House of Commons · Bill Debate
25 October 2023 · 13 other contributors
Opened by Kevin Hollinrake Con Thirsk and Malton
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Kevin Hollinrake raised concerns about corporations (powers and duties) bill - amendment 151a, amendments 161d in lieu in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
The amendment aims to address omissions identified by the House of Lords. The Conservative MP notes that significant compromise has already occurred during the Bill's drafting, and argues against further modifications proposed by the Lords.
Asked for clarity on who was consulted about the bill in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Also questioned if banks should have the authority to close non-profitable accounts of community groups.
Expressed disappointment with the Government's reluctance to heed expert advice from peers. Cited estimates suggesting £290 million annual cost of economic crime, which can fund organised criminal activities. Raised concerns about unreported property ownership linked to suspicious wealth and corruption.
Intervened briefly to defend the Government's position, highlighting previous compromises made on the Bill. Emphasised the spirit of compromise but argued against further changes proposed by peers.
Acknowledged improvements in the Bill but criticised the Treasury for obstructing further progress. Advocated for a review after 12 months if necessary, emphasising the importance of controlling illicit activities channelled through smaller companies.
In an intervention, supported Bob Neill's argument about how smaller companies can be conduits for fraud, reinforcing the need to address this issue.
Mr. Buckland supports the amendment and praises his ministerial colleague for campaigning on this issue. He questions the Government's assertion about regulatory or administrative cost burdens on small businesses, suggesting they do not reflect previous 'failure to prevent' offences for tax evasion and bribery. He also highlights potential exploitation of threshold definitions by unscrupulous operators, emphasising the need for reasonable compromises.
Intervened by stating that the 'failure to prevent' offence as drafted would not cover situations where a third party hijacks systems, indicating it only applies to benefits received by the corporation or its officers.
Supports the amendment, highlighting the need to strengthen regulations against fraud and money laundering. Cites a fivefold increase in foreign direct investment from dubious sources since 2010, totalling £250 billion. Argues that extending 'failure to prevent' offences is not an undue burden on businesses.
Emphasises the importance of preventing economic crime through corporate responsibility, arguing that a successful financial sector cannot thrive on dirty money. Supports the 'failure to prevent' offence as a means to change company behaviour.
Defends the government's position, arguing that the Bill has already made significant progress and will be reviewed in due course. Suggests the current threshold is fit for purpose and does not want to impose unnecessary burdens on businesses.
He discussed procedural details regarding the Defence Committee ballot timing. He mentioned that the Order Paper states the ballot should close at 2:30 PM instead of 2 PM, advising Members to vote quickly.
He raised a point of order regarding an anonymous BBC report that aired before a scheduled vote. He questioned whether this was an undue attempt to influence Members' votes and if it could be considered contempt for the House.
Responded to Liam Fox, noting that legal advice is being sought by Mr Speaker regarding this matter. He also mentioned the availability of the BBC director general for any further inquiries.