Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill - Lords amendment 23, Government amendments (a), Lords amendment 151 and other related clauses

Raises concern that small boutique firms might still be allowed to freely operate despite targeting larger firms. Asks for consideration of Lords amendment to close this loophole.

Supports the Bill and seeks assurance that criminal gangs in Northern Ireland will be held accountable through the legislation, ensuring they can be caught, detained, and jailed.

Welcomes the arrival of failure to prevent offences but questions why subsection (4) of Lords amendment 151 does not prevent excessive burdens on smaller organisations.

Warns that leaving burdens to courts is not a reasonable protection for small businesses and suggests the Minister's approach is more practical in practice.

Raises concerns about honest businesses aiming to avoid fraud or money laundering within their procedures, questioning the necessity of burdensome regulations for small entities.

Supports transparency measures complementing SLAPP protections, highlighting new research showing 152,000 properties shielded from transparency. Asks for a timeline of consultations.

Questions the Government's estimate on properties needing transparency compared to 150,000 mentioned by Liam Byrne.

Raises concern about enforcement effectiveness against companies suggesting an average fine of £5 per company is insufficient.

Suggests focusing on individuals with control over trusts to maintain distinction between significant control and general beneficiaries during consultations.

Questions why a similar threshold is not present in failure to prevent bribery and tax evasion offences, asking for rationale behind the chosen threshold.

Supports Government amendments that close loopholes and introduces a failure to prevent fraud offence. Seema highlights the importance of transparency, particularly in relation to trusts controlling offshore companies and shareholder disclosures. She also calls for extended cost caps for civil recovery cases.

Questions whether excluding small businesses from the failure to prevent fraud offence could disproportionately affect economic activity. He asks about the practical implications and costs for smaller businesses.

Argues that reasonable arrangements will be decided through secondary legislation, ensuring small and medium-sized enterprises can prevent fraud and money laundering without being overly burdensome.

Supports Lords amendments 146 and 147, which introduce a power to strike out Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) claims in relation to economic crime. Argues that SLAPPs are used by wealthy individuals or corporations to intimidate and silence opponents who often lack the financial means to fight back. Cites an example of the £178 billion Danske Bank money laundering scheme, exposed by a whistleblower. Emphasises the importance of protecting journalists who act as additional regulators but currently face barriers in accessing information due to trusts that hide ownership.

Intervenes to express support for Mary Robinson's arguments about SLAPPs and their impact on journalists, questioning whether amendments should ensure trusts cannot be used as a means of hiding information from those seeking transparency.

She argues that the Government's current measures are insufficient, citing low enforcement rates and significant loopholes in the system. She notes the complexity of trust structures being exploited to hide ownership and calls for immediate action without further delays or consultations.

During an intervention, he argues that the bill closes loopholes and improves Companies House's ability to validate entries. He mentions increased resources for enforcement at the National Crime Agency.

During an intervention, he questions why additional legislation about preventing fraud would help when there is already a law against committing fraud. He highlights that the current measures are designed to protect small businesses.

Mr. Fuller questions Mr. Buckland's position on regulatory burden and asks how small businesses in his constituency will be affected differently under this legislation, expressing concern about potential unnecessary measures for them.

Mr. Wright supports Mr. Buckland's argument, clarifying that most businesses will not need to change their practices if they already have reasonable procedures in place to prevent fraud.

Hollinrake interjects, questioning the interpretation of research by the London School of Economics regarding beneficial ownership. He points out a discrepancy between the government’s position on legislation and the research findings.

Evans thanks Margaret Hodge for her speech, acknowledging her efforts to improve the bill. He did not contribute further arguments.

Fuller supports the overall aim of the Bill but is concerned about extending fraud prevention responsibilities to smaller businesses, citing potential chilling effects. He raises concerns over Lords amendment 30 regarding public disclosure of profit and loss accounts for small and microbusinesses, arguing that it could reveal personal financial information and hinder local competition.

Mr Nigel Evans briefly acknowledged Liam Byrne's brevity but did not provide a detailed position or arguments.

Calls for reasonable prevention mechanisms to tackle economic crime. Emphasises the need for deterrence, highlighting the success of health and safety regulations in reducing workplace fatalities. Criticises current regulatory fines as insufficient and points out that Britain is a global hotbed for economic crime, costing £350 billion annually. Raises concerns about Russian oligarchs benefiting from this unchecked activity and its impact on Ukraine. Argues that small and medium-sized businesses are at risk and need protection. Urges the Minister to be brave in implementing tough legislation.

The Minister addressed concerns about the burden on SMEs regarding subsection (4)(a), stating that while there will be costs, they are necessary. He mentioned that analysis suggests the cost to businesses would be around £4 billion but emphasised that this is required for fraud prevention. The Minister also corrected previous figures and highlighted work on SLAPPs, whistleblowing, and economic crime enforcement resources.

Subsection (4)(a) refers to 'reasonable prevention procedures' in all circumstances, suggesting minimal requirements for responsible companies. Additionally, subsection (4)(b) states it may not be reasonable to expect any prevention procedures, providing a defence if none are in place.

Asked about the low number of fines for false filing and the single one for not registering a person of significant control for Scottish limited partnerships, questioning if there will be an increase.