Economic Crime (Threats Sanctions and Prevention) Bill - After Clause 187 - Civil recovery: costs of proceedings, Lords amendments 23B and 23C, Government motions to disagree on several other amendments

Supports Lords amendments 151B, 151C, 161B, emphasising the need to tackle economic crime and its negative impacts on national security, institutions, economy, and society. She highlights the ongoing issues with transparency in property ownership by foreign entities and the necessity of enforcement and proper resourcing of key institutions like the National Crime Agency.

Critiques the Government’s approach, suggesting a narrower scope for failure-to-prevent offences and advocating for cost caps that are not overly restrictive. He argues for a compromise position on medium-sized entities, highlighting the chilling effect of current cost cap policies on prosecutions.

Thewliss supports adding fraud to the current provisions of failure to prevent bribery and money laundering, arguing that it would bring economic benefits. She cited previous statements by the Minister in support of her argument and stressed the need for cost capping to aid law enforcement against economic crime.

Buckland argued that businesses that take reasonable measures would not be subject to prosecution or investigation. He highlighted inconsistencies in the Government's position on this issue and questioned the necessity of changing from the previous policy. He also disagreed with the cost figures presented by the Minister.

Hollinrake pointed out that the amendment covers fraud benefiting not just the organisation but also services provided by an associate within the body.

Hodge urged the Minister to support the amendments proposed in the House of Lords, stating that economic crime is a national security issue and should transcend party politics. She emphasised the need for cross-party consensus on this matter.

Davis agreed with Hodge that economic crime is not a partisan issue, advocating for a rebalancing in the area of criminal law to counter sophisticated criminals.

Malthouse strongly opposed the amendments, citing concerns about their impact on small businesses. He argued that the regulation would have a chilling effect and complicate compliance for small enterprises.

Gardiner did not contribute to the debate as he indicated an interest in moving towards the vote.

Mr Hollinrake supports the 'failure to prevent' offence, arguing it targets larger organisations with human resources to mitigate risks. He dismisses concerns about implementation costs on small businesses and maintains that large companies have the capacity to comply.

Mr Malthouse interjects, highlighting the impact of thresholds on business evolution. He argues that crossing a line in company size can lead to disproportionate costs and compliance burdens.

Mr Fuller asks about the implications of setting an explicit threshold, expressing concerns over the balance between prevention benefits and business burden.

Raises a point of order regarding the delay in counting votes, expressing concern that this may prevent the House from voting on strengthening provisions for tackling economic crime. He seeks guidance to ensure future debates include opportunities to address this issue.

Responds to Liam Byrne's point of order, indicating that the debate will proceed with amendment 161B and suggests there will be future opportunities for addressing concerns about strengthening provisions.

Raises a point of order seeking guidance on properly referencing his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests during debates about the Lords message on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill.

Acknowledges Robert Buckland's point of order, thanking him for recognising and correcting any omissions in his financial interests declaration at the earliest opportunity.