← Back to House of Commons Debates
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
13 September 2023
Lead MP
Kevin Hollinrake
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Taxation
Other Contributors: 16
At a Glance
Kevin Hollinrake raised concerns about 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 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Conservative MP moves for the House's agreement with Lords amendments 23B and 23C, which relate to civil recovery costs of proceedings. He does not provide detailed arguments or statistics in his speech but introduces the debate on these specific points.
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
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.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
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.
Robert Buckland
Con
South Swindon
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.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Hollinrake pointed out that the amendment covers fraud benefiting not just the organisation but also services provided by an associate within the body.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
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.
David Davis
Con
Haltemprice and Howden
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.
Kit Malthouse
Con
North West Hampshire
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.
Barry Gardiner
Lab
Brent North
Gardiner did not contribute to the debate as he indicated an interest in moving towards the vote.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
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.
Kit Malthouse
Con
North West Hampshire
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.
Richard Fuller
Con
North Bedfordshire
Mr Fuller asks about the implications of setting an explicit threshold, expressing concerns over the balance between prevention benefits and business burden.
Liam Byrne
Lab
Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
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.
Nigel Evans
Party Not Specified
Constituency Not Specified
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.
Robert Buckland
Con
Constituency Not Specified
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.
Nigel Evans
Party Not Specified
Constituency Not Specified
Acknowledges Robert Buckland's point of order, thanking him for recognising and correcting any omissions in his financial interests declaration at the earliest opportunity.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.