Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I mentioned earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has set out a clear and detailed blueprint for how we need to boost the institutional capacity, human resources capacity, financial capacity and firepower of the SFO. The blueprint is right there. I very much hope that the Government will look at it and perhaps even adopt it. Of course, if they do not, we will soon have a Labour Government who will.

The Opposition’s new clauses on victims intend to go much further than victims of economic crime in the UK alone. It is our hope—in government, it will be our intention—to work with our allies and partners internationally to provide robust mechanisms for the seizure of proceeds of corruption, kleptocracy and other crimes under international law, and to use such assets to provide funds for the reconstruction and other forms of financial redress to victims—in Ukraine, for instance—of the criminal acts of dictators such as Vladimir Putin.

For months, we have had nothing but warm words from the Government on such proposals. We know that there have been international discussions, including with our G7 partners and our allies in Ukraine, but we need more than warm words and vague promises of jam tomorrow. While Ministers stall on this issue, we are increasingly at risk of being left behind by our allies in the US, Canada and elsewhere, who are already taking the actions that we want to see in the UK. New clause 27 would therefore direct the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for using the proceeds of crime to compensate victims, and to do so within 90 days of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

We welcome the Bill, but it is a great shame that the Government are failing to take more substantive action in the crucial areas that I mentioned. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but, as it stands, it lacks ambition and is therefore a missed opportunity. I hope that Conservative Members will support our amendments today, so that we can finally begin to clean up our country’s reputation as the go-to destination for dictators, oligarchs, kleptocrats and gangsters, and for their dirty money.

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

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

This issue has been a concern of mine not just for months but for many years. Anybody who has even a passing acquaintance with the issue at hand will know that its history is somewhat tortuous. A series of options were set out comprehensively in a Law Commission report published in June last year, which I commend to hon. Members. However, there is much that predates that. Indeed, much that has happened in the last few months in this place—in both Houses—reinforces the thrust of the argument that I seek to advance by way of new clauses 4 to 6, which stand in my name and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members, from all parties in the House, to whom I am extremely grateful.

In 2015, my party’s manifesto rightly committed the Government to make it illegal for companies to fail to put in place measures to prevent economic crime. It would be unfair to say that nothing happened. We had the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which created a new offence of failing to prevent tax evasion. That was a development on the failing to prevent bribery offence contrary to section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010, which opened the door to the development of the principle across a range of criminality in this space.

Subsequent to that, the Ministry of Justice launched a call for evidence in early 2017 on corporate liability reform for economic crime. However, it is right to say that progress on that was exceedingly slow. It was not until November 2020, when I was serving as Secretary of State, that it was agreed across Government that the Law Commission would be given the task of examining the issue and producing a report. It was right to acknowledge at that stage that there were a number of potential models that could be deployed here, and it was important for an independent body such as the Law Commission to look at different jurisdictions, as of course it did. It looked in particular at the United States, Canada and Australia: common law jurisdictions that have long been wrestling with the same challenges that we face. To differing effect, they have brought in and deployed their own particular regimes. More on that slightly later.

What is clear is that there is very much consensus in this place on the need for reform of corporate criminal liability. The Treasury Committee’s report of February last year urged the Government

“to act quickly in bringing forward any legislation flowing from the Law Commission’s review.”

In June, the Foreign Affairs Committee talked about

“reform of outdated and ineffective corporate criminal liability laws”,

and, in October, the Justice Committee spoke in similar terms. Finally, a report from the House of Lords Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee in November said:

“Reform of corporate criminal liability will be essential in order to maximise the impact of the Fraud Act and other legal tools going forward…to hold corporates across all sectors to account and to inspire behaviour change.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

The right hon. and learned Member is making a brilliant speech, and the proposals he is stewarding are incredibly important. Did he hear the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation’s evidence to the Bill Committee, when he said very clearly that economic crime is a national security issue? That is exactly the argument the Minister for Security made when he was Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—[Interruption.] I am told he still makes that argument today. That underlines why the right hon. and learned Member’s proposals are so important, not least because we have become the country of choice for corporate structures set up to launder billions of illegal money.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, was absolutely right. Indeed, his evidence echoed the Government’s own statement in pursuance of the action plan. The action plan says that it covers criminal activity that

“poses a risk to the UK’s prosperity, national security and reputation.”

That is the point. The policy direction the Government have adopted in recent legislation—most notably in legislation to protect industry from takeovers from parts of the world that we regard as a potential threat to this country—increasingly includes economic security as part of the wider national security agenda, and that is absolutely right.

This debate is happening in the context of a world where the old order is changing and giving way to forces that we cannot control and that we should rightly be suspicious about. Therefore, although we want a vigorous, lively, free market economy in this country, we need to be ever more vigilant about ensuring that its boundaries are policed effectively. I will say more about the prosecution of these offences, because it is, shall we say, a vexed question, and there are right hon. and hon. Members here who have direct experience from their work of the evidential challenges that prosecutors face day in, day out.

I do not want the Government to adopt new criminal offences only to find that their use becomes sporadic or ineffective. However, the offences I propose help to further drive a culture of compliance and lawfulness where corporates behave responsibly. There are examples of previous legislation that we can point to that have driven that culture forward positively. I think of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which the Under-Secretary of State has used as an example, and he was absolutely right to do so. As a result of the passage of that legislation, we saw a dramatic drop in the number of industrial accidents. Why? Because employers were enjoined to take the issue damn seriously. If they did not, there would be liability at the end of it.

[Mr Djanogly]

Has my right hon. and learned Friend also considered the Bribery Act, where a similar set of procedures was forced on corporates, with dramatic results?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, he was a Minister in the Ministry of Justice when the Bribery Act was brought into force at the end of the 2005 Parliament, and he has direct experience of this issue. He is absolutely right that the Bribery Act has been of huge value. In fact, under the regime of deferred prosecution agreements that the Government brought in in the early part of the last decade, of the 11 DPAs that have been made by the Serious Fraud Office with corporates, nine were for “failure to prevent offences”—failure to prevent bribery—and just three were for the offence of fraud. That accounts for 90% of the £1.7 billion in revenue that the SFO has brought in through DPAs. It is clear that that has been an important step change in the way we deal with wrongdoing or indeed the threat of wrongdoing.

For people who think this is some sort of academic exercise, I draw their attention to the LIBOR scandal and the forex rate rigging scenario. There was no bringing to account of anyone involved—there was impunity. That is not good for the rule of law or the economic wellbeing of this country.If we want people to invest in the United Kingdom—we do and we have excelled in direct foreign investment over generations—then they need to have the confidence that if there is a problem, there is redress of grievance, accountability and a way of recouping the loss or making sure their investment is safe. That is what I believe the new clauses go to.

We have been careful in the test we wish to apply to the “failure to prevent” offences that form the subject of new clauses 4 and 6. It was tempting to follow the recommendation in the report by the House of Lords’ Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee, chaired by my noble Friend Baroness Morgan of Cotes, to apply the wider test contained within the Criminal Finances Act 2017 relating to failing to prevent tax evasion. That would not require an intention by the corporate or the individual to confer a benefit on the company or a benefit on a person to whom the suspect—the defendant— is providing services on behalf of the company. I have sought not to go that far, but to replicate the Bribery Act test, which is the intention to confer a benefit. It is important that when we seek to draft legislation, we are as mindful as possible of not widening it to an extent that could in many ways create further unfairness. We have an obligation to ensure that balance is maintained.

I have set out three separate offences in the provisions: fraud, money laundering and false accounting. I think fraud and false accounting are probably self-explanatory, but the Government might have a bit of a question about money laundering. They might be thinking about the 2017 money laundering regulations, and regulation 92 in particular, where there is already a corporate offence where, with the consent or connivance of an officer of the company, an offence is committed or an offence is attributable to neglect on their part. What I would say gently to the Minister is that I do not think that cuts it. It still leaves significant evidential and prosecutorial challenges. The Financial Conduct Authority has, I think, used it vanishingly rarely. Therefore, I urge him very strongly to look carefully—I hope he will accept the thrust of my argument, even if he cannot accept the detail of my new clauses today—at bringing forward provision that covers money laundering as well as fraud. That would be my strong exhortation to him today.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I want to add to the excellent speech that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making and to thank him for it. In the Barclays case, there was an attempt to prosecute both Barclays bank and individual directors of Barclays bank. There was an unsuccessful appeal against Mr Justice Jay’s decision, in which the SFO argued that the dual rulings would allow directors to “insulate themselves from liability” and make such alleged offences “impossible to prosecute”. Later, Ms Osofsky, who runs the SFO, said she felt herself completely hamstrung by the directing mind principle. She told parliamentarians in evidence that

“I can go after main street but I can’t go after Wall Street.”

In other words, she could prosecute small companies, but not corporates with layers of control.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

The right hon. Lady leads me to the thrust of my argument on new clause 5, which is the identification doctrine itself. She deals with the precise point of the doctrine. In the Barclays case, Mr Justice Jay at first instance was widely seen as having defined it by a narrow interpretation—I do not criticise the learned trial judge, but many people saw it that way—but the decision was upheld on appeal. With a real-life set of facts, a trial judge made a ruling that had quite important consequences for the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on making a powerful speech in favour of his new clauses, several of which I have signed. Before he moves on, may I press him on the point about this being a slightly rum affair? I think that was the phrase he just used. It is rum because we have two options set out by the Law Commission—as well as many other analyses—neither of which are being taken into the Bill. There are two good options, and they are being completely ignored. Also, at least one of the two Ministers on the Front Bench has repeatedly—and rightly, in my view and that of many other people—been a dedicated advocate of precisely the ideas my right hon. and learned Friend is putting forward in his new clauses, yet they are still not in the Bill. How much more rum can it get?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I was going to spare the blushes of the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), but my hon. Friend has said it for me, and he is right. They know that what I am saying does not just have force, but that they agree with it. That will no doubt carry great weight—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Of course.

[Tom Tugendhat]

What I am enormously enjoying in this Session is the way in which Bills are being picked up and put down by different Ministers. When they are on the Front Bench, they do one thing; when they are on the Back Benches, they say another—sadly, that is the nature of our current political system. It is taking a little while, I admit, for many of us to realise quite how long it can take to get things through in government. Those who have been in government for many years are sharing their knowledge very generously.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Well, my right hon. Friend must speak for himself. I will tell the House a story: I remember when the present Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), held the office of Minister for Security, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling now enjoys. We used to have cross-governmental committee meetings—this was during the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—and I remember having a very fierce argument with a very senior permanent secretary at the Treasury about this very issue. I will not name them, because that would be wrong, but they told me that there was concern about the proliferation of criminal offences in this area because somehow it would add more of a regulatory burden to business. I disagreed hotly with that civil servant then, and I disagree hotly now.

The Minister for Security now has a great opportunity. It is a great privilege as a Minister to get on with a job that others would have wished to finish. We have passed the parcel to him, and he can open it and enjoy the gifts within.

[John Penrose]

My right hon. and learned Friend is being very generous with his time. May I say very gently that the anecdote that he told just now and the intervention that the Minister for Security has just made both come under the category of explanations, rather than justifications, for where we now find ourselves? The Bill is here, now. What has been said explains why we are here, but they do not justify why this stuff is not in the Bill.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Well, I am trying to be the diplomat and the reasonable interlocutor here. My hon. Friend is playing the bad cop with the Minister, and I am trying to play the good cop. I know that the Minister will eventually yield to that persistent approach; I hope that it will be done in a way that is neither oppressive nor unreliable.

[Liam Byrne]

I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. We appear to have an overload of rumness here.

[Liam Byrne]

Yes. It is unusual for unity to break out on both sides of the House and on the Front and Back Benches. Given that ubiquity of unity, what, in the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s analysis, is the problem that is preventing these proposals from becoming the law of the land?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I think that there are two things: time and capacity. I do not criticise officials. I have never believed in doing so: it is a bad Minister who blames their officials, just as a bad workman blames his tools. Officials have a lot of work to do under immense pressure, and obviously they want to get it right. I want to get it right, too—we all do—but the Bill might be our last chance to do so in this Parliament. My goodness me, if we cannot get it right here, the Government are really going to have to get it right in the other place.

Let me deal further with the identification doctrine. Opposition new clause 40, which is very well worded, alludes to the US concept of respondeat superior. In effect, it is a wrap-all approach to vicarious liability that captures the acts or omissions of even very junior members of a corporate, which can lead to that corporate being liable. In some ways that has proved advantageous to prosecutors in the US: they have been able to identify more junior officials in corporates and, in effect, get them to co-operate with the authorities, which has opened up evidence that might not otherwise have been available.

The Law Commission looked at that approach. It also looked at what I might call the corporate culture approach in Australian Commonwealth law, and at Canadian legislation on the acts and mental states of senior managers. The Law Commission said—rightly, I think—that neither the US approach nor the Australian approach would be right for our jurisdiction.

The wording of my new clause 5 reflects the Law Commission’s recommendations in two ways. First, as the Law Commission’s report sets out, it would allow conduct to be

“attributed to a corporation if a member of its senior management engaged in, consented to or connived in the offence.”

Senior management is defined as

“any person who plays a significant role in the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of the organisation’s activities are to be managed or organised, or the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities.”

We have taken the Canadian approach.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am intrigued by and have a great deal of sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendments. As he knows, we discussed the issue when we served as Law Officers together. In the light of the Law Commission recommendation from which he has just quoted, I wonder why his new clause 5 includes the

“neglect of a senior manager.”

It seems conceptually a rather odd proposition that a fraud could be committed by neglect. The Law Commission did not go that far. Why has my right hon. and learned Friend included that provision?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

That is a fair question. What I seek is to tease out from the Government the juxtaposition with the money laundering regulations. My right hon. and learned Friend will remember my making mention of regulation 92 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, which uses the word “neglect”. To be frank, I think that there is a problem with that, but it is important for us to tease out from Ministers a way to find a wording that is comprehensive.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

I have enormous sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend, who is doing the House a service by bringing these amendments to its and the Government’s attention. However, is it not reasonable—Opposition new clause 40 has this purpose in mind as well—that there should be quite a detailed consultation within the financial services industry and among any other commercial organisations that might be affected? New clause 5’s use of the word “neglect” creates an extraordinarily broad possibility for the application of the criminal offence.

I know what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing, and I applaud it. However, it seems to me that it is reasonable to require of the Government that they get it right, but, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) said, that must not become an excuse simply to say “mañana” and kick this into the long grass.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am always grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend; I greatly enjoyed our time working together as Law Officers, and I yield to no one in my respect for him. He is right to make that point. I think I couched my remarks in a way that was faithful to the Law Commission’s options, which say that the Government do not necessarily have to do it all—there is a choice here, potentially. On a wider basis, I think that the identification doctrine needs to be looked at. There could be an opportunity for further refinement, perhaps in the other place, and for provision to be made that refers specifically to the offences that I list in new clause 5.

Let me take my right hon. and learned Friend’s point in the spirit in which he made it, and build on it. New clause 5 includes the specification in Law Commission’s option 2B that an

“organisation’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer would always be considered to be members of its senior management.”

We have sought to be faithful to option 2B.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s excellent speech again, but does he share my view that we are past the stage of consultation? There has been a lot of consultation on the issue, from 2015 to 2017 and up until the Law Commission’s proposals in 2022. Choices now have to be made. The opportunity must be grasped to legislate on this issue, on which there is such wide consensus and such strong feelings.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

If not now, when? I entirely agree.

I had not quite finished outlining the Law Commission’s point correctly refuting, or at least addressing, the perception of any problems with a knock-on effect on civil law liability. It sets out the case very well, giving two basic reasons why it does not think that there will be extensive consequences.

First, the Law Commission rightly says that in civil law, vicarious liability or liability for negligence will very often apply to civil disputes between companies and third parties even if the identification doctrine test threshold is not met, so those very important parts of civil liability will not be undermined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thought that we were to have the joy and the privilege of hearing from the hon. Member for Aberavon, who can never say too much in this Chamber, or indeed anywhere else—which is lucky, because he very rarely says too little.

It is a huge pleasure to have been here this afternoon. Members in all parts of the House have made extremely powerful points, but I will touch on just a few of them, because many have been covered at length and in detail on numerous other occasions. If Members will forgive me, I will deal straight away with a few of the matters that I think require immediate attention.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for tabling new clause 6 and for the way in which he has approached the area of corporate criminal liability, in which he and I agree that reform is required. That is why the Government commissioned a review by the Law Commission, which my right hon. and learned Friend cited and which showed a definite need to clamp down on economic crime conducted by commercial organisations. We have been working closely across Government and with prosecutors in carefully considering its recommendations and how improvements can best be made. It is vital that any reform can be used by law enforcement agencies, does not duplicate what already exists and avoids placing unnecessary burdens on legitimate businesses, but we must also operate within the constraints of the Bill.

I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s passion for change. I am immensely grateful for his thoughtful input, and I greatly value my engagement with him, and with other Members, on this issue. I can assure him that the Government intend to address the need for a “failure to prevent” offence in the other place, and I would welcome further discussion with him about the most effective way in which that can be done.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am extremely grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said, but may I gently press him on the issues of “failure to prevent”, fraud, money laundering and false accounting offences—I accept that they may well have to be separate—and a further discussion on the identification doctrine? If so, I will not need to press my new clauses to a vote.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. and learned Friend is certainly more learned than me, and I will certainly be listening to his views. There are a number of areas that I am sure we will be able to discuss, and I am sure we will reach a conclusion that is acceptable to all sides.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Sir Robert Buckland]

rose—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I will not give way, as I am conscious of the amount of time for this debate. As I was saying, it is important that we recognise the significance of this to small businesses—this is there to help them, not hinder them.

I move on to the cost protection for civil recovery cases. Again, this is incredibly important, because the balance we have is not right. Those who can pay—the enablers, the lawyers, the sharp accountants—have a huge advantage over law enforcement agencies, which do not have significant resource and expertise to do this. As Bill Browder said when he gave evidence to the Bill Committee in October 2022:

“What has to happen here—this is plain as day—is that you have to get rid of this adverse costs issue in a civil case brought by the Government… If you make that point, it will change the whole dynamic—the whole risk-reward—for these people.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 66, Q140.]

On adverse costs, the Government are saying that they are sympathetic to this, and they are going to consult and do some other things later on, but by not putting this measure in this Bill, they are allowing this uneven playing field to continue and be perpetuated. Because the law enforcement agencies know that it is going to cost them an absolute fortune, which they do not have, these cases go unpunished and those who perpetrate all of this money laundering, with all this money washing through the UK financial system, will see this continue, because people can afford to get away with it. The Government should be deeply concerned about that.

Let me recommend to the Minister Bill Browder’s latest book—if he has not already read it. It exposes the capture of all of these enablers, from lawyers to everybody else; we need to be looking to close the door on that in this Bill. The Government have an important opportunity here. This important situation does not come along very often and we do not know when we will pass this way again. We have a Bill in front of us. The Government could go for accuracy and for transparency in the register. They could close the door, fix the loopholes and do all of these things that they must do. They could accept these Lords amendments tonight. They could fix this Bill and do it right, and we would not have to come back here to legislate again.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). She said that we might not pass this way again. Indeed, this has been a very long way for me and for many others in this House who have been making the case for a failure to prevent offence for many years, both in office and as Back Benchers. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is in his place, because he is a true believer as well.

I hoped that tonight could have been a Simeon moment—I could have sung my Nunc Dimittis and departed in peace—but no, I am afraid that, as a result of the welcome but somewhat limited amendments made by the Government in the Lords, I am reduced to the role of Moses; I can see the promised land but I am not, it seems, according to the Government, destined to get there. Therefore my exhortation to my good friend the Minister is, “You can be Joshua. You can knock the walls of Jericho down. You can go the extra mile and finish the job.”

We have heard a lot about this failure to prevent offence, and the word “fraud” has been bandied about as if we were dealing with fraud in general. May I, perhaps uncharacteristically for some hon. Members, draw the attention of the House to the Lords amendments themselves, because they are what we are considering?

I, like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, am a stickler for ensuring that we stick to the point, so I turn to page 46 of the bundle and, in particular, amendment 151, which is the proposed new clause “Failure to prevent fraud”. It ain’t any old fraud; it is fraud intending to benefit “the relevant body”. That is not a fraud in general, about loss to the taxpayer or the company—in fact, there is a specific defence on that basis that says if the fraud causes loss to the company, it is not a criminal offence—but a very targeted type of fraud that is about benefit to the company.

As a lawyer, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that we have something called the criminal standard of proof. This is not any old regulatory device; this is a criminal offence. The threshold and standards that have to be applied by the police, the investigating authorities and the prosecutors are high. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said, the defence set out in clause 4, about reasonable prevention proceedings, is crucial. When I hear people talk about regulatory burden, I have to say, in all candour, that that is a misplaced understanding of what this rather limited offence will achieve.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I will give way to my hon. Friend and then explain why he is wrong.

[Richard Fuller]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. He seems to have some mixed views on the point of regulatory burden, particularly on this measure. He makes the point about fraud being a crime, but this legislation is about actions to prevent fraud, as he knows. What do I tell the good, upstanding owners and managers of small businesses in my constituency that they are doing wrong about fraud today? How are they letting him down because they are not taking the actions to prevent fraud that he thinks they should be taking?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Tell them that this offence is about fraud intended to benefit themselves, not about a fraud that causes them loss. This is a limited offence. It is the misunderstanding of the term “fraud” in the clause that is so important to the debate; we have to focus, laser-like, on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is well experienced in business, over many years in financial services, and I bow to the expertise and experience that he has brought to the House, and indeed to ministerial office—all too briefly, which was a shame. He will understand the law of corporate liability in the United States—a vigorous free market economy, the biggest economy in the world, where people go to invest and grow businesses. I can tell him that corporate criminal liability in the United States is pretty draconian, because companies there are liable, even if their employees go off on a frolic of their own and defraud to their hearts’ content, yet corporate criminal liability there will bite upon United States entities. That is far more draconian that anything we have in this jurisdiction and far more onerous, potentially, when it comes to regulatory burden, yet my hon. Friend cannot argue with me that the United States is anything other than a vigorous free market economy.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not want to argue about that point, but the United States is also an incredibly litigious society. The main beneficiaries of much of this are the legal community, with which my right hon. and learned Friend will be particularly familiar. As a result of the clause applying to smaller businesses in my constituency, can he tell me specifically what they will need to do differently that they do not do today?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

They will have in place reasonable procedures to prevent people from acting on their behalf and unjustly benefiting their own companies and entities. Let us not forget it is a partnership offence as well. I do not see that as some sort of general exhortation to small and medium-sized businesses to suddenly put in place measures to prevent fraud in general—that is not what the offence says.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that part of the answer to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is that the vast majority of businesses will not need to do anything differently, because what they do now is perfectly reasonable. If what they are doing is reasonable, they will be perfectly safe from this legislation. This legislation is intended to catch those who do not behave reasonably and those who behave dishonestly, which will be a tiny minority. We accept that the legislation will not lead to a huge number of prosecutions or convictions; it is supposed to lead to a change in behaviour where that is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Exactly, and that is the point. What the Government have done is set up a legislative Aunt Sally. I welcome their putting in place mitigating measures to deal with parent companies and subsidiaries—Lord Bellamy explained that very well indeed—but the threshold they have set is entirely unnecessary. It does not reflect what the Law Commission said in its report. When I was in office, I was delighted to ask the Law Commission to do the work on failure to prevent fraud. It did the work and, hey presto, it produced proposals that had nothing about thresholds in them, so where on earth has that come from?

I am sorry if I might have inadvertently upset my hon. Friend the Minister by mentioning His Majesty’s Treasury, but I detect the hand of my friends in Parliament Street. I know their view about failure to prevent fraud; they do not like the offence and never have done. They have always put up arguments against it. Perhaps it is their role to do that—I do not know—but I detect their hand in this. That is an unfortunate coda to what would have been a magnificent symphony, had my hon. Friend the Minister stuck to the line and done what I thought he was going to do.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, I agree that the United States is a litigious society. We, in the United Kingdom, do not necessarily want to go down that road when it comes to civil litigation, but what the United States does well is prosecution of fraud. It regularly and rigorously enforces the criminal law of fraud, particularly in the jurisdiction of New York and in other major financial centres, which enhances the reputation of that jurisdiction as a safe place to do business.

Here is the argument that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, do not hear, in contradistinction to the argument about the regulatory burden. Where there is a criminal legal framework that is clear, certain and stable, that can only encourage investment into the United Kingdom, not discourage it. A jurisdiction with a robust and independent judiciary and a fine legal tradition, which rigorously polices the law of corporate criminal liability, is one that investors can have the greatest confidence about investing in. What on earth is happening here to undermine that very powerful argument?

Prosecutors, including the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, have made the case consistently that a “failure to prevent” offence of this nature would help them in the important work they do in bringing wrongdoers to book. We do not want to be a jurisdiction where it is too easy to commit fraud that benefits corporates. We do not want to be that sort of place—that is not a healthy place within which we should be operating. If we are truly committed to a vigorous free market economy, then, in the traditions of Adam Smith, we should be absolutely committed to its policing and its boundaries. I sound a bit evangelical about this—a bit biblical, a bit Old Testament—because it is important that we get this right at this last stage of the Bill.

That brings me to my noble Friend Lord Garnier’s amendment about money laundering. He made the argument very well and, having read his entry in Lords Hansard, I will adopt it. I am in danger of sounding like a broken record, but I make no apology for that. Money laundering is already a criminal offence. The regulatory argument does not cover the full gamut of what we are dealing with, and Lord Garnier’s amendment is a sensible reflection of the importance of ensuring we cover offences of money laundering. Remember again that this is about benefiting the company; it is not money laundering in general, but a targeted offence, with the same caveats and qualifications that I mentioned in the context of the “failing to prevent fraud” offence. So I say to my hon. Friend, “Repent!”. He should follow the true path and come back and finish the job. We can all then take equal pride in the work that he and others have done to make sure that this jurisdiction is a fairer and better place in which to do business.

Let me end on this note. I will not dwell too much on the rather milquetoast amendment about the capping of cost orders for proceedings for civil recovery. We know that it is a problem. We know that it is a disincentive to the bringing of civil proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We should just get on with it. The particular rules and proposals about costs are well reflected in other parts of legal procedure and other types of proceedings, so this is nothing new. I think that it is time that we grasped the nettle rather than having yet another report.

Finally, Lord Agnew made a very powerful point: just a few words is all it takes to make a difference when it comes to trusts and the arguments that have been very cogently made about that by others. Only a few small steps need to be taken by my hon. Friend and His Majesty’s Government to allow us to reach that promised land. I urge him to take us there and then we can all celebrate in a land of milk and honey.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you for the way that you conducted your speech. I saw what you were doing, and thank you very much for helping.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance on how I can put on the record that I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I think you have already done it—thank you very much.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I strongly very much with what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said. Let us just agree with the Lords. Let us get on with this. Let us do this legislation, and do it properly.

Let me say first that it is important for us to have as much information as possible about those who own companies. It is clear from all the evidence that has come before us that the lack of such information causes people to find ways of hiding their money, and the UK has become a magnet for that. The Minister has suggested that there will be a significant cost to businesses, but businesses are already doing work on failure to prevent bribery. As Lord Garnier said on Monday, there is a clear read-across: it would be easy to add fraud to the current provisions. It would not be difficult, and it would bring about an economic benefit. The Minister also suggested that economic growth would be hampered in some way, but he himself has said that

“ a corporate offence of failure to prevent economic crime and money laundering would reduce the amount of money that is illegally shifted out of the UK into foreign jurisdictions and increase the amount of tax that is paid.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 220.]

Why does the Minister now disagree with himself? Why does he disagree with statements that he has made in the past? He knows that this is an important measure, and that this is an issue that we can deal with here today and it will be done. We will not have to come back to it, we will not have to keep debating it, and the Minister will be able to see that he has finished it off and done a good job.

On the issue of adverse costs, I agree with what Bill Browder said in his evidence to the Bill Committee. By not introducing such a measure, we are inhibiting law enforcement when it comes to economic crime. We know that those on the other side of the equation who want to hide their money have plenty of it to throw at the best lawyers and at the best accountants to make things look a particular way. If we are to be in this fight, we need to give the law enforcement agencies the resources that they require, and cost capping is a key element of that.

As I said the previous time we debated these matters, there is no need for a review. We need to get on with things. An election is coming, and we do not know when we will pass this way again. The Minister should accept the Lords amendments, and get on with the work.

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

I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) repeated her phrase of last week—and, indeed, we have passed this way again. I will resist the temptation to be too biblical today; I will simply reiterate to the my hon. Friend the Minister the points that I made last week. Lord Garnier has moved on the position in the Lords and offered an olive branch to the Government, in the sense that this is a different amendment. It rightly now affords what, in the opinion of many of us, will be greater protections for businesses. What is being ignored in this debate is the fact that businesses that take reasonable measures will not be the subject of a prosecution or investigation. Businesses that are not within this regime will not have that protection, so there is a cogent argument that failing to extend the “failure to prevent” offence to more businesses would leave them less well protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that we must vote in five minutes to remain in order, so I will simply say that economic crime is a national security issue and should not be a partisan issue in this House. I urge the Minister to set aside the party political views that he is expressing and to go with the consensus that has been built, not just in the House of Commons but in the House of Lords and in the non-governmental organisation sector outside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, we are now going to move on to the motion on amendment 161B, and if that is annulled there will be other opportunities, I am sure.

After Clause 187

Civil recovery: costs of proceedings

Resolved,

That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 161B in lieu of Commons amendment 161A and insists on amendment 161A in lieu.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 151B, 151C and 161B.

That Kevin Hollinrake, Scott Mann, James Sunderland, Jane Stevenson, Rushanara Ali, Taiwo Owatemi and Alison Thewliss be members of the Committee;

That Kevin Hollinrake be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance about how I properly place on the record a reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in the context of my speech in the debate about the Lords message on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the right hon. and learned Member for his point of order. He has recognised that he made an omission and he has corrected it at the earliest opportunity. I thank him for doing so.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I knew that when you referred to us all as distinguished and experienced Members you did not mean me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This is the third time we have been back here, and I think it incumbent on the Government to listen to the Lords. They have made it clear that they feel strongly about their very reasonable amendments, which shows how important they are and how we should be getting this right. There is no question that, as the Minister suggested, we are going to let the Bill fall today. I think that if he were worried about that he would accept the Lords amendments this afternoon, rather than allowing the process to go on and on. We did not need to be here at the last minute; he could have accepted many of the amendments at a much earlier stage, because fundamentally he agrees with them. We know that, because he said it on many occasions before he took ministerial office. I think that a great deal can be done if the Minister will make that compromise this afternoon.

The notion that 99.5% of businesses can be exempted from the “failure to prevent” offence is absolutely mad. Small businesses are both part of and victims of economic crime. Some figures from UK Finance arrived in our inboxes earlier today. According to its findings, criminals stole £580 million through unauthorised and authorised fraud in just the first half of 2023. UK Finance says that that is a 2% decrease, but it is still a significant amount of money. Businesses as well as individuals are losing out, and the Government should be paying more attention to that.

The Minister described “failure to prevent” as a distraction for business. I wonder if he also thinks, for consistency’s sake, that the “failure to prevent bribery” offence in the Bribery Act 2010 and the “failure to prevent tax evasion” offence in the Criminal Finances Act 2017 are distractions for business. If he thinks that “failure to prevent” economic crime is a distraction for business, he must surely think that those other offences are also an unnecessary bit of bureaucracy that businesses have to carry out. It does not make any sense.

I fully support the level playing field for cost protections. We must give our enforcement agencies both the tools and money to do their job. No enforcement agency should be thinking, “We cannot afford to take on this case. We cannot afford to prosecute these economic criminals.” The Government should be supporting law enforcement, allowing this Lords amendment to go through, and ensuring that we make the best possible legislation. There is no excuse for the Government not to do these things. The Government agree with them, and we in the House agree with them on a cross-party basis. The Government should get on with it, and not return the Bill to the Lords.

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

I will certainly remember your exhortation to brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, that is something of a challenge for me at the best of times.

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

No, no.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I think my right hon. Friend may suffer from the same affliction, dare I say; but I will draw a veil of charity over that.

My hon. Friend—and my friend—the Minister has campaigned assiduously with us in the trenches on this issue for many years. I yield to none in my admiration for him, and I want to put on record how grateful I am that he is in this place, in that spot, doing the job that he is doing. We have come a long way. I well remember being on the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee giving authorisation for this Bill in the first place, and knowing then that it would require heavy amendment during its course.

It was inevitable that, in the light of the appalling incidents in Ukraine and the changed world situation, the Bill would develop and mature, and mature it has. The identification principle changes are truly radical and reflect a view long held by the Law Commission and others that we needed to update the Tesco v. Nattrass principle, which is now 50 years old. I salute the Minister and colleagues in the Lords for making sure that that has happened, but I must press him again about the basis upon which the Government make assertions, very much at the last minute, about the regulatory or administrative cost burdens on small and medium-sized businesses. I do not think that they are going to be as dramatically high as they assert. We have not had proper time to test the estimates, and I do not think that they stand up to scrutiny. They do not reflect the Government’s position on previous “failure to prevent” offences—namely, for tax evasion and bribery—and this begs a huge range of questions.

There is no doubt that my colleagues in the legal profession—I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on every occasion, and I do so now—will feast upon these threshold definitions. Worse than that, unscrupulous operators in the field will exploit these threshold definitions and find clever ways around the law. We know what that means. We will see shell companies and people of straw. We will see the same behaviour that we are rightly trying to eradicate because we want this country to be one of the best places in the world to invest.

This is chiefly an economic argument. Yes, there is a morality to it, but chiefly it is an economic argument. That is why, at the last minute as we come up to Prorogation, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the increased majorities in the other place for these amendments and in particular of the attempt we have made to compromise with the Government. At the last minute, I imposed myself upon the goodwill of the Clerks in order to get a further amendment in before the time limit. It was a manuscript amendment to increase the period of one year mentioned in the amendment to 18 months. It has not been selected for debate, but the important political point that we wish to make is that we are seeking at the last minute to come up with reasonable compromises.

I will give the Minister another idea. Bills normally come in with Royal Assent, which we imagine will happen either today or tomorrow with the Prorogation ceremony. Two months is the normal period for Bills to then come into force but he has the power to lay commencement orders to ensure that certain parts of this Bill do not come into force until a statutory instrument has been laid. He has that power, so why not use it in this case and accept the amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)? He can see that we are commanding all the ingenuity that we have to come up with reasonable compromises that will allow the Bill to pass in the best possible order. I make a last-minute plea to him to accept these exhortations and not to oppose the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and me. I can say no more to my hon. Friend the Minister, other than to thank him and ask him to go that extra yard.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

This is another leg in a long journey. I want to focus on the amendment that stands in my name, which is supported by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).

May I place on the record my thanks to everybody across the House, some of whom are here today, for the way in which we have managed to work together as Members of Parliament and put our political affiliations behind us in trying to find a common-sense, pragmatic way to tackle a horrific problem and to improve the Bill that was laid before us almost a year ago? I also pay special tribute to Members of the House of Lords, who have again worked incredibly hard to improve the Bill in a practical way. In particular, I thank Lord Garnier, Lord Agnew, Lord Vaux and Lord Edward Faulks, all of whom have moved important amendments that have been supported by Members across the House, many of whom are members of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax.

I draw to Members’ attention what happened to the amendment to the “failure to prevent” measures. When it was first considered by the House of Lords it was passed by a majority of three. When it was considered a second time, it was passed by a majority of 26. When it was considered a third time, last week, it was passed by a majority of 41. So the strength of feeling in the other place about the importance of the propositions in the Bill simply grew over time, as the argument was heard by more and more members of the House of Lords, and I bet that if it goes back again, it will get through again with an even greater majority. I say to the Minister that people are voting for this and it is not just a partisan issue; Cross-Benchers and members of the Conservative party are either voting or choosing to abstain. That is why we are securing those majorities in the House of Lords.

Our amendment is moved in the spirit of compromise. All we are saying in that amendment is that we would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review a year after Royal Assent, with a report to Parliament within 18 months of Royal Assent, where it would assess the impact of excluding so many businesses from having duties to prevent fraud. It would also look at the impact of that on the incidence of fraud and assess the potential merits of bringing more companies into scope.

I want to take Members back to when the Government promised to introduce a “failure to prevent” offence on the basis of new clauses introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst when we considered the Bill on Report. They were detailed new clauses to which we had given great thought. The Government agreed at that point to adopt our proposals on the basis that we would not seek to divide the House on the issue. We kept our side of the bargain but, sadly, the Government have failed to deliver on their commitment. So Lord Garnier tried valiantly three times to hold the Government to their word, and every time he put it to a vote he got a greater majority in favour of what he was proposing.

This measure was first championed when the Minister was a Back Bencher, as he is well aware. He was the individual on our all-party parliamentary group who argued the case for it with the greatest passion and commitment, so it is especially sad that the effectiveness of the new offence has been so undermined and weakened by the changes he has chosen to make or been forced to make by colleagues in his own Department or in the Treasury. He often argues that we were the first country to introduce a “failure to prevent” offence. I agree with that, but I would simply say to him we are also the jurisdiction of choice for dirty money, so surely we have a duty, more than any other jurisdiction, to lead on reforms and to clamp down on this evil matter.

The Government’s changes have substantially weakened the power of the new offence, and the Minister has to accept that. He has taken out the failure to prevent money laundering, and the offence now covers only fraud. He has excluded all medium-sized, small and micro-businesses. That means that his carveout has excluded 99.9% of all businesses. It has excluded two thirds of all the people employed in private enterprise. It has excluded half the turnover that flows through private enterprise. I say to the Minister that this is a missed opportunity by his Government that represents a failure to act firmly and decisively against the scourge of dirty money.

The Government’s own report, “National SME Fraud Segmentation”, found that medium-sized companies employing between 50 and 250 employees were significantly more likely to experience fraud than larger companies. The Metropolitan police and UK Finance have warned that SMEs are particularly vulnerable to fraud, and the procedures to prevent companies from committing fraud are exactly the same as the procedures to prevent companies from experiencing fraud. Why on earth and on what basis have the Government chosen to excuse them? I cannot understand the logic.