← Back to House of Commons Debates
Economic Crime (Amendment) Bill - Second Reading of the Economic Crime (Amendment) Bill
07 March 2022
Lead MP
Priti Patel
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
UkraineEconomyStandards & EthicsChildren & Families
Other Contributors: 77
At a Glance
Priti Patel raised concerns about economic crime (amendment) bill - second reading of the economic crime (amendment) bill 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 Secretary of State for the Home Department moved that the Bill be now read a Second time. She emphasised the importance of supporting Ukraine against Putin's war, highlighting the UK's unique family scheme to support Ukrainian refugees. She also underscored the bill's role in cracking down on Russian oligarchs and their illicit assets through measures like unexplained wealth orders, property registers, and stricter company verification processes. The Secretary stressed the need for expedited legislation to send a strong message against corruption.
Critiqued the Home Secretary's refugee scheme, calling for urgent improvements and faster processing times.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
Asked whether people in Calais are being sent hundreds of miles back to Paris or Brussels for checks, questioning the efficiency of the scheme.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Noted only 50 refugees have been processed and sought clarification on improving processes for families wanting to reunite with their relatives in Ukraine. Emphasised the urgency of processing.
Expressed support for the Home Secretary's approach, emphasising listening to refugees and addressing security concerns.
Pressed for rapid action in implementing sanctions to avoid loopholes exploited by financial experts. Highlighted the need for speed and efficiency.
Reported positive feedback from a constituent, suggesting that the system is working efficiently for those seeking assistance.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Questioned why refugees are being told to go to Paris or Brussels for visas when historical examples show more efficient processes could be implemented.
Asked about adapting the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 language for use against peers who support Putin and his regime, after proper investigation by the Privy Council.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough and Thornaby East
Asked if the Bill will effectively stop the disposal of properties and queried its efficacy in preventing asset disposal.
Suggested selling unregistered properties to communities rather than leaving them unused, proposing fines for non-compliance with registration.
Requested a commitment from the Treasury to ensure proper funding of agencies dealing with unexplained wealth orders and asset seizures.
Supported further amendments for enforcement, emphasising the need for adequate resourcing of enforcement agencies like the National Crime Agency (NCA).
Chingford and Woodford Green
Complimented the Secretary on driving the Bill forward, but urged removal of caveats in the original draft that might let individuals off the hook for providing false information.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Asked about the capability of the Bill to confiscate assets, not just freeze them, from those working on behalf of Putin and his elite.
Warned against potential amendments in the House of Lords that could introduce loopholes similar to previous issues with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
Encouraged consideration of enablers such as lawyers, accountants, banks facilitating money laundering and financial crime.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Suggested re-establishing a corruption-fighting tsar to address issues within the House of Commons and Lords.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Supported amendment 64, proposed to prevent property sales before measures take effect.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Expressed concerns about exemptions from the register that could undermine legislation's effectiveness, particularly concerning 'economic wellbeing of the UK'.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Asked for clarification on clause 31's high bar setting an offence to providing false information only if done knowingly or recklessly.
Sought reassurance that the Bill would address issues of company registration misuse, such as small businesses using similar names repeatedly for fraudulent purposes.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
Highlighted perceived gap between rhetoric on asset seizure and the actual implementation of the Bill, questioning its efficacy.
Asked about research conducted by the Home Office regarding the effectiveness of unexplained wealth orders compared to other countries like Ireland's Criminal Assets Bureau.
Inquired into potential mechanisms for individuals to make allegations of false information on company registers at Companies House and the availability of an enforcement unit.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
Supports the Bill, emphasising the need for stronger sanctions against Russia. Outlines concerns over past warnings from various organisations about illicit finance in the UK and supports measures to improve unexplained wealth orders and register of overseas entities.
Stewart Hosie
SNP
Dundee East
[INTERVENTION] Requests for the Secretary of State to give way, implying support or seeking clarification on measures against trusts.
Craig Mackinlay
Con
Hendon
[INTERVENTION] Raises concerns about discretionary trusts and their legal complexities, questioning how these can be effectively targeted by the proposed legislation.
Matt Western
Lab
Warwick and Leamington
[INTERVENTION] Asks to give way, likely seeking further clarification or support for Labour's position on the Bill.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
[INTERVENTION] Agrees that earlier action could have addressed phoenix companies, emphasising the need for such measures now.
Angela Eagle
Lab
Wallasey
[INTERVENTION] Expresses concern about insufficient staff in Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation and questions the adequacy of resources for enforcement.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
[INTERVENTION] Raises concerns about non-compliance with existing sanctions, specifically regarding Quintessentially's activities in Crimea.
Barry Sheerman
Ind
Houghton and Sunderland South
[INTERVENTION] Emphasises the importance of setting an example by rejecting foreign donations, aligning with Labour’s stance on transparency and integrity.
Priti Patel
Con
Witham
[INTERVENTION] Defends Government's actions regarding visa application centres in Calais, stating there are appointments available despite Labour claims to the contrary. Emphasises that the scheme is unique and welcoming.
Dan Carden
Lab
Liverpool Walton
[INTERVENTION] Critiques the Government for not aligning with public sentiment regarding Ukrainian refugees, questioning the effectiveness of current measures.
Lindsay Hoyle
Speaker
Chorley
The Speaker addresses the need for the Government to respond to points raised during the debate, and manages the time allotted to speakers.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
Expresses concern over a poster in Calais that is misleading Ukrainian refugees, and highlights the need for clarity on visa processing centres.
Stephen Flynn
SNP
Aberdeen South
Raises questions regarding inconsistencies between statements from different government officials about the number of visas issued, expressing concern over lack of clarity and potential impact on refugees.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Raises a point of order regarding the relevance of the debate to the economic crime Bill, suggesting it should not relate to other legislation.
Matt Western
Lab
Warwick and Leamington
Questions whether the proposed legislation will effectively address issues with individuals like Roman Abramovich who have been flagged as persons of interest for years.
Rushanara Ali
Lab
Bethnal Green and Stepney
Raises a point regarding the appropriateness of mentioning Lord Lebedev, which is then ruled out by the Speaker.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Supports the Bill's intentions to punish Putin and his elite but warns of potential negative impacts on the UK economy and citizens. Emphasises the importance of targeting Russian oligarchs as well as state institutions.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Intervenes to emphasise the need for a clear warning against future watering down of similar legislation in the House of Lords.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Ms. Thewliss supports the Bill's measures but criticises it for not going far enough to address economic crime, particularly regarding the registration of overseas entities and sanctions enforcement. She cites examples such as Scottish limited partnerships being misused to funnel money out of Ukraine. She calls for better enforcement mechanisms and higher fines for non-compliance.
Stewart Hosie
SNP
Dundee East
Intervened to support Ms Thewliss's argument that money laundered through UK institutions is still stolen, emphasising the importance of unexplained wealth orders for tracing illicit funds.
Kevan Jones
Lab
North Durham
Intervened to highlight the necessity of full transparency at Companies House, referencing a case where lack of information about beneficial ownership led to controversial donations being accepted by MPs.
Liam Byrne
Lab
Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
Intervened to express concern over the number of companies without registered persons of significant control, despite minimal prosecutions. He stressed the need for regulatory power at Companies House.
John Baron
Con
Basildon and Billericay
Intervened to note a decline in money laundering and fraud prosecutions, advocating for better funding of enforcement agencies across political lines.
Bob Neill
Con
Bromley and Chislehurst
Neill supports the Economic Crime Bill as an essential measure in response to Russia's genocidal war. He emphasises the need for swift action but suggests that a subsequent bill should review proportionality tests and ensure alignment of registers to target economic beneficiaries accurately. Neill also highlights the importance of strengthening enforcement provisions, improving international cooperation against fraud, and maintaining Britain’s reputation as a financial and legal centre by committing sufficient funding.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Bassetlaw
Hodge welcomes the Bill but criticises past inaction, noting it was first promised years ago. She calls for tougher regulations, more effective enforcement, proper resourcing, and clear accountability to address economic crime. Hodge also raises concerns about a drafting mistake that could allow individuals to escape transparency using nominee directors and corporate trust providers. She urges the Government to consider amendment 3 which aims to address this loophole.
Nigel Mills
Con
Amber Valley
Welcomes the Bill as an anti-corruption measure, criticises it for not being enacted sooner. Stresses that the register of overseas entities is necessary to ensure a clean economy free from criminal and corrupt money. Argues against economic warfare accusations, stating that proper investors have nothing to fear. Expresses concern about technical provisions which may allow loopholes for dodgy rich individuals to exploit.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Supports the Bill but criticises the Government for not acting sooner. Emphasises the importance of enforcement, citing examples from other countries with stricter laws that enforce them rigorously. Advocates for tackling enablers such as PR firms, accountants and banks who knowingly assist in economic crimes.
Bob Stewart
Con
Beckenham
Intervened to ask about the plans for asset confiscation alongside freezing, expressing hope that future legislation will allow for such actions.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Intervened to inform John Penrose about new clauses addressing whistleblower protection, showing support for strengthening whistleblowing legislation.
Called order from MPs to stick to their five-minute speaking limit, ensuring the debate remains on track.
Peter Dowd
Lab
Bootle
Critiques the Government's delayed action on economic crime, despite long-standing Labour requests for transparency measures. He questions the rushed introduction of complex legislation and highlights a lack of sufficient sanctions against non-compliance. Dowd also expresses concern over exemptions allowed under clause 18 and the ambiguity of clause 4, which allows statements without identifying beneficial owners.
Andrew Slaughter
Lab
Hammersmith and Chiswick
Slaughter criticises the Bill as inadequate, noting its rushed drafting and lack of comprehensive measures. He highlights gaps such as insufficient asset freezing periods and a need for better regulation and enforcement by existing agencies like the National Crime Agency and Serious Fraud Office.
Bim Afolami
City of London
Supports the Economic Crime Bill, arguing that it is not just a temporary measure but a long-term solution. Argues against short timelines for setting up the register of overseas entities, citing administrative challenges at Companies House. Supports moving from 'knew or had reasonable cause to suspect' to strict liability for financial sanctions enforcement. Emphasises the need for cooperation within the City of London and adherence to rule of law.
Kevan Jones
Durham North
Welcomes the bill but criticises the government's delay in addressing economic crime. Suggests that previous governments turned a blind eye to Russian influence and illicit finance. Criticises lack of enforcement culture and resources for the National Crime Agency, arguing these measures will not be effective without proper funding.
Peter Gibson
Sherwood
Supports the bill's provisions to prevent money laundering through UK property market and enforce sanctions against Putin’s regime. Urges for real penalties for non-compliance. Asks the Minister about plans to mandate registration of ID at Companies House and the quantity of unregistered land within the Bill's scope.
John Baron
Con
Basildon and Billericay
Baron supports the bill but highlights the necessity of proper funding for enforcement. He points out a significant decline in money laundering prosecutions over five years, noting the National Crime Agency's limited success rate. Baron suggests that the true cost of economic crime could be around £300 billion while enforcement receives less than 0.1% of this amount. He proposes new clause 2 to address funding for enforcement and new clause 24 to ensure resources are adequate for police economic crimes generally.
Stephen Flynn
SNP
Aberdeen South
Flynn is sceptical about the Bill’s effectiveness despite its importance. He criticises past inaction by successive Governments and highlights the issue of funding for enforcement. While welcoming additional sanctions clauses, he questions whether six months is sufficient to prevent dirty money from being hidden or transferred elsewhere.
Matthew Hancock
Con
West Suffolk
Supports the Bill and highlights its importance in addressing economic crime. Emphasises the strong action taken by the UK against Putin's cronies, including designating over £258 billion and more than 200 individuals/entities. Calls for further measures such as amendments 26, 27, and new clause 29 to be discussed. Criticises the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 for its flaws introduced during passage in the House of Lords. Argues for giving Ministers discretion to act quickly on sanctions.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Supports the Bill and emphasises its importance in taking action against Russia's oligarchs. Acknowledges the need for a measured approach rather than knee-jerk reactions. Asks about future intentions regarding sanctions and asset seizures from oligarchs linked to Britain. Discusses the necessity of hitting Putin and his cronies where it hurts, including freezing their assets and using them to rebuild Ukraine.
Nickie Aiken
Con
Cities of London and Westminster
Supports the Government's objectives to cut financial ties with Russia, highlighting the issue of dirty money from Kremlin-linked sources. Emphasises the need for transparency in overseas property ownership, advocating for quicker implementation and stricter penalties. Suggests strengthening compulsory purchase order laws to allow local authorities to sell long-term empty properties that do not comply with the register. Supports use of unexplained wealth orders as a tool against illicit finances.
Siobhan Baillie
Con
Stroud
Welcomes the Bill, stressing the need to be careful about enforcing it in a way that does not unfairly target all Russians. Advocates for inclusivity and ensuring law-abiding citizens continue to feel welcome.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Wilson questions whether the proposed register will be properly checked without sufficient resources, skills and acumen.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Davis expresses concern that the Bill may not address all issues related to sanctions and re-registration of sales, highlighting potential delays in action.
Jones raises the issue of Companies House transparency and cites an example where The Sunday Times exposed hidden donations through a Luxembourg register. He suggests that improved transparency would help Members understand where money comes from.
Baron urges the Labour party to provide specific funding proposals when it comes to economic crime measures, suggesting that vague terms are not sufficient.
John Baron
Con
Basildon and Billericay
He supports the Bill but raises a concern that proper enforcement requires additional funding. He questions when the Government will provide concrete figures for increased funding to ensure rules are enforced.
Angela Eagle
Lab
Wallasey
She highlights frustration within the Treasury Committee regarding lack of progress in reforming Companies House, questioning why more progress has not been made faster. She emphasises that enforcement is crucial for effective regulation.
Peter Dowd
Lab
Bootle
He questions whether the Government has used its full power to impose sanctions effectively, referencing a previous statement made by the Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary.
Matthew Hancock
Con
West Suffolk
He welcomes Labour's support for strengthening sanctions but notes that earlier legislation was watered down with Labour's backing in the House of Lords. He emphasises unity on this issue despite past disagreements.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
He suggests that manuscript amendment 64 is a more effective way to prevent asset flight by requiring disclosure of beneficial owners before property transfers.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
She questions the Minister's data on property ownership, citing Transparency International and Global Witness reports that suggest shell companies are often used for money laundering. She raises concerns about structures chosen to avoid stamp duty.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
She questions the exemption based on 'economic wellbeing' of the UK, suggesting it could be used as a loophole by oligarchs. She asks for clarification on why this exemption exists.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
He confirms that most of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland and seeks assurance from the Minister that there will be no loopholes or back doors allowing oligarchs to retain assets through legislative consent motions.
▸
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.