.
The consultation also heard evidence that individuals are pressured into signing NDAs without the appropriate legal advice, and therefore do not understand that their NDA is unenforceable. That is why the Government took action in developing extensive guidance, which was published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS. It is clear that NDAs should not prevent individuals from making disclosures to the police and medical or legal professionals.
We have already legislated to prevent higher education providers using NDAs, as I said. We are keen to see how that works in practice, and it will come into force in 2024. The Government held a consultation on the matter in a wider context in 2019. We all agree that these agreements should not be used to intimidate individuals or conceal criminal conduct or illegal wrongdoing, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I point out to him that it is in the capability of the Northern Ireland Administration to implement that in Northern Ireland if they choose, with the matter being devolved to Northern Ireland.
Dame Maria Miller
The Minister wants to do the right thing. He wants to be a role model; he wants to be a good employer; he wants to set the tone. Will he meet me and Can’t Buy My Silence and consider signing its voluntary agreement to stop the use of NDAs? Surely the Government can lead the way on this.
Kevin Hollinrake
Of course I will meet my right hon. Friend, and I am very happy to meet the campaigning organisation as well. The consultation found some support for NDAs when they helped victims to make a clean break and move on—I think that point was also raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). We feel that an outright ban across all organisations may therefore not be appropriate and could have unintended consequences for employees.
The Government have listened carefully to the experiences shared through a consultation on sexual harassment. We are legislating through the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill, first introduced in the Commons by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), which will strengthen protections for employees against workplace sexual harassment by placing a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees.
Protecting and enhancing workers’ rights while supporting businesses to grow remains a priority for this Government. We are clear that the use of NDAs to intimidate victims of harassment and discrimination into silence cannot be tolerated. We are already taking action in the higher education sector; we have published extensive guidance and consulted on the use of NDAs in the workplace; and we are carefully considering how to tackle wrongful practices in a wider context.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
Kevin Hollinrake ExcerptsMonday 4th September 2023
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 4 September 2023 - (4 Sep 2023)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 6, 7, 9 to 12, 14 to 21, 30, 32 to 34, 54, 68, 115, 117, 120, 124, 125, 173, 174 and 178 to 201. If those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 46
Register of members: information to be included and powers to obtain it
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 151, and Government amendment (a).
Lords amendment 153, and Government amendments (a) to (c).
Lords amendments 115 and 117, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 159, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 161, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 1 to 22 and 24 to 55.
Lords amendment 56, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 57 to 114, 116, 118 to 150, 152, 154 to 158, 160 and 162 to 229.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. It is crucial in ensuring that we can bear down on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, while also strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive. I am pleased to say that the Bill is now in a better place and there is a great deal more of it than when it left for the other place back in January. When introduced, the Bill ran to some 239 pages; it is now closer to 400. That reflects the spirit of genuine collaboration across both Houses and the fact that the Government have listened and taken many sensible proposals on board. I take this opportunity to thank Members of both Houses for their collaborative and cross-party approach.
The Government made significant amendments to the Bill in the other place. It is now unquestionably a milestone piece of legislation that takes the UK’s fight against economic crime to an entirely new level. I will summarise a few key changes, starting with the game-changing reforms to corporate criminal liability. As the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), committed to, the Government tabled amendments to introduce a new failure to prevent offence, which will drive cultural change towards improved fraud prevention in organisations and, failing that, hold organisations to account with prosecutions if they profit from fraudulent actions.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way so soon. It is undoubtedly a positive thing that failure to prevent, or at least part of it, has now been included in the Bill, but does he have any sympathy for those warning that because this measure is targeting the larger firms, the small boutique firms—the one-man bands that are very aware of what they are doing and know how to get around the system—will still be allowed to freely operate? Would he consider supporting the Lords amendment that would close that particular loophole?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will speak in detail to the various amendments, including the non-Government amendments, one of which is on the threshold that the hon. Lady refers to. If I may, I will defer addressing that until later in my remarks.
The Government have also introduced reforms to the identification doctrine for economic crimes to make it easier to prosecute corporations in their own right for these offences. The House will know that this is the largest and most meaningful change to corporate criminal liability in decades. It will have a transformative effect on our ability to hold corporates to account for the actions of criminal individuals. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for all their work and engagement to further the cause for the reform of corporate criminal liability.
We have also made amendments to tackle strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPPs, that feature economic crimes. We believe that this is the first national legislation in the world to combat SLAPPs. The new clauses will enable an appropriate, fair and effective early dismissal procedure against SLAPP cases. I very much thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) for his work in this area.
Members will also be pleased to hear that the Government have tabled amendments to improve the new statutory objectives for the registrar of companies, and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) in particular will welcome these improvements, given their previous amendments.
We also recognise the points made by several Members of this House, as well as in the other place, about the role of authorised corporate service providers in the identification process, and we have tightened the framework. Our amendments will improve the transparency of ACSPs, including by requiring verification statements made by ACSPs when they carry out ID verification on behalf of an individual to be made publicly available on the register.
Furthermore, we have tabled a number of important amendments to strengthen and increase the transparency of the register of overseas entities, which I trust the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) will welcome, given the amendments they proposed in Committee. I must pay tribute to my ministerial colleagues Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord Bellamy for all the work they have done to get this important Bill to where it is now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I thank the Minister? He always brings his points of view to the Chamber with clarity and helpfulness, and that is appreciated by everyone, including me.
We as a party are of a mind to support the Government on this Bill tonight. I want to ask a question that is probably very specific. It relates to Northern Ireland, where criminal gangs—that is what they are; they masquerade as paramilitaries, but they are criminal gangs—delve into business and economic crime. I am seeking assurance from the Minister—I think he probably will respond positively, but at the same time I seek to get his response on the record. Will this Bill ensure that criminal gangs that use illicit money and launder money from across the whole of Europe and further afield will be accountable, by ensuring that we can catch them, detain them and put them in jail?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and his intervention. It is clear that fraud and money laundering are already criminal acts; what the Bill principally does is help to prevent fraud by requiring organisations to make sure that fraud is not happening within them in the first place. I think he has spoken to that in the past, as have I as a Back Bencher. I fully support it as the Minister concerned, and I absolutely believe that the Bill will have a major impact in clamping down on economic crime.
We must do more to tackle crime, but we must also ensure that the UK remains a great place to start and grow a business. As such, the Government strongly oppose putting additional burdens on legitimate business, unless there is a clear rationale for doing so. Any amendments made to strengthen the Bill have been carefully weighed up, and the Government are confident that we have struck the right balance in tackling economic crime and preserving the UK’s welcoming business environment.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend will come on to make points about failure to prevent offences in relation to burdens on small businesses. May I tell him first that I welcome wholeheartedly the arrival of failure to prevent offences? Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), I have argued for that when I was Attorney General and since, and I am glad to see it. In relation to failure to prevent and Lords amendment 151 in particular, the Minister will wish to argue that he is seeking to prevent excessive burdens on smaller organisations by limiting that offence to large organisations, but can he explain why subsection (4) of the new clause introduced by Lords amendment 151 does not do that job? It states:
“It is a defence for the relevant body to prove that, at the time the fraud offence was committed…the body had in place such prevention procedures as it was reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the body to have”.
Why would one of those circumstances not be the size and capacity of the organisation in question?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his point and his work in this area. I will come on to that amendment, if I may, later in my remarks. He makes a valid point, and we want to ensure there are no loopholes while at the same time maintaining the position that the Bill does not put new burdens on businesses that are not likely to have a systemic effect on economic crime.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I interrupt my hon. Friend to pick up the intervention he received from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I warn those on the Front Bench about what he just said. Leaving the burdens on business to the courts or whichever procedures to define is not a reasonable protection for small businesses. They need the protection that the Minister outlines, because in such circumstances people will go to the most conservative position they can. Although my right hon. and learned Friend suggested that that would provide significant and effective protection, it will not do so in practice as behaviour will change and burdens will increase. I think the Minister is getting the right balance on this.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes the other point, and these measures are about the delicate balance that we want to strike, ensuring that the right provisions are in place to prevent fraud without putting undue burdens on business. I am pleased that those interventions reflected both those positions so that we can see the legislation holistically rather than just through the lens of failing to prevent fraud.
Kevin Hollinrake
If I may, I will make a little progress on that point.
We believe that the six non-Government amendments for debate would pose significant and disproportionate burdens on business, penalising reasonable companies and businesspeople with limited evidence that the burdens would be outweighed by any meaningful benefits. I will go into each amendment in detail, but I will begin by emphasising the Government’s position. We must insist that the balance achieved in the Bill through Government amendments made in the other place is maintained.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, because it was on that point that I wanted him to give way. Does he not think that any honest, upright business, whether large, small or micro, would aim within its own procedures to avoid fraud or money laundering?
Kevin Hollinrake
The vast majority of the business community is honest and upstanding—that is the point. What we are trying to ensure is that those businesses are not disproportionately affected by putting in controls, checks and balances. I speak as a businessperson who did have to implement failure to prevent bribery and tax evasion measures in our business, and I tell the right hon. Member that there were significant administrative burdens around that legislation, and I believe they would be more so for fraud. I will come to that point in more detail.
I turn to Lords amendment 23. The inclusion of lines 84 to 96 would require all UK companies to declare whether they are holding shares on behalf of or subject to the direction of another person or persons as a nominee, and if so to provide details of the person or persons. Fundamentally, that is not necessary. Provisions in the person with significant control framework, as strengthened through the Bill, already require the disclosure of a person of significant control behind a nominee on pain of criminal sanction for non-reporting. That achieves the same intent. A combination of measures already in the Bill, the material discrepancy reporting regime in the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Regulations 2022 and Companies House’s new intelligence hub will more effectively flush out undeclared PSCs and deter the provision of false information.
I am afraid that the proposed approach is something of a blunt instrument. It would apply to all shareholders, when we should be focusing on the transparency of individuals exerting significant influence as already provided for under the PSC framework. As such, we would risk burdening millions of companies and their shareholders with new information requirements for no useful purpose. The proposition may sound sensible, but nominee arrangements can be complex, including having multiple layers of nominees and large numbers of beneficiaries for entirely legitimate reasons. For example, pension funds that own shares in a company would be caught. Listed companies would be particularly impacted as their shares are often held by nominee arrangements for legitimate administrative reasons—for example, in stocks and shares individual savings accounts, by custodian banks and by corporate sponsored nominees.
Listed companies report similar information about those owning 3% or more of their shares to the Financial Conduct Authority, so the Lords amendment would partly duplicate existing arrangements. In summary, lines 84 to 96 of the amendment risk disproportionate burdens on legitimate actors and would most likely be ignored by illegitimate actors. Those acting as nominees on behalf of shady individuals behind the scenes are already adequately on the hook if found to have provided false information, as is the company itself.
The effect of inserting those lines into part 8 of the Companies Act 2006 would be to cut across a tenet of UK company law: those running a company—usually the directors—must know its legal owners and act in the interests of the legal owners of the company. Those legal owners are recorded on the register of members. Companies shall have regard to their members record and not, for example, to anyone holding any underlying beneficial interest in their shares.
Lords amendment 115 would introduce two new duties for overseas entities. It would first require event-driven updates on beneficial ownership information and, secondly, require overseas entities to update their record no more than 14 days before the completion of a land transaction rather than the existing requirement to do so annually. Although the amendments are well intentioned, they would significantly increase burdens on both overseas entities and third parties transacting with them, as well as introduce an element of risk in land transactions that the annual update prevents.
As my ministerial colleague Lord Johnson of Lainston explained in the other place, in the case of an overseas entity that owns large commercial premises split into units, the amendment could result in the entity needing to provide updates twice a month, which is a disproportionate burden. There are a number of other technical challenges and impracticalities with setting such a duty on these entities. The Government are not alone in those views. The Law Society of Scotland, the Law Society of England and Wales and the British Property Federation have all expressed their concerns. The Government therefore cannot support the amendment.
Lords amendment 117 would make information about trusts submitted to the register of overseas entities publicly available by removing it from the list of material listed as unavailable for public inspection. It is important to note that the information on trusts is already provided to the registrar when an overseas entity registers on the register. Furthermore, the registrar already discloses trust information to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, law enforcement and other persons with functions of a public nature if and when necessary and appropriate. This is not a loophole.
In the other place and in this House, including from the right hon. Member for Barking, the Government have heard and acknowledged that there is a case for broader transparency over trust arrangements beyond law enforcement agencies. The Government therefore added a regulation-making power in the law to allow third-party access to trust data in certain circumstances. That will enable individuals such as civil society organisations and investigative journalists to access such information under certain circumstances.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his thanks for the progress we have made together on SLAPPs. Because of the amendment made on SLAPPs, we are now providing journalists and other truth-tellers with important protections when it comes to investigating economic crime. The Lords amendment is a complement to that. The truth is, there will never be enough enforcement resources for Companies House, HMRC and others, so we do need civil society to be able to bring the disinfectant of sunlight and undertake investigations. It is therefore vital that trust information is provided. Has he seen the new research published by Arun Advani, Andy Summers and their colleagues that shows that the current arrangements shield something like 152,000 properties from that transparency? If we genuinely want to be able to investigate where things are going wrong, where there is corruption, surely it is in the national interest for us to make that information more widely available.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I have seen the report and the media release around it and we do not accept those numbers or the interpretation of beneficial ownership used in drafting the report. Nevertheless, we share his concerns and absolutely want to ensure that transparency will be greater than it is today.
The Government have every intention of exercising the power and intend to ensure that access can be granted in a straightforward way. Information currently held by Companies House was submitted by overseas entities in the expectation that it would not be available for public inspection. Making such information available for public inspection would come with a number of risks, including the possibility of legal challenge. Moreover, publishing the data by default would likely have significant unintended consequences, including potentially exposing information about vulnerable individuals and minors. It is therefore right that the Government take the time to consult properly on this important issue to address the benefits and risks of greater transparency and how this can be achieved.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
On transparency and trustees, the Minister says that he does not accept the estimate of 150,000 properties that ought to be looked at in more detail, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), said. What is the Government’s estimate of the properties that need transparency?
Kevin Hollinrake
Around 3,000 entities have not properly registered at this point in time. Enforcement action is being taken on them: some 100,000 communications already have gone out to those particular entities, and a number of fines have been issued—about half a million pounds in fines so far. We do not accept those numbers. We are happy to have a conversation with whoever has concerns about the legislation so far. We do not want legislation that cannot be properly enforced and implemented. It is important that we compare like-for-like to ensure this legislation is fit for purpose.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I may have misheard, but I think the Minister said that enforcement activity is going on against 100,000 companies—he will correct me when I sit down—and that there have been half a million pounds-worth of fines. That would be £5 a company, would it not?
Kevin Hollinrake
It would be if the hon. Gentleman’s numbers were right, but that is not what I said. Three thousand entities are not currently registered, to our knowledge. Many of those will have already ceased to exist or will have disposed of the property they owned. We are trying to find out the exact numbers. That is about the enforcement action. We have had 100,000 communications with those 3,000 entities, and half a million pounds of fines so far, but those fines can rise exponentially if they continue not to comply properly with the legislation.
Liam Byrne
The Minister has wisely equipped himself with an order-making power, which he referred to earlier. He told the House that he plans to undertake a consultation. It would be of comfort to some in the House—not to all—if he could tell us when he plans to launch that consultation and, in his own mind, when he would like the consultation to be implemented through the power with which he has equipped himself.
Kevin Hollinrake
We intend to launch the consultation by the end of the year, and we would like the regulations in place as soon as possible. It is quite clear that we want to do that. We all agree on the transparency—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I am absolutely keen to do it, but we must make sure we do it right. We do not want any unintended consequences. It is right that we consult widely with the different sectors to make sure that this legislation—and the regulations, when they come—are fit for purpose.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
When my hon. Friend does his consultation, will he reassure those of us who are anxious to maintain the distinction between significant control and general beneficiaries? If he is going to try—rightly—to protect minors for example, who he mentioned in his earlier remarks, will he focus on people who may be misusing trusts because they have control of them? That might be trustees—in some cases it could be beneficiaries if they have effective control of the trustees as well, but in many other cases it will not. Will he try to make sure that he makes that distinction? It is absolutely essential and reads directly across from the persons of significant control legislation that we have elsewhere in disclosing information about shareholdings as well.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work in this area. He makes the point very well. We need to ensure that when we bring forward these measures, they are properly considered and do not result in unintended consequences. He may want to raise those points as part of that consultation when we launch it.
The Government firmly believe that their own amendment and their commitment to consult better achieve the aim of improving trusts’ transparency, as intended by Lords amendment 117, while ensuring that we have time to analyse and stress test the risks in greater depth, including legal risks. We therefore do not support the amendment.
Lords amendment 151, in effect, removes the threshold, as right hon. and hon. Members have already raised, that the Government introduced as part of the failure to prevent offence, which exempts small and medium-sized entities. As I have set out, the Government are extremely mindful of the significant pressures that small companies are under, and do not want to place unnecessary and duplicative burdens on legitimate businesses.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I agree that we have made huge progress on the Bill, but why is the threshold on small businesses not present in the failure to prevent bribery and tax evasion offences? They are alike offences that have caused a regulatory burden to already exist. What difference will the Bill really make? Why are we not giving it the full fat treatment?
Kevin Hollinrake
I think there is a difference in the regulatory burden of failure to prevent fraud versus failure to prevent bribery and tax evasion. It is more complicated to do it, so it would have a much greater impact on SMEs than bribery and tax evasion. It is a balance of risk and benefits when making sure where those regulatory burdens sit.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I hear the Minister’s plea on behalf of SMEs, and I have sympathy that we do not want to overburden them with regulation, particularly small businesses. However, the threshold that the Government have chosen to set for exclusion from the failure to prevent fraud is extremely high. If I take just one example, law firms—he will know as well as I do that lawyers are among the key enablers of many schemes that lead to both fraud and money laundering—out of the 10,400 law firms in the UK, only 100 will be caught by the legislation as it is currently framed. Is he willing to negotiate with us on the Back Benches and members of the House of Lords to look again at the level at which he defines an SME in this legislation?
Kevin Hollinrake
The threshold is set at one of these three: 250 employees, £36 million turnover or £8 million in gross assets. We think that is the right level. We always listen to what the right hon. Lady has to say. The legal sector is covered by current money laundering regulations, as is the estate agent sector, for example. It is not right to say that they are not covered by money laundering regulations.
Liam Byrne
The Minister is being characteristically generous. I, too, respect what he is trying to do with the regulatory burden. I have taken a business from two people and a business plan and grown it into a multi-million pound organisation, so I respect what he is trying to do on regulation. However, does he not risk the growth of businesses with a turnover just below £36 million—perhaps £35 million—explicitly set up to be the conduits for bad behaviour? He will remember at the public Bill evidence sessions that representatives from the financial services community told us about the way in which money came into a bank and was split up between several different organisations and their bank accounts to blur what was really going on before the money went on to be laundered. Is there not a risk that clever people who are corrupt will just set up a whole hive of small businesses with a turnover below £35 million, to circumvent the safeguards that we are all trying to put in place?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not accept that. It would be extraordinary if someone set up a business just for the purpose of keeping turnover below £36 million. Besides, it is already much easier to pinpoint fraud in small organisations than larger organisations. That is already the case. It is easier to take forward those kinds of prosecutions on that basis.
Sir Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is being very generous. I have two points on that. First, I take the point that the Government amendments have already mitigated the issue about parent companies and the division into subsidiaries—that is welcome. But the threshold has been taken from modern day slavery legislation. What is the separate rationale for that threshold in the context of economic crimes? I have not heard any.
Secondly, money laundering is already a criminal offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, just like fraud, false accounting and theft. Why on earth are we conflating the regulations that are all about neglect, which are used by the FCA admittedly on some major cases, but not that often, with what is already a criminal offence? Why can we not just extend money laundering, which already is part of the regulatory burden of businesses in any event?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will come to the point about money laundering and broadening the sectors that money laundering regulation applies to, but, on SMEs, in my experience, in the work I did as a Back Bencher and in the work others have done, every case of fraud or money laundering I have seen has been by larger companies, not small companies. A number of cases the Serious Fraud Office has tried to take forward have been against larger companies, which is where the failure to prevent requirement comes in. It is much easier to take forward—
Kevin Hollinrake
I will just finish my point.
It is much easier to take that forward where the failure to prevent offence comes in, of course. The act of money laundering is a criminal offence—of course it is—and the act of fraud is a criminal offence. This is about a failure to prevent those activities and imposing that would, in our view, impose a significant regulatory burden on businesses.
Sir Robert Buckland
I am grateful. The Minister is right to cite the SFO, but he knows that the threshold the SFO applies is very high. It will only prosecute high-value, complex or novel cases. It does not deal with the warp and woof of fraud in this country. He is right to say that the majority of this fraud is committed by byzantine, large organisations, but I have to ask him again: what is the regulatory burden? We know that companies already have to face regulations anyway. We have failure to prevent offences. Why is it—I suspect it is the hand of the Treasury, with respect to him—that the Treasury is trying to hold things back on this offence?
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. and learned Friend says it is the Treasury. Actually, I am responsible for the business framework and I am concerned about putting £4 billion of regulatory burdens on businesses. That burden has been calculated in the same way that we calculated the burden for bribery, so I think it is a figure we can rely on. Our natural position is that we do not regulate businesses that would find it more difficult to deal with that regulation. That tends to be SMEs. They might find it more difficult to deal with regulation, rather than larger companies, where it is easier to put those controls in place.
We have heard arguments that the threshold means 99% of companies will not be in scope, but we do not think the number of companies is the right metric by which to assess the effect of the new offence. We believe economic activity is more appropriate. I can assure the House that 50% of economic activity would be covered by the organisations in scope of this new offence with the threshold in place. It is, of course, already easier for law enforcement to prosecute fraud in smaller organisations that fall below the threshold. Given those factors, the Government cannot support the amendment.
Lords amendment 158 seeks to introduce a failure to prevent money laundering offence. The UK already has a strong anti-money laundering regime which requires the regulatory sector to implement a comprehensive set of measures to prevent money laundering. Corporations and individuals can face serious penalties, ranging from fines to cancellations of registration and criminal prosecution if they fail to take those measures. The money laundering regulations and the money laundering offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act are directly linked and can be seen as part of the same regime. A failure to prevent money laundering offence would be hugely duplicative of the existing regime. In our conversations with industry, it has been very clear that that duplication would create a serious level of confusion and unnecessary burdens on businesses. We should be supporting legitimate businesses, rather than hampering them with overlapping regimes. The Government therefore do not support the amendment.
Lords amendment 160 would prevent enforcement authorities from having to pay legal costs in unsuccessful civil recovery proceedings, subject to certain intended safeguards. This type of amendment would be a significant departure from the loser pays principle and therefore not something we should rush into without careful consideration. The risk of paying substantial legal costs is just one of a multitude of factors that inform an operational decision to pursue an asset recovery case.
Several hon. Members and noble Lords have pointed to the similar changes made to the unexplained wealth order regime by the first economic crime Act, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The key difference is that UWOs are an investigatory tool that do not directly result in the permanent deprivation of assets, whereas civil recovery cases covered by the amendment could do so. There could, therefore, be a host of serious unintended consequences of such a change to the wider civil recovery regime, so the Government cannot support the amendment. However, we recognise the strength of feeling on the issue and the potential merits of reform. We have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu which imposes a statutory commitment to review the payment of costs in civil recovery cases in England and Wales by enforcement authorities, and to publish a report on its findings before Parliament within 12 months.
I hope the House is assured that the amendments the Government have laid are minor but sensible tweaks to the Bill. As I have set out, the Government have listened and made substantial important amendments to the Bill throughout its passage, significantly improving and strengthening the package where we recognise improvements could be made and where it makes sense for businesses. We must now, however, stand firm where we believe the amendments will not work or will place disproportionate burdens on businesses. I very much hope Members will support our position today and that the other place will note the Government’s movement on cost protection and reconsider its position on the six amendments when the Bill returns there. We must get on with implementing the vital measures in the Bill without further delay.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, and for the call last week with him and his officials. I thank the officials, pay tribute to their work on the Bill, and thank all those who have supported and taken part in the Bill’s proceedings.
We are in no doubt about the importance of the Bill. Britain has become a global hub for dirty money. The cost of economic crime now runs to as much as £350 billion, equivalent to our annual health and education budgets combined. Economic crime hits our constituents and our businesses. It hurts our public finances and it damages our reputation around the world. Action on economic crime was first promised in 2016, then 2018 and 2019. It matters because in the years from 2016 we saw a significant increase in economic crime, much of which could have been prevented if the Government had acted then. It took the invasion of Ukraine for the Government to step up. Strengthening the law has been urgently needed, which is why the Labour party has actively supported the Bill’s important passage through both Houses and sought to ensure that we leave no loopholes unchecked. Where the Government fail to act, we will.
We recognise that the Bill has made real progress in strengthening the law to tackle economic crime and its enablers. I particularly thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), and the all-party parliamentary groups on anti-corruption and responsible tax and on fair business banking for their research and relentless campaigning for change. I also thank other Members who have made significant contributions to our debates, including some who are here: the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). The Bill brings significant reform of Companies House, improving the accuracy and transparency of the register, with new powers for the registrar to become a more active gatekeeper over company creation.
Let me speak first to Government amendments which we support. I congratulate the Minister on the number of U-turns on areas that Labour argued for in Committee and on Report, including on closing loopholes around third party enablers and introducing a failure to prevent fraud offence. We welcome Government amendment 1, passed in the other place, which would expand the scope of objective 2 in clause 1, requiring Companies House to also take into account the accuracy of information already on the register before the Bill comes into effect. Government amendments 35 to 50, which all relate to the authorisation of corporate service providers, are vital amendments, especially amendment 35, which requires the registrar to publish the name of the authorised corporate service provider who has carried out ID verification. We welcome amendment 43, which requires the registrar to refuse the application for authorisation as a corporate service provider if it appears that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to become an ACSP.
Government amendments 146 to 150 introduce further provisions limiting SLAPPs that feature economic crime. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill for his advocacy on this issue throughout the passage of the Bill and in Committee. SLAPPs are a form of abusive proceedings. It is for us to send a signal and to change the law in the public interest. I would, however, ask the Minister for clarity on the Government’s intention to cap costs via secondary legislation, set out in one of the Bill’s factsheets. It would be helpful if he could give us an idea of when the Government are considering doing that, and how quickly he expects it to happen.
Lords amendments 151 to 158 introduce an offence of failure to prevent fraud, which I know was a priority for the Minister as well before he took on his present role. This is a huge step forward, which also follows considerable pressure and work between the Government and both the Opposition and their own Back Benchers throughout the Bill’s passage. The amendments take us forward, but the evidence shows that we need to go further, which is why we will support Lord Garnier’s amendment 159.
Kevin Hollinrake
Is the point not that in the 400 pages of legislation we have before us we are doing exactly that: closing these loopholes, making it easier for businesses and making it easier for Companies House to make sure that these entries are valid? We are also committed to increasing the fees at Companies House to make sure that the proper resources are in place for it. Indeed, we have increased the resources for enforcement at the National Crime Agency by 40% since 2019, with this now standing at just below £800 million a year.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Minister for that point, but the number of incorporations is massive and the resource to Companies House is not keeping pace to check on each and every company that is going. I direct him to the tweet from Graham Barrow highlighting some of these issues, because there are so many companies and we need as many eyes as possible on this data. Companies House does not have the resource to do this and neither does law enforcement. Allowing those researchers who have the time, expertise and patience to tease out this data to do this and do it well is important. They must be allowed to do this.
Let me turn to the amendment on failure to prevent fraud, from Lord Garnier. I recall the Minister being keen on such an amendment beforehand and there is an awful lot more the Government could be doing on this. As other Members have said, if this can be done for bribery and tax evasion, there is no reason why doing it for fraud should present an additional burden. As the Minister himself pointed out, 99% of businesses are not in scope under what is being proposed here—again, that is ludicrous.
There is also an effect on small and medium-sized businesses to consider, because they also stand to lose money through fraud. They stand to be targeted by those who want to commit this fraud. So those businesses that are perhaps more exposed—those local businesses that do not have the power to stand up to those who would bully them to engage in such activity—are put at risk and should be better protected by this legislation, were they to be kept in line with it.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I shall start where that brilliant speech by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) ended. I would also say to the Minister, and also to the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) were he still in his place, that they have shown from their time as Back Benchers a real understanding of all the issues around economic crime. They knew what needed to be done. They helped to develop the agenda that would work through smart regulation, transparency, tough enforcement and proper accountability. When the Bill arrived in the House, it was, I hope the Minister will agree, a bit half-baked. I am not blaming the civil servants in the box, but it was a bit half-baked. It was full of loopholes and serious omissions. But in this year that we have been considering the legislation, it has gone through tremendous transformations, so I salute the Minister for what he has done, but urge him to go that step further. I thank the Labour Front-Bench team for their assiduous and detailed work on this, but I particularly salute the Back Benchers—Back Benchers from all parts of this House who have joined together to bring forward a set of pragmatic, practical amendments that really will make this Bill fit for purpose. I also thank those in the House of Lords who have worked across parties, with the Cross Benchers, to ensure that we have some serious amendments that will give us a good framework to start the eradication of the malignant infection that we have with dirty money.
I say to the Minister: do not undo that good work; do not emasculate what has happened and where we have got to; and do not give into the voices of enablers who want to make a fortune on the back of dirty money. I wonder, as the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon has wondered, why on earth is the Minister not listening to what we are saying. Everybody in Parliament wants this. Everybody in the country wants this. Nobody supports dirty money. As I have said time and again, the country will not sustain economic prosperity and wealth on the back of dirty money. There is no future in that. I give the Minister another commitment, which I really regret having to say. I will not be here, but I want a future Labour Government to commit to never having a system that allows any political party to exist on the back of donations of dirty money. I say: do not let this opportunity go. Do not betray the principles and do not cave into the lobbying. The Government should look at the excellent amendments and please go forward.
I wish to focus on some new points. Lord Agnew’s excellent amendment in relation to trusts needs to be considered. The Minister said that he did not accept the research that was published today by really respected academics. These are people I have worked with over the years in whose work I have total and utter confidence. I challenge the Minister to bring them in and talk to them and then see if he comes to the view that what they are saying is not true. What they are saying is that we do not know the beneficial owner of 70% of the properties identified as owned by an overseas entity. And we do not know the beneficial owner of two thirds of that 70% because there is a trust that hides the real beneficial ownership. The Minister should have regard to what they say, as they are distinguished. I urge him to talk to them. I am happy to join in a meeting with them. In 87% of cases where information is either missing or inaccessible, it is because of Government choices in the design of the scheme. It is not because people are not obeying the law. It is because the Government have chosen to design the scheme in that way.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I am conscious of time, but I will give way to the Minister.
Kevin Hollinrake
When the LSE looked at beneficial ownership, I think that it included tenants of properties rather than the ownership of properties, and the register of overseas entities only deals with the ownership of those properties. There is definitely some disconnect between the Government’s position on this and the legislation and the interpretation that has been taken with this research from LSE.
Dame Margaret Hodge
I have met the key academics involved in this on a number of occasions, and I urge the Minister to do so as well. I think the differences are between the entities and the properties. We started asking for a register of properties that were owned by overseas entities in 2012, 2014 and 2016. It was absolutely ages ago. It was when David Cameron was Prime Minister. It was finally enacted last year, but it has been enacted badly. I have to say that it is the secrecy that matters. We can have transparency and we can protect vulnerable people. Transparency will enable all eyes—many, many more eyes—to interrogate the data and the Minister knows that to be true.
Let me put in this basic point. He and I own properties. We are not ashamed of showing the ownership of those properties. Why should we reveal the ownership of the properties in which we live, when rich people—often kleptocrats, often criminals, often money launderers—are able to use trusts as a mechanism to hide their ownership? That is a basic unfairness that the Minister should deal with. May I quote to him the words of one of the firms of lawyers that is exploiting the loophole? It is Payne Hicks Beach—Baroness Fiona Shackleton is a member of that firm. The firm says:
“On the face of it, the lacuna would seem to defeat the purpose of the legislation”—
this is lawyers saying this—
“so may be tightened up”—
hopefully tonight—
“in the future, but for the time being, using a nominee to hold UK property will continue to provide privacy as far as the ROE is concerned.”
Lawyers are exploiting that loophole, and we should stop it because—I hope that the Minster will agree with this—it is damaging our sanctions policy. Usmanov has been able to hide a lot of his wealth in property through trusts. Abramovich has done it, Fedotov has done it, and it is time that we brought it to a stop.
The other key issue is the failure to prevent. I will quote to the Minister what he said time and again. This is not about additional burdens on SMEs, or filling the courts with criminal cases; this is about trying to change the behaviour in our society, so that preventing fraud and money laundering becomes embedded in our culture, in the same way that preventing bribery has become embedded in business culture. The example that the Minister used when he was on the Back Benches is very potent. When we used to have a lot of accidents and deaths on construction sites, we reformed the health and safety at work legislation. We did not suddenly fill the courts with builders and construction people being taken to court, but overnight the number of accidents went down by over 90%. That is the principle that we are working on. That is the evidence that we want to use, and it is vital that we do it here.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I would like to pay my respects to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for her excellent opening on our behalf, as well as to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for her excellent knowledge and understanding. The time she has put in is just unbelievable. She spoke about Bill Browder—no one can read his work without realising just how serious this issue is. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who covered it so aptly and brought it down to how dangerous and very serious this is for our democracy and our economic equality. What could happen, and what I think will happen, is frightening.
I want to focus on the importance of legislating on the failure to prevent fraud and money laundering, which are crimes committed in the shadows. Currently, there is a severe lack of provisions to prevent economic crime, which we know is the best, cheapest and most effective way to tackle our dirty money problem. These crimes are committed and witnessed by some of the most senior professionals at a company, and even if they are not participating but just happen to witness fraud, surely they must be under a legal duty to report it. Amendment 159 was introduced in the other place, and I pay my respects to the other place for its absolutely wonderful scrutiny of the Bill. I commend it to the Minister. He has spearheaded the Bill to where it is now, but he just needs to go that bit further.
We must have reasonable prevention mechanisms in place. The failure to prevent measures would work on multiple fronts. First and foremost, they would act as a deterrent, forcing companies to act and to take economic crime seriously if they know they would be held liable. Deterrence is proven to work. As a health and safety professional, I know that regulations to make companies and directors liable made tremendous inroads on health and safety. We may wonder why there were always so many disputes on construction sites, but it was because there was no health and safety. The workers had to fight for everything, and they could not do it without legislation. That is why we are here: to tackle things when they are not being tackled, and economic crime is not being tackled at the present time. That legislation resulted in a 90% drop in deaths and serious injuries on construction sites, which could have involved just building a few houses.
Secondly, regulatory factors such as the fines that exist are not sufficient to bring about the required change. After all, the fines could be a lot less than these companies are earning from economic crime, and they become a cost factored into doing business for those companies. This cannot be right, and it simply cannot continue. To our shame, Britain is the global hotbed of economic crime, at a cost of £350 billion a year. The people of Ukraine are feeling the impact of this unchecked economic crime, as some of the main benefactors have been Russian oligarchs, the Russian state and Putin himself. There are the Magnitsky sanctions, but it tells us a lot, does it not, when Putin kills his own people as a deterrent? When we look at the invasion of Ukraine, we cannot sit back and let this continue unchecked.
The Government amendments to cover this do not go far enough. Well-organised criminal entities would easily get around legislation that only touches the largest companies and the largest businesses. They take advantage of small and medium-sized businesses, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said. That is exactly what they do—they do whatever it takes. They are cleverer than us, and they are doing it now. Well-organised criminals will get around it. As 64% of companies have experienced fraud, this would help those companies.
The Government legislation fails to make failure to prevent money laundering an offence. The justification for doing that is the money laundering regulations, yet there has been only one corporate conviction since they were introduced—that of NatWest in 2021. Clearly, the money laundering regulations are not good enough. The new legislation would make companies prove that they have the right procedures in place to prevent money laundering. This is the type of tough legislation we need to crack down on economic crime. For too long Britain has been the laundromat for foreign despots and dictators.
I heard a Member across the Floor talking about feeling the chill; what is more chilling than seeing what is going on and turning a blind eye, not washing the blood off our hands for the crimes against humanity committed for the very money being laundered around our country? I urge the Minister—I know where his heart is—not to throw away this wonderful opportunity to save so much. Democracy is at risk. It really is not acceptable. Please be brave enough—be brave enough and you will sleep at night.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank all Members for their contributions. I will not reiterate all the points I made in my opening speech, which addressed many of the points raised in the debate but shall talk to a few of the points made.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) made some points that were also reflected by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam challenged me to explain why subsection (4)(a) of the proposed new clause in Lords amendment 151 does not prevent excessive burdens on SMEs. That measure says we must have in place “such prevention procedures” and there is a concern that many millions of SMEs across the country would have to put in place prevention procedures despite there probably being no chance of any fraud at that organisation. So there would be burdens that otherwise would not exist on those businesses.
Sir Jeremy Wright
The Minister is right, but subsection (4)(a) refers to
“such prevention procedures” as are
“reasonable in all the circumstances”,
so in very many cases that would be a very minimal requirement and probably only what companies that are behaving responsibly are doing already. Secondly, as I am sure the Minister is about to point out, subsection (4)(b) states that it might not be
“reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the body to have any prevention procedures in place.”
So if it was not considered reasonable to have any, it would be possible to rely on that defence if they did not.
Kevin Hollinrake
I think my right hon. and learned Friend will accept there will also be a requirement to analyse actuarily the business to see what risks there are, and any perceived risk would of course require those prevention procedures to be put in place. We have analysed this and tried to get some context around the costs to businesses and think it would be in the order of £4 billion, so there would be significant burdens. For that reason, we are not persuaded to change our threshold.
Let me correct myself to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant). I was only out by a factor of 100 when I talked about the number of warning notices sent to overseas entities; 1,000 warning notices have been sent.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) talked about the introduction of SLAPPs, and we are clearly keen to do that at the earliest possible time. We have to work with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to implement a new cost protection scheme for SLAPPs defendants and the early dismissal mechanism via secondary legislation as soon as possible. We cannot give a definite date, however.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) for all the work she does with the all-party group on whistleblowing, which I was heavily engaged with as a Back Bencher. We have a review of whistleblowing that should conclude by the end of 2023. On extending SLAPPs to areas of our economy outside the economic sector, we are considering further legislative options. Clearly, in this proposed legislation it could only pertain to economic crime due to the extent of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) rightly talked about enforcement resources and also some of the limitations in the current regime, and that is exactly why we are legislating. The provisions we will make will increase the incorporation fee for Companies House. In addition to the £63 million we have put in to pump-prime this work—the extra people at Companies House will therefore be resourced, and there are already 400 people there to enforce the provisions of this legislation—we expect to increase incorporation fees to around £50 and also to extend the costs of annual returns to raise the money as necessary to make sure that the requirements of the Bill are fully implemented.
Alison Thewliss
Given the woefully low number of fines for false filing and the single one for not registering a person of significant control for Scottish limited partnerships, will we see that increase?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is exactly why we are legislating. These are the biggest reforms to Companies House in 170 years. We have to legislate first and ensure that the resources and the enforcement are in place. We are on the same page in this area.
Business and Trade
Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts(10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake
Of course, as part of my role, or my successor’s role if I move from this position back to the Back Benches or wherever, we regularly have meetings with the CMA to discuss its activities and where it is using its powers. Indeed, we write an annual letter to the CMA, which sets out where we expect its focus to lie.
[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 29 June 2023, Vol. 735, c. 283.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).
An error has been identified in my contribution. The correct information should have been:
Kevin Hollinrake
Of course, as part of my role, or my successor’s role if I move from this position back to the Back Benches or wherever, we regularly have meetings with the CMA to discuss its activities and where it is using its powers. Indeed, we write a letter to the CMA, which sets out where we expect its focus to lie, and update this when required.
The following is an extract from the 13th sitting of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee on 4 July 2023.
Kevin Hollinrake
The provisions apply specifically to traders to consumers, not traders to businesses. On how we determine the exemptions, such as for magazines, delivery services, gyms, software and so on, a range of stakeholders, including regulators, businesses and consumer groups, developed the list and the scope of sectors that are exempt from the subscription measures.
[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 4 July 2023, Vol. 735, c. 344.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).
An error has been identified in my contribution. The correct information should have been:
Kevin Hollinrake
The provisions apply specifically to traders to consumers, not traders to businesses. On how we determine the exemptions, a range of stakeholders, including regulators, businesses and consumer groups, developed the list and the scope of sectors that are exempt from the subscription measures.
The following is an extract from the 14th sitting of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee on 11 July 2023.
Kevin Hollinrake
The CEO and chair of the CMA regularly appear before the relevant Select Committee—five times as the hon. Member said. Most recently, they appeared before the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee. Indeed, they meet me on a regular basis, and we also provide an annual strategic steer.
[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 11 July 2023, Vol. 736, c. 406.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).
An error has been identified in my contribution. The correct information should have been:
Kevin Hollinrake
The CEO and chair of the CMA regularly appear before the relevant Select Committee—five times as the hon. Member said. Most recently, they appeared before the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee. Indeed, they meet me on a regular basis, and we also provide a strategic steer.