Seema Malhotra
MP for Feltham and Heston · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“Public sector productivity is improving, with the latest Office for National Statistics figures showing output continuing to grow faster than inputs, and Departments being challenged to improve efficiency and modernise outdated processes.”
“I was proud to support the Feltham Convening Partnership’s young leaders summer programme last month. What struck me was their ambition for themselves and their community, as well as their call for more work experience opportunities.”
“We will be working to commence the socioeconomic duty on public bodies in section 1 of the Equality Act to require public authorities to put addressing socioeconomic disadvantage at the heart of their strategic decision making. There will be more on that to follow. Let me again thank my hon.”
“For generations, the message to those who want to enter public life or elite professions has been that if they want to get on, they must sound like everybody else. When Margaret Thatcher became leader of her party in the 1970s, she famously underwent intensive elocution lessons with a tutor from the National Theatre.”
“Whether a young person chooses a degree or a trade, their journey must be determined by merit and their potential—never by whether they have to change their voice or pretend to be someone else to fit in.”
“Interestingly, studies also regularly show that regional accents such as Welsh or Yorkshire are rated by the public as trustworthy, warm and honest. Yet when those same studies measure perceived intelligence or employability, standard southern English and received pronunciation invariably top the metrics.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,023 lines we hold for Seema Malhotra, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 37 of 101.
“I thank my right hon. Friend for explicitly emphasising the importance of subsection (6). She is absolutely right. The Minister will be mindful of the importance of transparency in respect of the issues relating to incorporations by authorised company service providers. Will he confirm that all the subsections in new clause 26 will be explicitly covered elsewhere? If not, we will want to pursue the matter of how that information is going to be published by Companies House and the Secretary of State.”
“(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.”— (Dame Margaret Hodge.) This new clause requires a report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime to be laid before Parliament. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“We would like to be involved in the discussions, perhaps after he has had an initial discussion with his officials. If there is a way to move forward with consensus, perhaps prior to Report, that could be a positive way forward. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 29 Report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime “(1) The Secretary of State must produce a report into the merits of a fund for tackling economic crime. (2) The report must consider the case for penalties paid to the registrar to be ringfenced and used solely for the purposes of tackling economic crime.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments. He has said he will review the issues addressed in new clauses 26 and 63 with his officials. There may well be areas in which, on further reflection, he agrees with us that more could be done. On the Minister’s comment about the Secretary of State being able to introduce legislation at any time, the point that was missed was that we know the speed with which we have to respond to economic crime. If we think back to 2016, we can see that we did not act fast enough—we have not acted fast enough in the past six years—so there is strong merit in having a mechanism that speeds up any requirements for future legislation through a report that can be reviewed and followed up on. If the Minister is committing to review the matter and come back to us, we accept that.”
“On a point of order, Sir Christopher, is it procedurally correct for my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and for Barking to speak before I make my comments?”
“The proposed clause would also insert a duty “to publish the details of any sanctions imposed on Professional Body Supervisors, and…reviews of Professional Body Supervisors with data disaggregated by body rather than by sector.” The sum of the two new clauses is to ensure the urgent improvement of the UK’s anti-money laundering sector. Throughout our witness sessions and Committee debates, we have heard about the lack of effectiveness of our AML system. I think that is a view also supported by the Minister. The changes are a much-needed strengthening and safeguarding against potentially rogue corporate service providers, the third parties who act on behalf of companies and can carry out the identity verification of directors.”
“This is defined as “the power to impose unlimited financial penalties on Professional Body Supervisors that fail”— that fail— “to…adopt an effective risk-based approach to anti-money laundering supervision…impose proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance with anti-money laundering requirements …and …separate their advocacy and regulatory functions.” We want stronger action taken against economic crime, not least because we know the scale at which it comes through the cracks, with the damage that it does to our economy. It seems to me that tightening up the roles and the performance of professional body supervisors and HMRC in some way is an opportunity that we should not miss.”
“New clause 44 would have the effect of amending the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 such that the commissioners would be responsible for anti-money laundering supervision, and it states: “The Commissioners shall treat the function in subsection (1) as a priority”. New clause 72 would introduce provisions requiring the Secretary of State, by regulations, to set out a further power and duty for the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision.”
“I do not propose to spend much time speaking in support of the new clauses. The arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking have broadly said it all. She highlighted the high levels of non-compliance, the very low levels of fines and disciplinary measures, and the frustration of the sectors in terms of tools to really root out the rogue players who need action taken against them. The new clauses would be very effective and are much needed, for the reasons outlined—in trying to get action now, toughening up powers and providing greater transparency. For the reasons that I have outlined, I totally agree that the Bill is the right place for these measures. We should not have to wait and wait and wait for what is likely to come and will almost certainly draw the same conclusions.”
“May I clarify whether the Minister has had any discussions with Treasury colleagues about the matter and raised his concerns? Have they acknowledged the need to act much faster?”
“Friend the Member for Barking outlined, it is important that the information about trustees is available for public inspection. I will welcome the Minister’s comments. Perhaps he has thought further on the arguments since Tuesday. Here is further room for him to consider information on trustees, where it is held and its being published for public inspection. That would be in the public interest.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir Christopher, and to speak briefly in support of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking. The new clause is short and, on that basis alone, the Minister might want to look closely at it for inclusion in the Bill. It is important and significant. We almost thought we would not have this conversation when we debated the Government new clause 15 on Tuesday, until the Minister made it clear that information about trustees would not be published. That feels like a space that is a black hole for more to be hidden in. If we do not do this, the Minister will probably see a rise in the use of trusts to achieve less transparency. For all the reasons my right hon.”
“Friend outlined, it is concerning that legal professionals who are not members of any professional legal bodies are still undertaking activities and taking cases. It is effectively a loophole that can enable rogue actors to act as legal professionals without the supervision or membership of a professional body, thereby avoiding scrutiny of their actions, which could facilitate economic crime and money laundering. Clearly, we need a solution. My right hon. Friend suggested that it is a problem that the Government need to fix; we would be keen to work with them on how that will happen. I think we all want to find a solution, and to do so before the Bill goes much further through the House.”
“It is a pleasure to speak briefly in support of new clause 66, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. He laid out clearly his reasons for doing so, and I think we all share his concern. The new clause concerns the introduction of a default supervisory authority for independent legal professionals, and includes provisions such that when an independent legal professional is not a member of any of the professional bodies listed in schedule 1 to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, but undertakes regulated business within the scope of regulation 12 of them, the Solicitors Regulation Authority should be the default body for that independent legal professional. As my right hon.”
“Helena Wood of the Royal United Services Institute said in her evidence to the Committee: “Although the provisions in the Bill will go some way towards increasing private-to-private information sharing and, in particular, the risk appetite in the banking sector, they really do not keep pace with the global standard. What we would like in the next economic crime plan”— I think we are all hoping to see that soon; shortly is the word used in this Committee— “is something much more ambitious. In many ways, I would say that while it is welcome, the Bill is a slight missed opportunity with regard to information sharing, given that it really does not push forward to this big data analytics model that others are moving towards.” ––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2022; c. 90, Q170.]”
“Given the concerns about the difficulties with information sharing, and the resistance that there has been to sharing information because of lack of clarity about the law or about where liability lies under data protection rules, these measures are welcome. They have perhaps taken longer to be introduced than we would have liked, but they are certainly welcome, and we hope that they will increase the detection of economic crime and reduce moves by those involved in it to seek to use our institutions to launder and hide money. Although I welcome the removal of barriers to information sharing, I wonder whether the clauses give regulated sectors or actors so-called safe harbour as comprehensively as they might.”
“The explanatory notes contain the example of a bank that identifies a transaction that it believes is irregular and wants further information from another party—perhaps more information on the identity of the payer or more clarity on the source of the funds. We understand why such information might be wanted and the importance of being able to get such clarity. In effect, clause 148, along with clause 149, about which I will say a few words separately, removes the civil liability for an institution in sharing that information with another entity for the purposes of detecting and preventing economic crime.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley, and to speak to this rather large group. I thank the Minister for his comments, which I find reassuring. I will deliver my own remarks for the record, but his comments, particularly on our amendment 167, were helpful. This important group of clauses and amendments relates to supporting disclosures to prevent, detect or investigate economic crime. The Minister is absolutely right about the concerns—raised by UK Finance specifically—that the clauses go a considerable way to addressing. Clause 148 concerns direct disclosure of information and, as the Minister outlined, disapplies the duty of confidentiality owed by a business where the business making the disclosure knows the identity of the recipient and certain conditions—broadly outlined in subsection (1)—are met.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments. If he is happy to write to me, I would be grateful for that. Can I clarify whether that will also cover some of the questions I raised about the expected timing of sharing information and the procedures for those who may have been caught up inadvertently? Procedurally, we need to understand how they can be dealt with. Rather than Ministers having to deal with individual cases, we want a mechanism that will make the system work fairly.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments. May I clarify the process, Mr Paisley? In previous sittings, during each clause stand part debate the Minister has been called followed by the Opposition spokesperson. Perhaps that has had some variation, but it would be helpful to understand whether we need to do anything differently.”
“I want to be clear about what the scope of the use of this power would be, how it is intended and how it would be reported on. Would an affirmative or negative procedure be used to make any changes under this clause?”
“It has been a general theme of debate though our proceedings that we need to make sure that there is sufficient provision for the transparency, scrutiny and accountability of changes, as well as for accountability of the Secretary of State’s use of powers for the reporting that there should be on how well the provisions are working. The power to make consequential amendments comes at the end of the Bill in clause 158, but it is a Henry VIII power that means that amendments to primary legislation can be made. That is different from the power to make regulations under secondary legislation, which we have been debating. The Government have said that the power is needed to ensure that other provisions on the statute book properly reflect and refer to provisions in the Bill once it is enacted.”
“I think that there was a slight misunderstanding, but we will move on. Clause 158 confers on the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to make consequential amendments that arise from the Bill. I want to raise a general point: the Minister did speak to this, but perhaps he could say a little more about examples of where the Secretary of State might need to use the power. Perhaps it is written somewhere, but I am not fully clear whether any changes that come through secondary legislation to the Act itself—I think that is a Henry VIII power in this clause—would be taken through the affirmative procedure.”
“I thank the Minister for his comment, which puts that clarification on the record for successive generations of those who will sit in his seat—perhaps he will be promoted to higher office. It is important that that comment is on record, because we have to create legislation for not just today but tomorrow.”
“It will allow the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017 to be amended or replaced in relation to those partnerships. We welcome the inclusion of amendment 43 alongside the new clause, which provides for regulations under new clause 22 to be subject to the affirmative procedure, unless they make provisions corresponding to provisions made by statutory instruments that are subject to the negative procedure. In light of my previous comments, I think it is healthy for us to clarify and have a clear summary of which are affirmative and which are negative, and the safeguards around them. That would ensure the transparency of regulation making subsequent to the passing of the Bill.”
“Clause 159 provides that regulations under the Bill are to be made by statutory instrument. To a large extent, we have had clarification that any subsequent changes will be made through the affirmative procedure in Parliament, enabling greater scrutiny and transparency over the Bill’s implementation. I am not sure if there is a list anywhere of all the regulation-making powers that have been specified in the Bill. I feel like there is probably a summary somewhere of all of those powers, and whether any are subject to the negative procedure. I think that would be a helpful review for the Committee to have. New clause 22 allows regulations to be made about the registration of certain Scottish partnerships, and to apply law related to companies or limited partnerships.”
“Clause 161 sets out when the Bill’s provisions will come into force. I am sure the Minister will want to give assurances that that will be no later than is absolutely necessary, bearing in mind the urgency of the measures. Clause 162 establishes the short title and we welcome it.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. I have a few limited remarks to make as we approach the end of clause-by-clause consideration and before we move on to new clauses. As the Minister said, clause 160 extends the Bill to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I was grateful for his comments about liaison with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. There are obviously current challenges in respect of the Northern Ireland Executive. I would be grateful for some clarity about how the engagement with the devolved Administrations is going, because it has been a theme, certainly during the earlier debates. It is important that we can have confidence that all the issues that are being raised in our deliberations are coming into the Bill.”
“Under new clause 3, new regulations would require overseas companies to provide and maintain an appropriate address and email address. Would those new regulations be subject to the affirmative procedure, assuming that they would be in secondary legislation rather than in the Bill? It was not fully clear to me whether some of these matters were included in the Bill or whether they were regulations to enable the measures to come in later. Will the Minister clarify that?”
“New clause 2 confers a regulation-making power to require overseas companies to register information. The new clause makes it clear that the regulations can provide for the information to be withheld from public inspection and can confer a discretion on the registrar. We have had similar debates in Committee already. We will keep coming back to the question of the use of powers and the reporting on the use of those powers, particularly where information may be withheld. Would this be an example of a new power on the withholding of information from public inspection where the number of times it is used ought to be reported on? That would not need to give away details about whom the power had applied to, but it would help give an overall view of how the powers in the Bill were being used.”
“It is a pleasure to speak to the new clauses. The Minister has outlined the rationale for them, which is to bring some of the rules around overseas companies more in line with some other changes being made in the Bill. We welcome that, but I have a few questions. New clause 1 outlines that where an overseas company is required to provide a service address or principal office address for a director or secretary, regulations can be made conferring power on the registrar to change the address if it does not meet the statutory requirements or is inaccurate. Who might determine whether the address is inaccurate? Is the expectation that the registrar finds that out or is that just about if something happens to be found out by chance? Is there any more information on how the power might be used to determine that an address is inaccurate?”
“It is a pleasure to say a few words in support of new clauses 10 and 11. New clause 10 introduces new provisions allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations applying the Company Directors Disqualification Act to relevant entities. The new clause outlines that these relevant entities include limited partnerships and Scottish limited partnerships. New clause 11 has the same effect and applies the same principles to the context of Northern Ireland. We welcome the new clauses, especially given our calls in Committee to extend directors disqualification criteria to limited partnerships.”
“Can there technically be a managing officer who is under 16 but an individual who is over 16 and is a contact on their behalf? It would be helpful to know whether there could still technically be an officer who was 12, 13 or 14. It would be useful to have clarity on that. On closing the potential loophole of beneficial owners avoiding scrutiny by acting as a trustee, it is important to have the information. I want to clarify whether it should be the same amount of information about those who have been avoiding scrutiny as trustees. Will that information be published so that third parties can search it and investigate for themselves?”
“It is a pleasure to make a few remarks on the new clauses which, certainly from the way the Minister has outlined them, are welcome, in that they require more information and transparency around overseas entities. We welcome all the new clauses in that regard. I do not propose to go through them—the Minister went through them in considerable detail—but I have a few comments. On new clause 13—in fact, in relation to all the new clauses—we welcome the additional transparency. I make the point again that a particular reason for that is the large-scale abuse that we know has occurred and occurs through these rather opaque offshore corporate structures. On new clause 14, it is welcome to have the threshold at 16 years old, but I want to clarify what that means.”
“My second comment was about trustee information. New clause 15 expands the definition of “registrable beneficial owners” in part 1 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 in relation to an entity one of whose beneficial owners is a trustee, such that the beneficial owner may be included. There is also a power to expand that definition further. It looks like it is closing a potential loophole that enables beneficial owners to avoid scrutiny through acting as a trustee. The question was about whether the new information about trustees will also be published, whether there will be full transparency and whether it will be searchable by any interested parties.”
“We believe the measures strengthen the legislation, so can the Minister comment on those two points? Clause 120 amends the Partnership Act, specifying the provision for the dissolution of a partnership on the grounds of a partner’s lunacy. It is right that we update those references to “mental disorder” within the meaning of modern legislation. However, in her written evidence to the Committee, Professor Berry makes an important point that the clause may give the impression that it “appears to mean that mental health disorder of a limited partner is now a ground for dissolution (whereas previously it was not), which cannot be intended.” Can the Minister respond on that point as well, just to make sure that that is not a consequence in the way by Professor Berry suggested?”
“Although we welcome new clause 30, will the Minister expand on the regulations in relation to general partners who are legal entities? Could there be a situation in which none of the criteria needed for an offence to be committed is met when the general partner is a legal entity? Is there still a loophole? We welcome new clause 31, which would allow a court to order the winding up of a limited partnership on a petition by the Secretary of State in the public interest. New clause 32 “would mean that if a limited partnership has not been wound up as is required by section 6(3A) or 6(3B), the court can make various orders on an application by the Secretary of State or a person with sufficient interest” to order a winding up of the limited partnership.”
“If the general partners fail to comply, “an offence is committed by each general partner who is in default”, but “where the general partner or limited partner is a legal entity, it does not commit an offence as a general partner or limited partner in default unless one of its managing officers is in default.” New clause 30 also states: “Where any such offence is committed by a general partner or limited partner that is a legal entity, or any such offence is…committed by a managing officer that is a legal entity, any managing officer of the legal entity”— are you still following this, Ms Elliott?— “who is in default also commits the offence if— (a) the managing officer is an individual, or (b) the managing officer is a legal entity and one of its managing officers is in default.” Some of this speaks to the complexity of some of these structures, which is why it is important to be moving forward in this way.”
“Amendment 96 would mean that any insolvent general partners who are not disqualified must wind up a dissolved limited partnership or take “reasonable steps” to ensure that it is wound up. If there are no general partners, the insolvent limited partners must take reasonable steps to ensure that it is wound up. We support amendments 95 and 96. I will speak briefly to Government new clause 30 and make a few comments about amendment 97. New clause 30 would introduce a new duty on the general partners of limited partnerships to notify the registrar in the event of a dissolution.”
“We welcome the new provisions, but I would also welcome the Minister’s thoughts on some comments made by Professor Berry in her evidence. She stated that: “The Bill inappropriately amends partnership law to prevent automatic dissolution on the bankruptcy of a general partner in an LP… Personal liability is no guarantee of good behaviour if the partner is already insolvent, and indeed the same restriction remains on general partners of a general partnership.” If I have understood correctly, amendment 95 would mean that a limited partnership is dissolved if all the general partners are either insolvent or disqualified, rather than if they are all insolvent. Taken with amendment 96, it would mean that limited partnerships would not dissolve if all the limited partners are insolvent.”
“We largely support the Government amendments, but I will ask a few questions and speak to clauses 119 and 120 stand part. As the Minister outlined, clause 119 concerns the dissolution and winding up of limited partnerships. It sets out that: “A limited partnership is dissolved if it ceases to have a general partner or ceases to have a limited partner.” The clause also sets out what happens if a limited partnership is dissolved at a time when the firm has at least one general partner. As the Minister said, it requires the general partner to notify the registrar before they wind up the limited partnership, and it would be an offence for the partners to fail to notify the registrar of the firm’s dissolution.”
“As the Minister outlined, the clause increases clarity over the inspection of the register, and we support it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 121 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 122 Material not available for public inspection”
“Such statements relate either to identity verification or to an individual being an authorised corporate service provider or employee of an authorised corporate service provider. I want to ask the Minister for more detail about why that is protected information. Have the Government considered whether it would be helpful and transparent for third parties dealing with a limited partnership to know whether an individual involved in its registration is related to an ACSP? That may be particularly useful given the evidence that has already been recounted to the Committee on the increased risk of economic crime when an ACSP is involved in the registration of the company or limited partnership. This is about transparency in relation to ACSPs.”
“Is there a mechanism by which the Government could enable information that would ordinarily be protected to be shared with third parties where it is deemed necessary and does not threaten the integrity of the register or the privacy of limited partnerships? This does get confusing, so we are probing where the registrar may be able to share information, if there is a reason to do so in terms of preventing economic crime. Amendment 34 spells out that the relevant material is to be made unavailable for public inspection only if it forms part of the register of limited partnerships. Amendment 38 will make statements required to be made when documents are delivered unavailable for public inspection.”
“Clause 122 inserts a new section into the Limited Partnerships Act, as the Minister outlined, to set out provisions for certain information that the registrar must not make available for public inspection. The Minister outlined that that could include dates of birth, residential information, and I think also email addresses, for the limited partnership. We understand the need for the measure, and the Committee has debated previously the need to hold back information for personal security or privacy reasons, but information sharing might sometimes be necessary. We have talked about those who need access to information because they are undergoing insolvency or other proceedings.”
“We support the clause. As the Minister said, it restricts the registrar from disclosing certain information unless specific conditions apply. As we have rehearsed in other debates, we acknowledge the importance of ensuring that law-abiding individuals who have provided personal information are adequately protected. I am grateful for the Minister’s confirmation and clarity that that information would still be available to law enforcement officers. I am less clear about what is proactively and reactively available, in the sense of whether it is for the registrar to make the information available or for law enforcement to request it. Perhaps the Minister could just confirm that it can work both ways.”
“I beg to move amendment 163, in clause 125, page 112, line 35, leave out “power” and insert “duty”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 164.”
“As Professor Berry set out in her written evidence: “All dissolution/deregistration information should be shown on the Register and retained for at least 20 years. This is essential…so that third parties can fully examine the recent history of a particular participant or investigate suspicious networks.” It is an important principle that innocent third parties should be able to access all information about former participants following the dissolution of a limited partnership. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.”
“The explanatory notes to the Bill describe that “there are currently thousands of limited partnerships on the register which the Registrar either knows or suspects are inactive.” The registrar’s power to confirm the dissolution of these partnerships should not be optional, hence our amendments would make it a duty. Amendment 165 would introduce a requirement that the limited partnership dissolution notice published in the Gazette must also be published on the registrar’s website and remain published for a minimum of 20 years. This would ensure that the notice of the partnership’s dissolution is transparently and clearly available to third parties who would benefit from such information.”
“Amendment 164 would amend the provisions setting out the registrar’s power to confirm the dissolution of a limited partnership by replacing “may” with “must”, such that the registrar must publish a dissolution notice and begin the dissolution process should they have reasonable cause to believe that a limited partnership has been dissolved. In short, the amendment would turn the registrar’s power to confirm the dissolution of a limited partnership, if they have reasonable cause to believe that it has been dissolved, from a power into a duty. Amendment 163 is consequential on amendment 164.”