This amendment seeks to abolish certain outdated local registers that have become redundant due to digital advancements. The move will save money for local authorities and improve administrative efficiency.

Emphasised the importance of addressing kleptocrats' influence on issues such as the Ukrainian war, supporting government efforts to tackle economic crime.

Expressed delight at Minister's presence and concern about UK Government assisting in circumventing sanctions against Russian warmongers, highlighting the need for robust enforcement of sanctions.

Echoed support for Minister's efforts while suggesting a more detailed report on Companies House and broader issues around tackling economic crime, referencing recent revelations about sanctions enforcement.

Suggested incorporating more detail into the Government’s amendment to ensure better accountability for Companies House. Emphasised that it is not instructing but enabling Parliament to hold Companies House accountable.

Asked about potential increase in director disqualifications from new legislation, highlighting the importance of quantitative data alongside qualitative changes.

Commended new clause 19 and asked for advice on pursuing a case where constituents lost life savings due to unregulated loan notes offered by an administration company.

Welcomed the Bill and expressed concern about lack of focus on whistleblowers, suggesting that their role should be reconsidered in the implementation phase and good practices from other countries studied.

Emphasises the importance of strengthening parliamentary scrutiny through annual reports that assess whether the Secretary of State's powers are sufficient for the registrar to achieve her objectives. Argues that this would change the culture of how Parliament and businesses operate in tackling economic crime.

Supports Seema Malhotra's amendments, highlighting the need for a wider report on the nature of economic crime and the importance of bringing such crimes to Parliament's attention. Argues that the current reporting provisions are insufficient.

Argues against the idea of creating a backdoor in legislation, stating that the measure would be included in annual reports to Parliament. Suggests that the purpose is not to undermine existing legislation but to provide flexibility.

Mr. Kevin Hollinrake supports the points made by Mrs. Harriett Baldwin, emphasising that the figure of £100 has been pulled out of thin air but may serve as a good starting point for further discussion with Companies House.

Mrs. Margaret Hodge calls for more transparency regarding resource allocation and suggests the establishment of an economic crime fighting fund to support enforcement agencies such as the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office.

Mr. Jonathan Djanogly argues that raising fees for businesses would ensure those who use Companies House services pay rather than relying on general taxpayer funds.

Stresses the importance of creating unique identifiers for directors, preventing misuse of public funds by directors in breach of duties, and tackling practices like phoenixing. Also highlights the need to limit the number of directorships an individual can hold and to ensure Companies House has anti-money laundering supervisory responsibilities.

Acknowledges the Minister's previous work on corporate transparency issues when he was a Backbencher and suggests that if circumstances were different, some of the amendments would bear his name.

Highlights the need for transparency regarding waivers given to warlords as crucial information that should be available to understand how effectively sanctions are being enforced and economic crime is being prosecuted.

Recalls the passage of previous Acts such as the Criminal Finances Act 2017, emphasising that this Bill lacks provisions to resource regulatory agencies adequately for effective enforcement.

Ms Leadsom emphasises that phoenixing practices harm small businesses and consumers. She provides an example of a double glazing scam business taking deposits but failing to deliver products, leading customers with no legal recourse other than costly court proceedings. Proposes a duty on Companies House to investigate directors changing company names frequently under suspicious circumstances, suggesting the fee should be set by Companies House rather than a fixed amount.

Argues that clause 1 already sets out clear duties for the registrar to ensure accurate documents are delivered, which addresses concerns about accuracy and completeness of information. He suggests this ensures Companies House will not create a false or misleading impression.

Raises concern that the Bill does not address thousands of properties in London and across the UK with unknown offshore owners, questioning whether the legislation will resolve this issue effectively. He emphasises ongoing issues with transparency regarding property ownership.

Agrees that the US model, which allows law enforcement agencies to retain a percentage of proceeds for further enforcement, is worth considering. She suggests this approach could create a virtuous cycle of more effective resource allocation.

Supports the idea that proper authorization at the outset would prevent issues later, as evidenced by problems with tax agents filing returns on behalf of clients without competence or ethics. He suggests initial vetting is crucial.

Points out that if the Minister does not support new clause 20, it undermines confidence in the ability to summon necessary resources for implementation. He questions whether there is genuine political will to resource enforcement adequately.

Mr Mills argues against specifying a fee in the Bill, suggesting that an annual registration fee is crucial alongside initial setup fees. He points out the importance of ongoing compliance and suggests there could be more revenue from annual rather than one-off fees.

Mr Hollinrake supports the idea of not setting a specific fee in the Bill, agreeing that it is better to leave this detail for regulations. He suggests that duties for the registrar may increase over time, making it impossible to accurately set fees now.

Proposes new clauses to enhance Companies House’s ability to prevent economic crime by cross-checking identities of beneficial owners, verifying shareholder information, and examining dissolved company accounts. He highlights the need for robust measures due to cases like the Azerbaijani laundromat and Troika Laundromat, where companies were used to launder billions of dollars.

Byrne argues that Companies House needs more resources to be effective, citing the lack of prosecutions for money laundering despite billions laundered through UK corporate structures. He also points out that representatives from Companies House have not yet submitted their budget requests to the Treasury, raising concerns about future funding.

Mr. Djanogly supports the legislation, praising it as timely and important for combating economic crime. He notes that part 1 of the Bill builds on themes from the Companies Act 2006 but addresses contemporary issues such as technology advancements and regulatory gaps. Mr. Djanogly highlights the importance of centralised ID verification and registers to prevent fraud while enhancing transparency and accessibility. However, he cautions that without adequate enforcement and resources, new offences will not be effectively prosecuted. He also advocates for a review of fees based on need, suggesting that even a modest £100 incorporation fee could help fund enforcement efforts. Mr. Djanogly supports the annual report proposal (new clause 16) to monitor culture change at Companies House and welcomes the recognition by government new clause 15, though he suggests including parts 2 and 4 of the Bill in reviews for balanced efficiency and effectiveness.

The amendment would prevent those with a history of company wind-ups from starting new companies without facing consequences, addressing the issue of phoenixing. It aims to protect consumers and businesses by preventing individuals who misuse public funding for personal gain or fraud from continuing their pattern of behaviour.

The amendment tackles the impact of phoenixing on subcontractors, who often do all the work and face bankruptcy when the company goes bust before they are paid. It would ensure that those breaching laws meant to protect workers cannot receive public financial support, addressing issues related to public funding misuse.

The MP argues that her new clause 16 complements the Government’s amendment, providing more comprehensive reporting on economic crime. She seeks a meeting with the Minister to discuss how their proposals can be combined for better outcomes.

The MP expresses concern over the accuracy of existing data on Companies House and requests clarity on how soon secondary legislation will be presented to Parliament. She also asks about notification processes for consolidating multiple entries into a single record.

The MP seeks clarification from the Minister on whether he would accept any of the amendments or new clauses proposed by Back Benchers during today’s debate.